I wasn’t shaming anyone for condemning DEI, I was shaming them for being bad at solving problems.

> Notice how literally every single problem in our country is “caused by DEI” now?

> It helps because it’s easier to solve fake problems with fake solutions instead of real ones.

This is a strawman and implying their fight against a bigoted ideology isn’t a legitimate thing to do. You are in fact shaming them for standing up against a bigoted praxis.

> Scapegoating politically and culturally disempowered groups is super useful to such movements.

This is incorrect - they’re not scapegoating minorities: they’re condemning an elite philosophy, advocated by some of the most powerful institutions in the country.

Institutions that appropriated minority voices as a shield against criticism — as you’ve done here, by your conflation.

I guess OP is referring to stuff like Trump's baseless claims that DEI was a factor in the recent plane crash. I hope we can agree that that's an absurd position regardless of our own perspective on DEI.

Part of the staffing shortage in air traffic control is their (now discontinued) policy of not hiring qualified whites. A class-action related to that was filed in 2019 and expected to head to trial soon.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/diversity-hiring-cost-job-faa-081...

A single person's allegation of being passed over is a long way from proving that DEI policies contributed to staffing shortages. Moreover the audio from the recordings shows that the helicopter was warned and advised to avoid the plane, suggesting that staff shortages were not a crucial factor.

It’s a class action, ie, not a single plaintiff.

If you want to discuss the helicopter in particular, there’s also questions why a pilot who had been in multiple desk jobs for multiple years was flying a high risk route like that — and the possible reasons the military promoted her and allowed her to attempt this with questionable competency.

Playing the victim is also another page right out of the Nazi playbook, thanks for bringing that one up too!

Yes — the people the US Supreme Court ruled were illegally discriminated against are just “playing victim”.

I'm curious, what would you call banning transgender individuals from the military then?

Per Wikipedia:

> On February 10, 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth filed a memo with the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. stating that, effective immediately, no "individuals with a history of gender dysphoria" would be permitted to join the military, and no "medical procedures associated with affirming or facilitating a gender transition" would be provided to transgender service members.

They’re banning a DSM condition and refusing to provide surgeries that leave a person unfit for service for an extended period.

There’s lots of disqualifying psychiatric and personality conditions, eg:

https://uscga.edu/admissions/common-disqualifying-medical-co...

Last time, the US Supreme Court reversed a stay on such an order (allowing it to go into effect) — but the case was never resolved due to presidential turnover. We’ll see what happens this time.

> There’s lots of disqualifying psychiatric and personality conditions

Looking at your link, I can see how the conditions specified there would make someone less effective as a soldier. I can't say the same for gender dysphoria.

Men who insist that they are women (or vice versa) and then demand that everyone else accommodate this false belief is a good enough reason for the military to say no to their recruitment, as it is detrimental to unit cohesion.

Back in the 60s homosexuals were insisting that their sexuality was legitimate and demanding that everyone else accommodate this belief. Many at the time viewed it as a false belief contrary to biological law. That was wrong then, and this is wrong now.

And acceptance of homosexuality went so well because it turned out that accommodating it was effortless for almost everyone, and the impact upon others was minimal.

This is of course not the case with the demands of men who desire to be women and women who want to be men.

I've met plenty of trans men and women that I wouldn't have known they were trans if they didn't tell me. What kind of effort are you thinking about in this case?

What about the women who are really butch? Or the effeminate men? Would you want them excluded too, or would a genital inspection be considered sufficient to qualify them?

The broadest one is that new definitions of woman and man have been imposed which not just accommodate people who sometimes manage to successfully masquerade as the opposite sex (like some of the people you've met) but the ones who do not do so at all. According to these new definitions, merely stating that you're a woman or man (or somehow, neither) is enough to make it real.

This has been used to rewrite law and policy so that any man who claims he's a woman can, with impunity, impose himself upon spaces that were only ever intended for women and girls.

That's a huge change and has significant impact on the female half of the population, wouldn't you agree?

> any man who claims he's a woman can, with impunity, impose himself upon spaces that were only ever intended for women and girls

The military policy (that I assume you're defending) is to ban anyone with a "history of gender dysphoria". Your points would have a little more weight if the situation was like in 2018 when individuals could serve under the condition of being stable for 18 months in their identified or assigned gender. But not much more weight, since that is still a lot weaker than what you describe.

I think you're avoiding the point. These are individuals that have otherwise already passed military training and fitness tests to determine whether or not they are able to participate and function as soldiers. They are actively a part of our military and being thrown out.

I can’t find anything to support that.

The order as quoted refers to new joins:

> “Effective immediately, all new accessions for individuals with a history of gender dysphoria are paused,” Hegseth said in a memo dated Feb. 7 and filed on Monday with the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

Which is consistent with Trump’s order from his first term that allowed transgender troops already serving to remain.

The only quote on current troops I found was:

> Hegseth said individuals with gender dysphoria already in the military would be “treated with dignity and respect,” and the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness would provide additional details on what this would mean.

Do you have a source for that claim?

Yes. That was part of one of the recent executive orders he signed [1] which was dictating not only that care for transgender individuals in the military should cease but also that expressing a different gender identity was not compatible with being in the military. It's not even particularly vague about it. The military issued guidance against the executive order to not take adverse action, essentially only adopting the bathroom bill portion of it [2].

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prio...

[2] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.276...