Hang on, are you just being obtuse here and saying that because sex reassignment surgery exists, that sex is not a feature of your birth? Of course it’s a feature of your birth. And of course it can be amended. That’s why I literally said in my original post “and then expecting the taxpayer to fund the ludicrous amendment.”
Your argument was that it was a feature of birth (and couldn’t be changed).
It absolutely can, and in many cases, individuals may feel the need to transition to become more “themselves”, that is who they feel they are inside.
It’s not a topic I imagine you’d understand, but some empathy and tolerance wouldn’t go amiss?
You’re being silly now. Where did I say it can’t be changed?
Sure, modern medicine mean you can amend your sex. Just as modern technology mean you can amend your date, and place, of birth on an electronic copy of your birth certificate, for example.
And, like you say:
individuals may feel that their internal age, that is, “what they feel”, is better reflected by amending their date of birth to a more recent year. Or feeling that their far-flung birth place doesn’t represent who “they are inside”.
Of course, we all know that would be completely wrong and unreasonable…
This. Gender isn’t just physical.
Sex and gender are two different things, matlock.
If someone wants to change their age to 89, hell, let them. Doesn’t impact me in the slightest.
The smoking gun of stupidity.
Are you for real?
Tell me how I’m wrong 
Your point was simply that “it doesn’t impact you in the slightest.”
What on earth do you want proven wrong? A man killing a woman in Hobart doesn’t impact you either, but society has laws on murder…
Correct, sex refers to the reproductive anatomy, and gender is the social side.
Yes, and they’re have sex reassignment surgery - not gender reassignment as is used incorrectly in those articles.
It has impacts on the woman killed.
Transgender transition impacts… no one?
1 Like
Ah, I forgot the sex reassignment in the military that we’re talking about is funded with magic beans. Nope, no impact.
It’s not a bad thing though. It’s an employer caring for their employees. Hardly a bad thing.
At the end of the day it’s just another punitive move by the President.
1 Like
Well, this comes down to personal views.
Personally, I couldn’t think of anything more outrageous than taxpayer’s dollars being spent on sex reassignment in the military.
And, as it comes down to individual views, taxpayers should have the CHOICE about whether they fund something like this - and, as there is no checkbox on income tax forms to “donate” extra tax to the IRS to fund a programme like this, then that CHOICE about taxation should be expressed through the ballot box.
Trump is President so Trump says no paying for sex reassignment in the military. Simples. (I disagree if he further says existing transgender people can not serve in the army, an issue raised in the response from McCain).
Oh yes, just too complex for my small little brain - funny that the same sort of language is considered sexist when used in reference to females - in reference to people perceived as “right-wing”, perfectly fine.
No I’m just being honest. I imagine this sort of stuff wouldn’t have been so out in the open when you were growing up, whereas now it isn’t really a big deal at all. It just is.
It’s just social change. Each generation has a different take from the last.
Ha, thanks for the patronising nonsense - I’m not saying “ooh this radical idea is scary and new, please, shield me away from progress”.
I’m discussing 1) who should PAY for it, and 2) the LOGIC of certain amendments to documents such as birth certificates (as also raised in the International Politics thread).
And by the way, I’m in my 20s, so unless you’re a tween (you could be based on your views which lack basic logic), then we’re the same generation. Yes, I know it’s surprising to find out not everyone shares the same views as those in your uninformed far-left bubble, but there you go.
I’m centre left, probably more centrist than a lot of people.
It’s not, I’m just accepting that we won’t see eye to eye on this issue. I’m acknowledging my own biases (friends who have transitioned) as well as yours. You read into things too deeply.
But that’s not really an issue. The US military received $1 trillion last year, which is by far the most of any military in the world. Looking after some of their soldiers who want to transition is a tiny fractional cost and probably falls under employee healthcare benefits in most instances.
Trump’s decision was not made on insignificant spending cuts - it was made because LGBT rights is a wedge issue. For all the arguments against liberals using “identity politics”, this is a classic case of using identity politics to create divides.
21 today actually 
I was right-wing at age 18. The right lost a voter because they don’t apply logic to issues such as climate change, LGBT issues or economics (inequality is a driver of worse economic performance).
2 Likes