Welcome to Modern Day Debate where we host debates on science, politics, and religion. If you like reminders of other controversial debates, we have coming up, hit the subscribe button. This should be a good one. I'm excited to get this going. We have Trenton Maddox, who's the affirmative, and we have Jordan B, who's the dissent position. Our debate format is 10 minute openings and open in discussion for the rest of the way. So welcome everyone to Modern Day Debate. So Jordan or Trenton, would you guys like to start off with introductions about yourself? Tell everyone in the audience about your channel what you're up to. So whoever wants to go first, go ahead. My name's Trenton. I go by Splinters T.W. on Twitch and Splinters on YouTube. I do, I talk about politics, but the focus of my content is usually like debate, debate reviews, debate styles, debate tactics, that kind of stuff. I'm an ex-formal debater, so that's kind of my schtick. If you like me here today, be sure to check me out either on YouTube or on Twitch and I can deliver them more of that content. Huge apologies ahead of time. I'm coming off of a sickness. I'll try not to cough like during my opener, but if I cough a couple of times, pardon me. Great. Thank you very much, Trenton. Yeah. I'm Jordan. Go ahead, Jordan. It's been pretty good. Yeah. Go ahead. You're fine, man. I'm Jordan B. You can find me on Twitter at Jordan B.Videos. Jordan B. on YouTube. I'm, you know, widely a part of the America First universe. The Paleo-Conservative Circles and right wing Twitter, right wing YouTube. You can find me on D-Live if you go to my YouTube channel, which you can find in the description of my Twitter bio. Yeah, that's about it. You can find me Twitter, YouTube. Those are really the best places to get the quickest access to my content. So, yeah. Awesome. So let's get this going here. So Trenton, the floor is yours when you went on your first word and we'll have a briefly a 10 minute opening and then we'll get into open discussion. Go ahead. OK, I will start now. So I'm going to start by talking about some fundamental values that we should keep in mind throughout the debate, as well as their importance. Then I'll run through a series of contentions, each of which will serve as an umbrella topic for a cluster of arguments therein. As a point of reference, whenever I cite something, you'll hear me drop the author and publishing date of the source in question. If you're interested in following along, I've dropped a Google Doc link in chat. That doc contains this speech I'm giving as well as a separate doc, which should include every source I plan on bringing up tonight. That said, onto the arguments. I want to first establish some common values that we should be looking to throughout this debate. After all, without some sort of value criterion, we don't really have a good way to evaluate the arguments made here today. In the interest of identifying common ground, I contend that the values we ought to maximize are those liberal democratic ideals that this country is founded on. The quality, pursuit of happiness and fundamental freedoms that America has fought for time and time again and built the Western world upon. These are the same values we should seek to emulate in the rules and policies we enact. So when you analyze our arguments, look to whichever side is most effectively maximizing these values. That said, given the importance of these ideals, any obstacles we wish to place between an individual in their pursuit of happiness demands clear and great justification. Justification that, as you'll soon see, does not exist for the negative position. That brings me to contention one, zero downsides. With this contention, I want to preemptively debunk common misconceptions about the implications of allowing transpersonnel to openly serve such that we can spend the rest of our time highlighting all the positives we get from making that allowance. Let's start with costs. A common concern of skeptics is that medical costs for transpersonnel will make their allowance into the military too expensive. However, cost estimates deliver a price tag of about 2.4 to 8.4 million annually. Well, this may sound like a lot. In reality, it represents an exceedingly small proportion of spending, a 0.02% increase on the high end. Essentially, shaving's unappending. And that's all from Rand Corporation in 2016. That said, what does have costs is implementing these exclusionary policies. For example, implementing Don't Ask, Don't Tell is estimated to have cost the US armed forces between $290 to $500 million between 1993 and 2010. Even on the low end, that's about double the cost of the trans-medical care skeptics are worried about. Senior officials had to spend time and resources investigating allegations of homosexuality and personnel that had received costly training equipment and transportation were discharged because their sexual orientation became known. Evidence, moreover, indicates that LGBT personnel leave organizations that pursue an exclusionary policy. Since the replacement of personnel is expensive, the armed forces may benefit from an environment which favors the retention of LGBT personnel. That's from the Hague Center for Strategic Studies 2014, which I'll refer to from here on is HCSS14. On the topic of force readiness, it's often worried that the inclusion of trans people will negatively impact this area. This concern, while well-intentioned, is nonetheless completely unfounded. Studies find that the readiness impact of transition-related treatment would lead to a loss of less than 0.0015% of total available labor years, and less than 0.1% of the force would seek gender transition-related treatment that would affect their ability to deploy. As a point of comparison, in the army alone, approximately 50,000 active component personnel were ineligible to deploying in 2015 for various legal, medical, and administrative reasons. That is to say, a number amounting to around 14% of the active component is already routinely unavailable. So the impact trans personnel would have on readiness is essentially non-existent in the grand scheme of things. That's RAN16. Another unfounded concern along these same lines is that of trans personnel disrupting unit cohesion. RAN16 finds that evidence from foreign and US military has indicated no significant impact on unit cohesion or operational readiness as a result of allowing transgender personnel to serve. HCSS-14 confirms this, saying, the presence of acknowledged LGBT individuals has no necessary effect on this cohesion. Expert interviews with high-ranking military personnel from other nations show that repealing and exclusionary policy had no effect on high-performing personnel. On the issue of inclusion bringing down recruitment or retention of personnel, HCSS-14 finds no evidence of this in other countries where exclusionary policies have been repealed, nor in the US, following the abolishment of donor personnel. A final concern is that of trans personnel being a unique liability in the field as a result of any medical treatment they may be receiving. On this point, Megan Zittal 2011 finds no exceptional increase in mortality, illness, or injury accepting those individuals who rely on ethanol estradiol who were found to possibly be at a higher risk of cardiovascular disease. However, it's worth noting that this compound is widely used in female birth control, which the military already provides to thousands of active duty personnel in the now. Now let's talk about some of the good that comes from lifting the span as we move to contention two, improved military efficacy. According to HCSS-14, morale is higher when people feel recognized and respected at work. Cohesion is improved when colleagues can communicate openly. Trust is enhanced when there is no suspicion that colleagues have something to hide. A policy of exclusion could mean that armed forces recruit and retain less qualified personnel. Environments which are inclusive have been linked to better mental health and improved wellbeing and increased productivity. Palm Center 14 echoes this, saying, experiences of foreign military organizations that have adopted inclusive military indicate that the US military allows, that when the US military allows transgender personnel to serve, commanders will be better equipped to take care of service members and the 15,500 transgender individuals estimated to be serving currently will have greater access to healthcare and be better equipped to do their jobs. On this point of healthy work environments, it's worth mentioning that the status quo is anything but healthy.   In 1985, seven British servicemen were charged for revealing classified information to Soviet agents after being blackmailed for attending homosexual parties. Siding with the negative on this issue means perpetuating an environment where this kind of coercion and these national security risks continue. HSCC 14 puts it best, an environment which accepts LGBT participation increases the likelihood of successfully addressing her threats. It's also important to remember that when leveraged properly, diversity in our armed forces represents a great potential asset. As HCSS 14 points out, military planners acknowledge that diversity is critically important for defense organizations to survive and thrive in the 21st century security environment. As diversity becomes increasingly the norm and as more and more militaries recognize their LGBT service members, diversity is increasingly viewed as a strategic asset to be managed in order to deliver maximum benefits for the military. Finally, contention three, normalization. And the social sciences is a well-known concept called the contact hypothesis. The idea is that prejudice can be reduced between groups through contact, mainly by sharing the same space, goals and institutions. However, even media exposure can contribute to this effect. That's from Roets et al. 2015 and Leynes 2001. That being the case, we have every reason to believe that the inclusion of trans personnel in the military can not only help address the discrimination they face within that institution but can help address the transphobic sentiments writ large. HCSS 14 picks up on this, mentioning that quote, a decline in negative attitudes for LGBT people may also result in a decline in negative behavior based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Likewise, the negative position may trigger the inverse. When people see that our highest, most revered institutions treat trans individuals as second-class citizens, blocking their right to their pursuit of happiness, they too may find themselves echoing those same discriminatory sentiments. This is key. Reducing discrimination is important because discrimination is deeply harmful to individuals. It places obstacles to their success, something we should be concerned with. As the more people succeed in our shared society, our shared economy, then the richer that economy and the richer our culture for it. We have so much to gain from lifting this ban with essentially zero downsides. To end things off, I wanna go back to those values I mentioned at the beginning. This issue speaks not just to those enshrined American values but to core military principles. All military personnel should serve with honor and integrity, which means that they should not have to lie about who they are. All members of the military should be treated with respect. All persons capable of serving their country should be allowed to do so, unless there's a compelling reason for prohibiting their service, which is I've unequivocally demonstrated their resent. And the military should not needlessly separate personnel who are willing and able to serve. Such policies fly in the face of everything we stand for. And I yield the remainder of my time. All right. Thank you, Trenton, for your opening. My good. And yes, Jordan, the floor is yours when you're on your first word and you have about 10 minutes around that time and then we'll get into an open discussion, go ahead. Okay. I don't know how much I'm gonna need. I have nothing prewritten. I don't really have anything I'm reading off of over a couple of notes that I took, but there's a lot to unpack in what you said there, man. Your whole opening statement read as one big leftist pamphlet for why leftists should join the military to me. And I think what's important is when you're looking at the military, you're looking at a group of people that need to have a common goal. You need to have a group of people that's ready to die for America at the drop of a hat. And that's not saying that a transgender person isn't willing to do that, but I do think that there's something to be said in the military for excluding people for reasons that may not always seem fair. So a good example that I can think of is that in order to enter the military, you have to have an IQ of at least 83. That's what it basically comes down to when you take the test to enter the military.  And I don't hear any leftists saying that there's something exclusionary or necessarily discriminatory about excluding people with an IQ below 83. What I think is interesting is that you'll say in the same breath that we're doing something wrong by excluding transgender people from the military. And what I'm saying is that I think that there is something to be said for having sexuality not necessarily brought into the military force. And I think when someone enters the military and they're transgender, I think their sexuality is inherently a part of that. There's definitely an inkling of leftist ideology that comes along with you being transgender in the military because you're making that a part of your identity right there. So I think that there is something to be said for excluding these people. I think that we exclude people on a host of other factors including invisible tattoos, gauges in their ears, low IQ, they're a myriad of reasons we exclude people from the military. And I think when you go back to the DSM as recently as the early 70s or late 60s, it's widely known that that body dysmorphia is really the deciding factor when you're looking at transgenderism.   I agree, but I'm pro-military, I'm as pro-military as the next guy. I have respect for the institution and I don't want it to become some breeding ground for leftist ideology which it is becoming. You cited a lot of studies there that say that, well, transgender people perform just as well in the military, if not better, but here's the thing. This entire institution, the army, the armed forces, they're already on a crusade towards leftism. It's diversity, they have entire commercials where the left is saying, diversity is our strength in the military. Why is that even something that we're looking at? My main concern is whether or not this country is gonna be safe, not do we have the right proportions of LGBTQIA plus black, Hispanic, transgender, Asians? That's not what I'm looking at. I'm looking at is this country gonna be safe and do these people have the qualifications necessary to get into the military? Now, if someone was to pass all the necessary requirements to get into the army, let's say all the physical requirements, that's fine, but what I'm saying is that I don't like, I don't like the concept of someone coming into the military and that being their entire identity is their transgenderism. It's like they're there for the sake of being there almost.  I look at the previous generations of our armed services. These were some of the best of all time, the guys who storm Normandy. It's very funny that that wasn't a big talking point back then. We just had the best, we had the best people in the military. Now what we're seeing is people who, frankly, could they really be a part of the military back then? Not really, not really. These people that we have now that we're bringing into the military, these people couldn't hold a candle to our grandparents in the military. Do you think that, and I know, I mean, you just read a ton of studies, that's fine. I respect data research, but what I'm saying is that there is definitely an inkling of weakness in the military. And I really don't see our adversaries on a world stage taking us seriously when our whole mission isn't protecting the country. It's not advocating our interests. It's basically being as global homo as we can as an institution, as an army force, as a military force. We're supposed to be the world's number one military. And instead of doing that, we're hanging rainbow flags outside of our embassies across the world. That's not what I'm paying my tax dollars for when I fund the military. That's a joke. I want to save country. I don't want a leftist pamphlet being handed out around the world. That's what the global homo means. I don't want to reinforce these values. And I think there is something to be said when we look at the military. It's about what values are you projecting on the world? Is the hill that we're willing to die on that we accept gays and lesbians into the military? No, I want a strong military force. And it's actually similar in some ways to allowing women into the military. And I think it's a little bit different here because there's obvious differences between being assigned sex at vertical, blah, blah. But what I'm saying is that it's different or it's similar in so far as we actually lower the requirements for women. We lower the requirements for them to enter the military. Why would I want someone who's not able to perform the basic functions that their male counterpart was able to perform when we could just have men and exclude women or just keep the standards the same and you would have people that are able to complete the same goals by the same metrics. So it's oddly similar actually. And I don't like the leftist propaganda entering our military frankly. Great, thank you for your opening. Now we'll go into open discussion. And yeah, you guys can just go when you just get going here. Awesome. So I have a couple of questions about like just respond to the rebuttals you bring up. But first I kind of want to get this out of the way. So like, do we agree then? Because I heard you mentioned on there like if somebody passes all the qualifications like you don't have a problem with them. So I guess if we, you know, currently that a Poverty of Defense Instruction 1300.28 is what is basically said that if you have a history of gender dysphoria, then you're disqualified unless like a bajillion conditions are met that pretty much nobody meets. So if we were to repeal that and trans people are allowed to serve, are you okay with trans people serving as long as they meet all of the other requirements that we lay out? I do kind of think that based in transgenderism is a hint of mental illness to be honest with you. I do see a link there from the studies I've read that there is a link of mental illness. Hence the suicide rates among the transgender community who are able to successfully do sex reassignment surgery. The suicide rates later in life aren't really that much better than if they hadn't got the surgery in the first place. So that tells me that there is some kind of, there is a little bit of mental illness there and I inherently don't trust that. And I also don't want sexualization brought into the military. Yeah, so is, okay. So the two rebuttals I heard there as to why you still wouldn't accept this person if they passed every other metric was that there was some mental illness there because their suicide rates are high as well as you don't want sex being brought into the military. Is that correct? Are those the two rebuttals you brought up there? Yeah, sure. Okay.  So was it like body dysmorphia part of the DSM until like the late 60s, early 70s? I mean, transgenderism and body dysmorphia are tied pretty extra. So body dysmorphia, as far as I'm aware, body dysmorphia and gender dysphoria are like two different things. And usually when we're talking about trans people, we're talking about gender dysphoria, right? And this is something, this goes to, okay, one thing at a time, I guess. So the first thing I want to say is that the idea that there's mental illness that being trans means being inherently mentally ill is not true. Gender dysphoria is a mental illness. And one of the three major prescriptions for that are depending on what you need is case by case, but usually it's one of our combination of psychological counseling, medical prescription, usually something like hormone therapy and sometimes like physical surgical transition, right? And what we see is that a lot of people, when they go through these treatments, they no longer experience gender dysphoria. That is to say, they're no longer suffering from the mental illness, right? So that's just to address the illness point. But to address the suicide point attached to it, there is ample literature on this, the suicide rate among trans people is not any result of inherently being trans. It's usually due to the discrimination that trans people face in their societies. I knew that you were gonna use that argument. Yep, and I'll link an article for it. I just linked in the UC chat and I can link it in the Zoom chat. Sure, but again, it goes back to, yeah, you have a good study that points to the outcome that you want, but don't you think that as a society in 2020, we've gone out of our way more than any society before, right now, to accommodate for trans people and that's not helping their suicide rates at all? Well, clearly not, otherwise we wouldn't have this debate, right? If we were going out of our way to accommodate them, we wouldn't have a trans military band. Indulging in someone's fantasies usually isn't always the best way to make sure that they're healthy. So how is it indulging in somebody's fantasies if we already established that gender dysphoria is a real illness of which the prescription is either social or physical transitioning or HRT or counseling, right? How is that indulging in a fantasy? Well, a similar example I would use would be like, and I hate using this because it's kind of dumbed down from like Stephen Crowder types, but it's like if a five-year-old came up to me and said, I'm Batman, I wouldn't make their entire existence. Oh, you're Batman, I'm gonna give you the costume.  Okay, so you're moving to another argument here which is gender and sex are the same thing, right? Sure, yeah, I'm talking about the military but I don't, isn't gender and sex the same thing over like 99.5% of the time are those two generally linked? No, so usually I mean like a kind of high-define like sex or whether or not sex or dinner is important sometimes depends on the context but generally speaking the medical consensus across most, you know, liberal democratic developed nations and most medical communities is that gender and sex are two like distinctly different things, one relating to a set of like roles and norms that you are assigned by your respective society based on your genitalia and one being more directly related to that genitalia, right? Like these are, the consensus on this is like relatively broad that these are different things. Sure, but don't you think that there's something to be said for us as I hate the meme again as a society, we keep doubling down on these things and I feel like it's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy where the more we keep talking about transgenderism and the more we keep bringing homosexuality or gender roles and all this stuff to the forefront and Hollywood, mainstream media, everything. Don't you think that these things end up leading to children maybe being like, oh wait, actually I never thought about that. Maybe there's truth there. Maybe I am a boy when I'm really a girl. I think the more we talk, I don't know that you'll agree here because I'm a really strong traditionalist, but I think the more we get away from traditionalist roles, I think the more you're gonna see these kinds of outcomes where it's like, oh, shoot, we've been talking about transgenderism nonstop for the last 20 years. Gee, I wonder why we have a huge uptick in transgender kids. And it's like, I really feel like there's something to be said for kind of the framing of these conversations. So I definitely think it's true that as you talk about a certain identity being okay and acceptable, of course more people are going to openly identify as it. Obviously, because the stigma is no longer there, people don't have to stay in the closet. The two things I wanna say on that are, one, I'm not even necessarily sure. I don't see the negatives of that happening, but more importantly, I don't even want to take the conversation there because I really wanna focus on the issue of today's debate, which is like trans-military. So if we're talking about traditional roles, I think what I wanna hear specifically from you is the negatives of allowing trans people in the military. Why that is bad? Well, I think what's important here is to look at how this is basically, it's kind of an offshoot. The military issue is an offshoot of where we're at morally again in 2020 and where the social conversation is. Because you don't have this conversation without widespread acceptance of homosexuals, gay people, lesbians, transgender people in general, just in the same way that you don't get rid of, don't ask, don't tell, if homosexuality doesn't become normalized. Yeah, absolutely. It's almost like we're looking at an offspring issue. No, it's really tough for me to make the argument as a society, we've normalized gay marriage and it's ubiquitous, but they can't serve in the military. Once you get one, you get the other. I'm basically coming at the root in saying that social stigmas exist for a reason, social shaming exists for a reason, and that maybe not every, I'm not gonna say that word, maybe not every person who was maybe shoved into the corner in terms of social status because of their proclivities or whatever, maybe not every person deserves equal standing equal say in the community. That's all I'm saying. We're absolutely correct that all of our social stigmas exist for reasons. The question is, for each one, is that reasoning good? And what I think I've demonstrated in my opening, and I'm here to defend this whole debate, is this stigma is bad and there is nothing that we gain from it in a lot that we lose. I don't really see that. What do you think we're losing by not having transgender people in the military? Yeah, so there's like some explicit- I actually do wanna hear that. I do wanna hear that. Yeah, so there's some explicit negatives and then there's some opportunity costs, right? So some of the explicit negatives is that while we have more normalized trans people in our society, we have not, we are not there, right? Like we absolutely made progress, but we got a long way to go. And when we have our highest, most revered institutions, which in America, the military is up there, and the institutions are openly adopting discriminatory policies based on identity, based on a class of people, a demographic of people, that has a trickle-down effect. And the same way if any high-up, revered political office were to hold these ideas, right? So there's an explicitly negative impact there. There are some opportunity costs negatives as well. One of these opportunity costs, actually, all right, hold on, just more explicit negatives.   No matter what we do, this is gonna happen. And what happens is these people get into the military and then they have to stay closeted the whole time, which means that they're not as effective as they could otherwise be. But more importantly, it means that when discriminatory people find out about their gender identity, this can put them in positions of danger and can actually create national security issues, right? And we can say, oh, well, then they just shouldn't have joined the military then if they're gonna be a national security liability. But the fact is we can't stop people from joining, we can't weed out every single trans person if we want to. These people are gonna be in the military, so we should create institutions that support them, right? That accept them in the military. So if somebody comes to them and tries to blackmail them, like what happened to Sergeant Cooper Harris, as I read in my opening, then these people can go to the institution and say, I am being coerced, right? Rather than us creating these situations where people get harmed and where national security issues occur. So I'll give you a chance to respond to that before I go to the opportunity costs. Well, what I would say is that I think it's funny that you're focusing on this as the one disqualifying factor that's the hill that you're willing to die on. People are disqualified for military service for having horrible debt to income ratio. People are disqualified from military for having visible tattoos. People are disqualified from the military for having visible gauges in their ears. Where is your movement saying, we must free the gauge wearers, free the visible tattoo wearers? It's just funny to me that there are much more arbitrary lines that are being drawn against people. Like, who's to say that someone who has a tattoo on their forearm isn't as willing to die for the country as someone who made their gender male to female or rights versa.  So then by that logic, you actually, you think there should be no standards for you ever having certain military? No, my logic is that standards should be justified. Right? It might be Jordan that we go and look and holy cow, people with gauges, they are just so incredibly ineffective in the military. They're a drain. And maybe that stigma is justified, maybe it's not.  If we wanted to debate people with tattoos or people or the 84 IQ or something, we could debate that. Those might be justified. They might not, but I don't know enough about those to debate that right now. But I could die on those. That's convenient that with those you're like, I just don't know enough of the facts. It's very simple. If you have an IQ below 83, you can't serve in the military. That sounds pretty prejudiced to low IQ people to me. But we're not having that conversation. It is prejudice, but it could be justified prejudice, right?  If they are not a detriment or liability, it would be unjustified. I'm consistent. I get what you're saying, but you're not acknowledging that there are valid points that I might have about the mental capacity or the mental stability of someone who doesn't know if they're a man or a woman to holding an M16 and operating measures. And we can talk about that. We can engage with that point. There's just been a lot of people haven't gotten to it yet. As far as that point, I agree that somebody actively experiencing gender dysphoria probably shouldn't be serving, right? But that's nobody is gonna try and push that, okay? What we're talking about, we're speaking largely is the current ban in place by the current policy of the DOD is people who even have a history of gender dysphoria, right? So we can have a trans person that when they were 22, they experienced gender dysphoria and they realized that I think I'm trans. I need to go through these steps. They spend some time on HRT. Maybe they physically transition through surgery. And by the time they're 26, they've been gender dysphoria free for years, right? Because they've received the treatment they need. That person should be able to serve, no? These are problems that I don't wanna have to deal with in a military setting. Why would the military need to take on the baggage of someone's mental capacity? Well, at 22, they didn't know who they were, but at 26, man, they're an upstanding, dude, this is the military. This ain't your local McDonald's. This isn't your Starbucks. This is the military. What baggage are they taking on? If the person is cured by the time they enlist, what is the baggage?   What's the baggage? What does the military have to deal with? If this person passes all the qualifications, clearly there's no baggage there. If you don't know what gender you are, I don't need you operating a multi-million dollar missile systems. I agree, but they've transitioned.  They've decided they're no longer experiencing dysphoria. Well, they don't know what God gave them when they were born. Wait, so hold on. Does every person in the military need to believe in God as well? No, no. They just need to accept God's law and accept that they were born with the parts that God gave them. And if you don't know the answer to that, then I'm sorry, I can't help you. This is definitely outside the scope of the argument to go into the impacts of making our military theocratic or something. Well, we should. I'm going to try and move on, but just to speak on this point, the idea that we would restrict to the military enlistment, the idea that we should restrict military enlistment to specific religious demographics. Oh, I never said that. Well, you just, you're excluding all atheists, right? So you are restricted to at least religious people. There's good atheists out there. Same heresy. Then why did you just say that an issue with trans people is they don't know what God gave them? I was trolling you a little bit. Calm down. Calm down. I'm sorry. I came for like a relatively like good faith debate.  I'm messing with you a little bit, but I do think there's something to be said for, for someone who does, someone who doesn't have that connection to reality where they're not attached to their gender enough. I just don't, I don't trust them with high capacity missile weapon systems. I just don't. This is the military. This isn't the DNC. This isn't a diversity group on campus. This is the military. And I know I keep saying that, but there's something to be said for that. No, I get it. And actually, I saw a lot of the comments pre-debate on the modern day debates. Twitter account they were saying, there were a few people that were saying, well have either of these guys served and how do I know that they have respect for the institution of the military? I have the ultimate respect for the military. I value it so much that I think what our mission is is important. And if we're using our leverage and our capital as the leading military force in the world, I really don't want that to be used to try to interject gay and LGBTQIA plus people into the military, much less flying gay flags at all of our embassies across the world. I don't want, we don't need to be a political project. We need to be having the most effective military force that we can have on the planet, not accepting people in just because, well, because current year, and that's kind of what we're doing. So there are two things here. The first one is when you say that you don't want these people in the military, when they have the separation from reality, there's a baked in assumption there that gender dysphoria and the prescription for gender dysphoria are like invalid or unsound or something, which isn't true. That combined with the fact that you still believe these people are somehow hazards or detrimental to military efficacy. Jordan, the only person here is disconnected from reality as you. I've read so many sources, I can read more, we can talk more. The consensus is here. These people do not have any negative impact on military readiness, on unit cohesion, on costs. There is absolutely no downside. It's the only one disconnected from reality as you when you're telling me that you don't want them in the military because you don't trust them, you don't think they're going to be able to operate at like the standards of the military. Sid, do you think that there are any justifiable disqualifications from the military? Sure, I think a justifiable. What's a justifiable one for you? A justifiable qualification for the military is an inability to perform your duties. So for example, if somebody with no limbs wanted to sign up for the military, I imagine that he would be disqualified for most positions and justifiably so. Now, if there's some position in the military that he can fulfill to like the whatever level we need fulfilled without any limbs, then like my all means, like he can comment. Yeah, I mean, that's a funny reddit to your meme, but what I'm saying is when the army is instituting policies that say that if you have a certain high, if you have a certain debt to income ratio, you can't join the military. Why do you think they would do something like that?  Maybe, I don't know, I'd have to go look. Maybe it's just fine, maybe it's not. Oh, so you think the army could actually be a scheme to keep poor people out for some reason? Why else would they do that? Or do you think that maybe there's something to be said for some of their qualifications that we don't see on the other end? Another example, why would they disallow people? What you have to think about is if the army is this institution that wants as many people as they can on any given day to join it, right? Do we agree with that framing? The army wants is in theory, they want as many people in their institution as they can get. True. Right. Why would they exclude people who maybe have a tattoo on their left hand of the smiley face or like a little Bible inscription right here? It completely depends from thing to thing. There are so many laws in towns and cities and states and even on the federal level across America that are leftovers. Well, I'm trying to answer a question. So let me answer it first, right? There are an abundance of laws and policies that are a leftover of like the massive power that like Christians and evangelicals wielded in America for a long time. Some of those policies are good. Some of those are bad. Some of them have been repealed because they're bad. Some of them are bad and they're still there, right? Because the political will isn't there to get rid of them. When it comes to military policies, there are plenty of standards that you're talking about that might be justified. There are plenty of standards that are probably not justified. I can't speak to all of those. We're talking about this policy. But I'm gonna ask you to go a little standard deviation hi IQ here. What I'm saying is that it actually supersedes that what I'm talking about is whether or not there are legitimate disqualifications from the military to not allow you to serve. Yeah, I already said that. What you're saying is that, well, what I'm hearing is you're saying the only discriminatory one is trans disqualification. If that were in place, everything else would be legitimate. The IQ one might be discriminatory. I can't tell if it's discriminatory until I go and I see if there's a justification for it. If there's a justification for it, it's not really discriminatory or we would call it justified discrimination, right? So is there an example in your mind where there could be a justified disqualification for someone who's trans? Yeah, but probably wouldn't know there could be but it wouldn't be on the basis of the trans. It wouldn't be that they're trans. If somebody is trans, well, it would be the gender dysphoria, right? If somebody is in the process of transitioning or they have, let's say somebody has socially transitioned, right? They haven't undergone surgery or anything, but they've spoken to their friends and their family and they said, I'd like you to refer to me by these pronouns, I'm gonna start HRT. This person, we would consider them trans if they're still experiencing gender dysphoria such that they can't perform their duties adequately, I would disqualify them based on that, yes, absolutely. Okay. Yeah, the people we're talking about are people who aren't experiencing mental illness, people who are passing the qualifications, people who are able to perform their duties. Chad is asking me, would I refuse to help a trans service person in an emergency? Of course not, I would never, no. I wouldn't- Can I ask that? No, no, not you, but I just keep seeing that question getting a little spammed here, but yeah, no, I would never refuse service to someone in an emergency, but I don't know man, it really feels like, and I know you people on your side kind of hate this line of thinking, but it does feel like a slippery slope where we're not letting in, we're not promoting attracting the most physically prepared. It feels like we're a corporation who's trying to let in everything that the left says or all the people that the left says are in oppressed communities, or we're promoting diversity and inclusion in the military, we're promoting LGBTQIA plus people. Really, I don't care about that, I care about the best and the brightest, and I really don't think that the people that were advocating for jobs in the military now are the kind of people that stormed the beaches of Normandy and would be able to do the great things that the military used to do. It feels much more like a leftist cause right now rather than a, let's get something done. And that's how America feels as a whole to me right now. So there's a couple of points here. So the first is this idea that we're lowering qualifications for people. I don't know where I advocated for lowering the qualifications for trans people. Well, the trans one is a little different. What I would say is that that's very specific to women in the military, which I'm sure you're wholeheartedly for, I'm sure. But the women example is actually interesting because there are different qualifications for women in the military as opposed to men. They're lower, they're notably lower. So that's like the very first thing. It's like it started kind of with women in the military and then it was gays in the military and then it was, well, actually it's just don't ask, don't tell and actually that's oppressive. And then actually we're actually gonna promote diversity in LGBTQIA plus members into the military. It's like there's no stopping point. Leftism has no limiting principle. So it's like how much longer until it's like we advocate for wheelchair users in the military. It's like, I mean, but I know that sounds ridiculous but what I'm saying is that that that's actually an embodiment of there's no limiting principle to leftism. Like what's the group where you're like actually we can't have any of them in the military? Sure. So I feel like I've said this like nine times but like we'll keep going, we'll keep saying it again. This isn't a slippery slope. A slippery slope occurs when you cross a line without drawing a new one, right? I've drawn the line. It's like several times in this debate. The line is whether or not these people can adequately perform the duties that we need them to perform without incurring some great cost upon the institution. I've demonstrated that trans people at large as long as they're not like experienced and they're just for you actively or something can perform the duties we need them to perform and do not incur any kind of great cost. The wheelchair thing is such a good example because it's the same as the limbless example I brought up earlier. If there are, we can think of a billion duties in the military that a wheelchair person, a person who's outbound into a wheelchair probably can't do, right? And we would say that they are justifiably disqualified from those tasks. But we can also think of pointing that they can't, right? And for those jobs, like I would say like go ahead, allow them. And that's because I have a consistent line. This isn't a slippery slope. The line is, can you perform your duties? So you would let open white supremacists operate in the military? If an open, here's the thing. If an openly white supremacist, I'm attempting to explain to why this example doesn't meet the line that I've drawn, right? Because I'm consistent on this. The thing about openly white supremacists is to remember that I said that the two conditions here are that they can adequately perform their tasks without incurring great costs on the institution. In openly white supremacists, I find it very difficult to imagine that you would be able to be openly white supremacist in an institution like the military without incurring some great costs on it, right? I kind of think that that would affect unit cohesion. I think that that kind of might create some issues with other people in your unit and other your superiors and officers underneath you. Now, if by some, because we can play like imagined worlds, right? If we have an imaginary world where somebody is openly white supremacist and it has zero negative impacts on the military, then like, and they can perform their duties. Yeah, sure, fine. But like, I would challenge you to show me that, right? Very, you're training to be the next destiny here. That was a very destiny type of answer. I like that.  They can serve the functions of the military. They're good to join. If they can serve the functions of the military and they aren't having a negative impact on like anything else, it's probably fine. The thing that's important to remember here though is that we would want to consider though when it comes to letting certain ideologies like in is that like I said, these are our highest and most revered institutions and the image that they have trickles down on the rest of society.  You think that somehow had no negative impacts and like, sure, but I would think it would, right? You think that's like a widespread problem in our institutions is openly white supremacists?  Like most of these people are either not white supremacists or they're pretty closeted. Interesting.  I don't know. I didn't say if they're there, they're closeted. I don't know if they're rampant or not, but the point is they're not openly. It sounds like there's definitely much more of a a faction of the left that's pushing diversity, LGBTQIA plus issues leftism onto the public than there is vice versa. Or do you think- I'm not sure what that has to do with the trans people in the military. But I think that's actually a good seed issue. I think that that's actually an outgrowth of that. I think that as you see more of the left infiltrating the institutions of our academia and military journalism, you name it, you're going to see more of these hot, not hot, but issues, but you're going to see more promotional videos like from the army talking about how diversity is our greatest strength as far as our projection of power under the world goes. Sure. I'm not even necessarily sure how, like push your widespread, like this is with regards to military, we can play this, right? So if this is true, I'll bite the butt. Sure, this is true. There's leftist propaganda being pushed, or LGBTQ propaganda being pushed throughout society and the military. Demonstrate to me how this negatively impacts military readiness, unit cohesion, financial costs, like show me the negatives here. Do you know who, what's his name? The book, Bowling Alone. Nope. Robert Francis. Wait, I think I've heard of this. I don't think I've heard of this. You know what I mean? Bowling, hold on. Robert Putnam, sorry. Harvard Psych, Harvard sociologist. Bowling Alone, he details the downside of diversity in any given social setting. So basically he looked at America post 1965 Heart Cellar Act and he looked at how it negatively impacted civil engagement in America in the 80s through 2000s and communities that were most directly impacted by diversity, they didn't deteriorate or fall into the abyss or anything, but it really led to a total atomization of the individual that led to a lack of civil engagement, lack of voting, a little bit more crime in general, but as a whole diversity is not a strength. But when you have the army promoting on their Twitter account saying, we are devoting this entire day or this entire month to diversity, I'm telling you that that is a great example of leftism infecting our institutions or highest ones, like military. The military is there to protect us why the hell is diversity even on their radar?  Either it's A to appease the minority groups that are causing the most crime or B, it's to, I don't know what diversity decreases crime, you'd have to make some long wind argument about that. But what I'm saying is that when you're quoting the generals and saying, well, the general said that allowing transgender people to serve isn't a bad thing. It's like, well, those are the same generals that tell me that diversity makes our army stronger. When I can read plenty of books that tell me that diversity makes me weaker in my community and in any institution. And it's like your marriage, your relationship. This is frankly a Tucker Carlson example, but in your marriage or your relationship, do you get along better the less you have in common? No, you get along when you have a shared history and I promise you that most of the transgender people, granted, I will admit that they are enjoying the military but I really don't think that they've loved the founders. You mentioned the founders, you said that this is what they would have wanted. Do you think Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and James Madison thought that the hill to die on was allowing transgender people to serve in the military? You think that that's gonna be a good thing? All right, I have to stop you because there's like too many points are bringing up. I like to keep going, I'm gonna lose track of them. Oh God, I might have already, okay. So like the first thing, is diversity like this golden solution to all the problems? No, absolutely not, okay. Anybody acting like it is, is kidding themselves, right? However, it's entirely possible to have a net good thing that has bad aspects, right? It's also possible that diversity, depending on the context, is good or bad. There are situations where diversity is bad, there are situations where diversity is good. I wanna talk about the military. I don't know about these other situations you're talking about, because I didn't research for that because today it's about the military. For the military, we have like you said, generals, but also peer reviewed studies from policy think tanks that focus on matters of military and defense that are telling us that diversity has its uses, right? That it is an asset that can be leveraged if leveraged properly. So when you're saying, why is what does diversity have to do with our defense? Why is the military pushing diversity? Well, because they think it's useful, right? Unless you wanna go as far to say that the leftist like infiltration is so far that like all of these international policy think tanks and like all of these generals are all like compromised then like fine, okay? But like at that point you're engaging at a level of conspiracy that- Hold on, hold on, hold on. Wait, this is actually very important here.  Yeah. Aren't you inherently distrustful of powerful institutions? I mean, somewhat, yeah, sure. So then why am I the conspiracy theorist for saying that there is a power game in the military? So you understand the distrustful of powerful institutions does not necessarily mean that I must treat every distrustful institution or every institution as if it's like a conspiracy, right? So the only distrustful means that I'm skeptical? The only ones that you're right about are the ones that you ideologically agree with. So if you agree with the military on their trans issues then they're automatically right. But when I criticize the military for maybe having leftist agenda I'm a conspiracy theorist. No, what it means is that when I'm deciding whether or not to trust or distrust an entity there's a bar that I set. I set that bar just a little bit lower when it comes to like powerful institutions but the fact is the level of conspiracy that you're suggesting here like, dude, the entire military institution is like a piece of leftist propaganda. You know how many people in the variety of positions of power that have to be compromised that have to play the bar for empirical evidence to get me to believe this, to get me to distrust or to distrust. I could never distrust my military institutions. They tell me the facts. You sound like a boomer sitting on this recliner chair. I'm the one who's the skeptic. I'm the one who's distrustful of our powerful institutions. You're the one who takes what they tell you on CNN as fact and you just say, yeah, why would they lie to me? What am I, one of those Allen's filters? When I'm judging whether or not the military is lying to me I don't trust what's coming from, I don't trust as much the military itself as I do the third party verification of that, right? So I actually didn't cite a single damn thing in my opening from the United States military. Every single thing I cited was from a policy think tank, one which was located in the US, right? The brand corporation, another two of which actually were located in Europe. These are international, non-partisan institutions that are verifying what the US military is saying. You know what that means? And the best part is that 18 other nations militaries are cited in order to support my claims. I saw that, I read that.  It's all the global conspiracy? I think that people in chat actually see this dichotomy for what it is. And I'm not trying to be mean to you here. You sound like the brainwashed one. You're the one who's saying, why would 18 Western governments lie to me? I'm the citizen, I vote. Dude, you gotta wake up as, because I know the 18 governments are talking about, it's New Zealand, Australia, Israel. Most of NATO, I think let's transgender, because I read that from the RAN study. I looked at the RAN study before we started this. I read those 18 countries and those are all Western nations. None of them are a part of the BRICS nations. None of them are Brazil, Russia, India, China, or South Africa. They're not heterodox nations. They are a part of the Western Empire. Oh gee, why would the Western Empire stand up for global homo and neoliberalism? I don't know, it must just be a coincidence. You're laughing at me for questioning the power structure. When you are eating the power structure with a fork and knife, it's like, dude, I don't know how you're laughing at me here. I'm like, we're laughing at you. You're thinking that we're the crazy ones when we're like, man, it's kind of interesting that all these countries all stand up for the same thing and all hang the same rainbow slides outside of their embassies. Well, what must just be because they love us so much? Dude. Yeah, dude, like. Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that like the Western world was based on principles of like individual liberty and being able to pursue the life you wanna lead? Liberalism? People decide they want to lead a life serving their country that we let them do it. If you really wanna get into that issue, here's the thing. Yes, they did want liberalism. They wanted liberalism with strong borders and with no diversity. If you ask the Founding Fathers what they thought the demographic made a fortune today. And I'm not talking about what the Founding Fathers wanted. I'm talking about the principles that the Western world was built on, okay? The principles that us, the principles that the constitution, that are shining the constitution, like they have evolved right over time. I would argue that the set of principles that the current like liberal democratic like sphere relies upon are in evolution of, you know the Founding Fathers values, sure. But like they're certainly not the same. So I'm not talking about what Thomas Jefferson wanted. What are you talking about? These principles are the explanation you're looking for. They're much simpler and easier to believe explanation than the power structure is for some reason somehow maintaining a global conspiracy that like this is Occamization 101, right? Explanation you're providing me is increasingly more complicated with such a higher burden of proof as opposed to like dog, maybe these countries just believe that people should be able to do what they want. I think that's interesting. I think that you were basically you're highlighting and maybe we just maybe we just disagree here. I'm not a liberal and I don't even mean liberal in terms of like how boomers use it in terms of like liberal versus Republican. No, I don't mean that. I'm not a liberal in the in the sense that I don't think that humanity has this endless progression. I'm a conservative true like through and through. I think I don't think that there is endless human progress. I think that that comes through salvation. I don't think we need to get to progressivism through diversity or any kinds of these measures. I really think none of this is relevant. Well, well, but you're my argument, I think it's much more important. So what's happening right now is I have given you an explanation for the behavior that we're seeing from these institutions and these governance, right? The explanation I have given you is much easier to believe which with a much lower like a bar of execution, right? Then the explanation you're giving me, you're telling me that there is a global conspiracy of like leftist propaganda being upheld. Given all of the obstacles to that being pulled off, all the people involved, it is much harder to believe that than it is to believe the explanation I'm giving you. If you want to believe your explanation, that's fine. But I want to make it clear to like the audience and everybody watching that like that's what's happening right now is have a billion simpler, easier to believe explanations that like make a little bit more sense and have a little bit more evidence behind them versus this global conspiracy. And it makes it difficult for this debate to go on further because the only way to have like a reasonable sound debate is based off of empirical evidence. And if you're going to discount any empirical evidence that I bring forward because it comes from this global and conspiratorial institution, then I'm not really sure how we have a conversation. Sure, I think it's a shame that you think that it's a conspiracy that people in power would conspire to maintain and increase their wealth. Like I don't understand how that's conspiracy theory. It is incredibly dishonest framing. I'm not saying that it is beyond belief that people in power act conspiratorial. Sure, that happens all the time. Well, what else would you call it?  That the Western world finds it profitable to double down on neoliberalism. That the Western world in all of the institutions they're in are able to coordinate to such a degree that thousands of people are able to spread blatant misinformation without anybody whistleblowing. Well, that's what you're telling me right now. I don't know how you couldn't believe that. I'm sure you believe, yeah, I don't really see how it's easy to go forward here. I think I've laid out my case pretty well as far as why the Western world stands to gain from neoliberalism and the continuance of progressivism. It's very easy to see. Why else, again, and I hate coming back to this example, why else would the US military drape the rainbow flag on all of its embassies during Gay Pride Month? What does that gain, what strategic advantage does that gain us in Tehran, Iran, or in Seoul, South Korea? The strategic advantage in Seoul, but it does. It does, because when you look at American military action abroad throughout the majority of our history, but especially in the past 100-ish years, one of our, obviously, the multiple strategic goals. One of them, obviously, is the preservation of the nation and the preservation of American sovereignty. But fundamentally, one American goal that we have always had, and that most of our allies have had, is furthering ideas of liberal democracy. Because we believe this is the best way to live, and we know that the more countries on the global stage are liberal democracies, the better, the easier it is for all of us to live liberal democratic lives and to be able to do whatever we want. So then by that logic, you supported George Bush's foreign policy initiatives in the Middle East when he said, we're going to spread democracy to Iraq. If that's what George Bush actually did, and there was a plan for that, then I probably would support it. But that's not what happened. So George Bush's plan was going into it. George Bush's plan was going into Iraq, bombing the high lot of the country and walking away. It was all to spread democracy. It was all to spread democracy. So if that was his reasoning, you're for it, right? If he had a, if that was his reasoning. That's what it was. That was the mission statement behind the operation. And he had a plan to do so that multiple foreign policy experts looked at and said, yeah, this will allow us to effectively spread the global democracy in this region. Then absolutely I would support it. But that's not what happened. That's not what the plan was. There was no plan in Iraq. Go talk to sitting senators right now who have talked about that vote and said that there was never a plan from day one.  It's spreading the current worldview that is taking form in America. That's why I can ask you, Trenton, who when Bush was in office, I don't know how old you are, but when Bush was in office, you were probably like a pro-Kerry Democrat. But now 12 years later or 20 years later, you're actually pro-Bush because he spread- I'm pro-Bush. What about that? I just told you that Bush didn't have a policy operation. Neocon, neocon. He didn't, if he had a plan to do it. So if he had a better plan to institute homosexuality in Iraq, then you would have been for it. Absolutely, 100%. If George Bush walked in, walked out into the press conference with like 24 policy advisors behind him and said, listen guys, we're gonna do this plan. We're gonna put some boots on the ground in Iraq. And we're gonna get democracy.  It's gonna be awesome. Trans people will allow it to be trans and all the foreign policy experts are like, this'll work. Hell yeah, I did. That guy would have had my vote for sure. You should be pro-Iran then, or are you pro-Iran? No, Iran doesn't do anything for individual liberty. Iran has a higher transgender percentage of their population than we do in the US. They're 10% trans under there. What does that have anything to do with that? You should be super pro-Iran, then you should be pro-Ahmadina job. Do you know if it's stats on how those trans people are treated and how other people are treated too? Well, doesn't that give a little bit of credence to my argument against diversity? Do you wanna bring anti-LGBTQA plus people into the Western world? So generally speaking, my position when it comes to like that diversity is I like to take- There's all these paradoxes. I don't think that you've really thought about your role to be representing. It's pretty easy to understand, right? So the idea is, you know, contact theory. I actually brought this up in my opening speech, right? This is a pretty well-founded, well-understood concept in social sciences is you actually do wanna bring these people into Western democracies.  That's true, but if you bring enough people, but here's the hole in your argument.   Absolutely, but you're assuming a slippery slope that isn't there. Then what's your- We can talk about it and say, okay listen, you will only accept X amount of people from like Iran or something. If that's necessary, you would have to demonstrate to me that if you would have to demonstrate to me that, hey, Trenton, if we allow this level of immigration from Iran, then we're going to become a theocracy. If you can demonstrate to that to me, then I'll absolutely do all the work. It's the paradox of the handful of sand. At what point do you not have a handful of sand anymore? And you take away one grain of sand. It's like, what's the cutting point? What's the cutting off point? The cutting point is when you can demonstrate to me until I can show you a study from a leftist saying that, oh, actually it's a problem now. I didn't even care if it's a leftist as long as peer reviewed. That's what it usually comes up to. Can I ask you one question before we wrap up? Yeah, for sure, man. Do you totally out of curiosity, what's your background? Like what's your racial makeup? White, something European. I think there's German in there. A lot of Dutch, I don't know. I'm poor Dutch, I'm like half Dutch. Hey guys, I don't mean to jump in there, but we're gonna get to the super chats here in about 10 minutes-ish. If you guys want to conclude, wrap this up here, and that'd be great. Sure, just closing statement. Darren, wrap up real quick here. Listen, guys, I'll do a link of both again in chat for you guys. But the only way that you buy any of Jordan's arguments is if you believe in this global conspiracy, right? That's upheld by like hundreds of institutions around the world and like multiple countries, multiple militaries, many of which are barely allies, right? Like if you believe in the global conspiracy, then I'm sorry, I can't convince you like you are beyond the pale. For anybody who doubts that and maybe does like care about fact-based empirical evidence, there's just nothing of substance here on the negative side, right? The literature is abundant, trans people in the military has zero down on size, we incur next to no negative costs, and we achieve a lot, we get a lot out of it. So that's what I have to say on that. If anybody wants, and chat wants to talk more in depth about it, feel free to hop over to my stream after this and I can answer some questions that we can go into depth.  I don't have much to say. I think that it doesn't take a leap of faith to acknowledge that there is some type of conspiracy happening in the world as far as where we're headed right now. It doesn't take believing in flat earth or the moon landing not happening. I think it's actually pretty evident when you look at the trajectory that most institutions from media, academia, Hollywood, social media platforms, you can see the plot, you can see the direction they're all headed.  You see the worldview they have, you see where we're headed. And I think transgender in the military is just an offshoot of that. That's why I don't spend too much time thinking about that because yeah, that's the obvious conclusion once you get to the level where we're at, once we've normalized not knowing what your gender is to the point that 14 year olds are on Snapchat looking at stories talking about, well, I was nine and I thought I was a boy, but I'm a girl. We live in a sick society, need to return to God, return to church, go to confession, become Catholic ideally, probably Christian Catholics, some form of that. Let's get back to God, let's get back to traditionalism. Sub to me on YouTube, Twitter is JordanBVideos and I had a good time talking to you, man. Great discussion guys, it was very captivating and I'm sure the audience got a lot out of it. But now we're gonna go into super chats and some, a lot of them are remarks and they could be trolling just to warn you guys. It's okay. So yeah, we'll get into that. And what we'll do is we'll start, if it's aimed at the person, that person will end with the concluding statement on that question or remark. So is that, do you guys understand that or does that make sense? All right. The person that it's about responds last. Yeah, exactly. Okay, sounds good. Right? Is that right? Yep. So our first super chat is from Sunflower for $10. Thank you for your super chat, Sunflower. And he says, being left-handed or gay has been historically stigmatized. This doesn't mean every simple novel characteristic of integrity trait that arises and spreads in a society is the result of de-stigmatization. So I think that was either one of you guys. So I generally agree with him, right? But we have to understand why, right?  What that means is that when I'm deciding if a policy is good, I'm looking for rules that writ large work well. Yeah. So the rule that we're enshrining, right? With your hand comment or whatever, ostensibly is the rule that you are rejected from jobs that you cannot adequately fulfill, right? I don't think there's any problem with that rule, although to be fair, somebody who's only missing one hand probably could still do a lot. This is different from the trans argument, because when we're talking about trans people, the rule that we're enshrining is you cannot do this job because you're trans.  Because as I've demonstrated, they can perform their role. So it's all about what rule we're enshrining and whether or not that rule is good. Can you reread the question for me? Yeah, absolutely. So, some flyer says being left-handed or gay has been historically stigmatized. This doesn't mean every single novel characteristic or identity trait that arises and spread in a society is the result of destigmatization. Yeah, I think destigmatization and advocation, advocating for something are totally different. So whereas with left-handedness, maybe it was destigmatized and I have done a lot of reading because I am left-handed and what's the word? Sinister. The word sinister actually comes from the Latin word left-handed. So they're even built into the language of being left-handed. There's truth there that there was some stigmatization attached to it, but here's the thing. Ancient Rome didn't go about forcing everyone to be left-handed to make up for the stigmatization of previous oppression of left-handers from three generations ago. That's what we're doing right now. So what we're doing, in my opinion, is instead of just destigmatizing homosexuality or transgenders, we're actually making that the ideal thing, the preferred thing, and we're advocating for that and we're promoting it. No one's promoting left-handedness. They are promoting homosexuality and transgenderism. If you want a quick response, just go ahead, Trin, if you want to quickly respond to that. I guess I'll readjust the questions. I actually think I'm just interested.  My only argument was that when we talk about institutions that we all revere and they're very powerful and they're very high up in our society as far as the way that we treat them and think about them, that those institutions have a lot of power in determining stigma, right? Whether that's stigmatizing or de-stigmatizing, they have a lot of power. Obviously, like getting trans people unbanned from the military is not going to fix all trans stigma, right? But the argument is that it will, you know- What will, though? What will try? Probably like just de-stigmatizing as many institutions as possible plus time are the two things that do it, right?  So is it such an eye clip? Yeah, actually, yeah. If when people, generally speaking, when people aren't facing oppression and are pretty cool, like every turn they want to live. Why else? Let me ask you this really quick. Why do you think black people have a lower suicide rate than transgender people? I don't know. I'd have to look into it. Well, thank you for your, thank you for addressing those. It's just interesting to me that if oppression means, if oppression means higher suicide rates, I would think by your line of logic, black people should be the group killing themselves at the highest level, right? Maybe, there might be confounding variables. I have no idea. I haven't looked into it. I can't speak on things that I didn't interrupt for because I didn't realize you were talking about black people. Sorry, man. All right, so we'll get to the next super chat here. This one is from Gabriel Kay. And he says, we are all Americans. You seem like a weak muscle, weak-minded individual. Who am I to say you can't serve? Question mark. I don't know who that was. I'm trying to say you can't serve.  No, it's not really that. I'm not trying to overcompensate. I never claimed to be someone like Chad Tough Guy. I'm just saying I want our military to remain the strongest, most effectual force on the planet. And I don't think that we do it in any favors when we're trying to appease leftists all day. Yeah, I mean, I agree with Jordan that I want our military to also remain excuse me, remain the strongest, most effective force on the planet. One of the ways that we do that is by casting as wide a net as possible for recruits because we want to make sure that we're scouting everywhere we can. For the best and the brightest. And I would hate to find out that we missed out on some of the best and the brightest because there's a population of people that we just said we're not going to take for no like justify.  No. No. I don't think I made that argument today that I make that argument and forget about it. You're you're dim-soesh. You're dim-soesh. I'm socked damn. I don't even know what a dim-soesh is. Oh, OK. I'm pretty sure that's an opinion that's like exclusive to like online Twitter lefties, mate. So you're OK. So so yeah, we're going to get to the next super chat here. Well, OK, that's fun. All right, so it's just like you're standing up for this institution that's promoting things that you inherit that all sensibly, you don't agree with. I mean, here's the thing, right? Does the military do things I don't agree with? Absolutely. Right. But that's why more and more like been shipwrecked to the military. OK. All right. It's all good. I guess these questions, if you want. Yeah. All right. Or something. All right, so this is a super chat from Rodent. No last names for five dollars. Thank you. And for your contribution, he says or they say, if the point of the military is to kill people, how is that different than murder? I'm referring to. I don't think that was an attack on either of us. I think that's just a comment on the military as a whole. I guess so. So I will go ahead, John. Well, I would say that I'm not attacking the military as as existing. I'm pro force. I think politics needs to have some kind of behind it and some kind of structure, whether it be the police, the military. I don't think either of us are arguing for the abolishment of police or military. Correct. Yeah, I would. This is like just a personal conceptualization of the military. I'm not saying you have to think about it this way. I forget who asked that question, but I get at you. So like for me, I don't really think of the military as a institution that whose purpose is to kill. For me, the institution, the military's purpose is to be able to kill, right, because it is the capacity to enact violence that gives them power, not the violence itself. And I think of the military as a means of securing or maintaining like American sovereignty as well as securing or furthering like a liberal Democratic goals like around the world. Like it's one of the means it's becoming less and less relevant and effective at that as we move into a more globalized more diplomacy based world, but it still has its uses and it had its uses in the past. Gotcha. Thanks for your answer. I think there needs to be a military. I just I just think it's it's end game needs to be pointed in the right direction. And I don't think pointing it at global homo is the right direction. That's what I'll last thing I'll say. Gotcha. So this is our last super chat from clever to swear for five dollars. Thank you for your super chat. Jordan, this is attributed to you, Jordan. Jordan, you said you could entertain the idea for racially segregated units in the military on Twitter. Is this still the case now? Yes, only because I'm looking at the studies that were given to. I forgot the last war that the study pertained to. But. I want to say it was maybe the Korean War. It was basically the closest war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And they pulled the soldiers in the infantry back then.  So if there were a similar poll to come out now, I would be for it. It's not something that I would want to necessarily institute. But I do think that it would be interesting to see how that stat would play out now. And I'm actually very interested to see how the military would be in its current form in 2020 if we had listened to the soldiers back in 1961 or 1962, because that is what most of them trans-racially wanted was racially segregated units. And it's actually similar with public schools. Most black people were not for forced busing, actually. Which chapter asked that question? Can you read that name again? Clever to swear for five dollars. And in the question is directed at Jordan. And he says, you said that the entertained idea of racially segregated units in the military are on Twitter. Is this still the case now? Yeah. So, OK, so you said that the thing you looked at was from back near like Civil Rights Act, right? Yeah. So like when I'm thinking about this, without like off the cuff, without seeing any research or writing about it, my guess would be that the cure for doing this is that somebody in your chat, actually, in the modern day debates, I mentioned this earlier, and I think they kind of hit it pretty close to home, which is that the contact theory that I bring up to help like alleviate get rid of discrimination and whatnot through like people's sharing like spaces. So this works, but there is friction that occurs in that process, right? And depending on how severe the prejudice is, which back in Civil Rights era is pretty severe. I think we all agree on that. It might be that that friction just isn't worth it, right? The level of like problems we're going to have through integrated units is just not worth it right now. So what we're going to do is we're going to have segregated units while we work on the issue through other avenues, right? Attack it from other angles back home and hopefully better things such that then we can have like integrated units, right? And that's that's pretty much what happened. So I can't think of any reason why we would want to resegregate units in the now that seems. Well, that's why. Yeah, that's why I said that. I said I wouldn't I wouldn't resegregate. Yeah, I was more talking to the chatter, not you. I'm sorry. But yeah, I wouldn't go through the painstaking process of resegregating. I think that's a little bit of nuance when it comes to racial division in the country. I'm not necessarily saying inside of the police come through and separate people by race. What I'm saying is that people should be freely allowed to choose how they want to self separate if they so choose to do so. And I think increasingly what we're seeing is freedom of association for every racial group, except for white people. That's my take. Gotcha. And I think that could be maybe another debate for another day. But yeah. So this we're done with the Superchats now. We think everyone for the Superchats, we have one question from the Craw Daddy 29. So two parts, I guess it's more of a statement. The minority ruins it for them for the majority. White while though, sorry, not white, while those that are trans can serve because you can feel inside has nothing to do with your ability to off Charlie. That's what I thought he wrote. I don't I don't know what the second half that question has to do with the first because but if what you're saying is that you should be able to serve regardless of how you feel inside, I wholeheartedly agree. Yeah, I disagree because the 83 IQ person the 83 IQ person probably thinks that they're 100 IQ. So if we were to take your your worldview, Trenton. That 83 IQ person and I know that we're giving up now. We can insert the line edge earlier. I think I've made a position clear on where I double line on that. Well, that's it, everyone. So I had a good time, guys. Great discussion, great discussion.  Any good time?  I think I got my closing remarks earlier. Just follow the evidence. If you want the evidence, let me know. I can link it again, reject the conspiracy because you're just never going to be able to get anywhere if you can't trust any empirical evidence whatsoever. Sorry. Well, it was a good talk, Trenton. I think the.