News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Someone needs to hire new lawyers cause that’s not even being discussed.
What are you talking about? You really can’t see how this is just an expression of what the lawyer is describing? Transgender people aren’t allowed to exist. Texas literally has a law on the table right now to make it a felony, “gender fraud,” to not use your assigned at birth pronouns. Wake the fuck up dude.
They are a transphobe. Even tagged then as such the previous time they tried to pass off their hate as "just stuff everyone knows is true".
I wouldn't bother.
Edited to add: Yeah, see reply, they just keep going. "If being transphobic makes me a transphobe then words have lost meaning" is... Well, something.
Tag accuracy confirmed!
“Males and females are different” = transphobe to you guys lol. Just like “Nazi”, being called a “transphobe” isn’t something anyone even blinks an eye about anymore because it’s lost all meaning.
Gender fraud, seriously? What’s wrong with these people?
Seriously
Have they improved their electric and other utilities so that they don't collapse in the slightest breeze? Or are they still doing stuff like this as a distraction
Fuck you freedom says you freeze
Disgusting. I hate this timeline.
The only laws that matter are ones that are actually laws, not proposed laws. That proposal isn’t going anywhere
Even if it did, it’s still not saying trans people don’t exist.
Yeah I remember saying that about gulf south abortion laws.
This executive order by trump literally acknowledges people with gender dysphoria and excludes them from the military. It’s not saying “trans people don’t exist”. It’s saying they DO, and they’re excluded from military service.
You really don’t understand how this works do you?
It seems like maybe you don’t. Please explain to me how what I said is wrong? If their position is that trans people don’t exist, how can they ban them from the military?
The same way banning the use of pronouns other than those assigned to you constitutes erasure. It’s about restricting or removing rights until either it’s a crime to be a certain way and/or people are too scared to come out anymore
Can you please answer in the context of what we’re actually talking about? This EO does not “claim trans people don’t exist” which was the lawyers statement. This EO is saying that trans people are excluded from the military - how can it do that while also saying trans people don’t exist? That makes no sense. They need to exist in order to exclude them.
It's not saying "gender dysphoria is not a diagnosis that exists anywhere" it's saying "believing yourself to be transgender is a substantial enough mental illness and flaw in character so as to preclude military service."
This claims that having gender dysphoria is some sort of deficiency, and not just a non-standard identifier. This invalidates the identity of trans people, and calls into question their legitimacy.
It’s literally acknowledging their existence - the exact opposite of what some, including the lawyer, are saying.
Like it or not, gender dysphoria is a mental condition. Your brain is telling you that you’re “born in the wrong body”. That’s not saying its a bad thing, just that it is a thing - like anorexia where your brain tells you that you’re fat when you’re not.
The debate around which mental conditions make you not able to perform military service is definitely something that needs to be delved into more, but that doesn’t stop an administration from making a decision to start from.
I said what is happening. Legalese nonsense is not a substantive argument nor does it undo what they are attempting to do. This is erasure.
OK so you can’t show how this “denies that trans people exist”. We got there in the end.
No, I have. You’re just too stubborn to accept it. You made up your mind long before this conversation. No answer i give will be enough. You’ve decided they’re fine based on your textual interpretation.
You’re defending bigots. It’s a bad look and I don’t want to talk to you anymore. Have a good one.
You haven’t, and you can’t, because if it was denying trans people exist then the entire EO wouldn’t make any sense because it would be prohibiting people that don’t exist from serving in the military.
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/HB03817I.htm
That’s got nothing to do with this EO lol. It’s also not a law.
This isn't happening in a vacuum.
Yes, this is. This is about making people with gender dysphoria ineligible for military service, the same way people with many other conditions are.
It has nothing to do with pronouns. It has nothing to do with same sex attraction. It has nothing to do with whatever else you want to pretend it does.
Bull. Shit.
So why does it specifically talk about people with gender dysphoria?
You're gonna ignore all the other anti "dei" stuff being done? Pretend like this is just off in the corner all alone?
You're full of shit. We're done. I won't hit my head against a wall.
DEI has nothing to do with this. DEI is about putting people in roles/positions that they didn’t necessarily deserve (as simple a description as you can get for why people oppose it). ie promoting someone because they’re a minority over people who are better qualified.
This is about adding another exclusion to the list of conditions that exclude people from military service eligibility. DEI isn’t even remotely relevant here.
Good job with the name calling though. Really gets across how intelligent and well reasoned your arguments are.
First of all, DEI includes things like posting job offerings in spaces that are frequented by lower income or minority populations. It's rejection includes an assumption that the most qualified person for any given position is a white straight man.
People in this Admin have called the former secretary of defense a DEI hire. She was a Black General.
This admin has consistently called any minority a DEI hire and has tried to blame accidents on said "DEI" hires.
DEIs rejection does not include that assumption at all. It means that you think the best person for the job should get the job, not just the person who ticks the most diversity boxes. Policies like “50% of all board positions need to be women” assumes that 50% of the best people for the position are women, which isn’t the case a lot of the time, especially in male dominated industries.
If the best person for the position is a gay black womens then she should get the job. Likewise if a straight white male is the most qualified and best fit, he should get it. Merit wins.
Calling people a DEI hire has definitely been weaponised, but the fact that champions of dei see that as an insult kinda proves that DEI is what its opponents say it is - unfair.
This EO is nothing to do with DEI though, in any way.
I don't see it as an insult, it is used as one. Especially by this admin.
It's the idea that some is only there because of DEI and without it, their capabilities wouldn't have been enough. Which is wrong.
Before DEIA was implemented, minorities were often not hired, because of their background, even though they were the more capable candidate. And this admin is a perfect example, that "DEI hire"" is projection.
Is Hegseth more capable than his predecessor? Gods no. His signal escapades are enough to prove this.
Is RKJ more capable than his predecessor? Is anyone in this majority white, majority male admin better suited for their job than the more diverse admin before it? No. But still, that admin gets labeled as DEI Hires, not because anyone could prove that DEI prevented a more deserving candidate from filling that position, but because they belong to minorities.