LGBT in DragonBall

[floofychan333]

I really can't follow anything here so I'll just post my opinion on the topic.

Dragon Ball has been horrible in its portrayal of gay characters in the past, showing General Blue as a woman-hating pedophile (basically Milo Yiannopoulos but in the 80s) and Otokosuki as an embellished stereotype viewed as disgusting. Not good.
I think that an LGBT character could be redeeming for LGBT fans who have had to watch themselves be degraded in such a way, and though it's less likely that this will happen for LGBT people than for women (which it has with the female SSJs), I still think it is possible. Additionally, characters such as the Namekians and even Goku to some degree can be classified as asexual though I doubt Toriyama thinks that about them or had that in mind when he created them.
In short, I would strongly support an LGBT character in DB (and no, that REALLY isn't forcing the inclusion of minorities down your throat) but I will not complain incessantly about the lack of LBGT characters as some may.

[AgitoZ]

Oh, yeah. Let's just punish an entire group because less than half of them might not be able to pass a psychological exam. That sounds totally rational and logical. I mean, you know, we could actually screen individuals on an individual basis and determine their fitness to serve, but actually making sure soldiers are fit for their jobs seems like too much work. Better be sure by banning them all. Oh, but wait. People outside of the trans community suffer from mental illness too? Shouldn't we just ban everybody to be on the safe side?

People outside of the trans community do not want expensive procedures that take them out of duty and require constant check up. And even with said procedure still have a significantly high suicide rate and that's without factoring the suicide rate for veterans.

You can have a problem with the policy change but there's no reason to be disingenuous.

[Doctor.]

Let's just punish an entire group because less than half of them might not be able to pass a psychological exam.

None of them would even pass a psychological exam if they were rigorous enough since they all suffer from gender dysphoria, a categorized mental illness with serious symptoms that can definitely hinder combat effectiveness.

People outside of the trans community suffer from mental illness too? Shouldn't we just ban everybody to be on the safe side?

People who are trans don't coincidentally suffer from gender dysphoria, they're trans because they suffer from gender dysphoria. You wouldn't allow a schizophrenic to even take a psych exam to begin with, you already know he's a liability based on the group he belongs to.

[Zephyr]

It's not like we're too far from it.

People are still treated fundamentally differently in society on the basis of things that have no bearing on their fundamental nature as human beings (see: gender asymmetry). Retributive justice is still a thing. Consumerism and other forms of religion are still abused for mass control. Human society still very strongly stimulates needless violence. Corporate interests continue to take priority over the well being of future generations of humanity. The list goes on.

I'm not sure how it looks in that pile of sand you've buried your head in, but no, in the real world, we're still far from the finish line that is "actually respecting human dignity". We're far enough away from it that we ourselves are never likely to see that finish line, nor are our children, or our children's children.

[snpaa]

"As long as we're not dead last when it comes to respecting human dignity, then we're doing good enough!"

Not sure why any bar needs to be that low for anything.

We're literally first place.

Well when the US president makes statements like this, then wherever being first place or not is irrelevant.

/

Hormone therapy is quite expensive I could easily understand why the army wouldn't want to fit the bill , I can see the logic in baring a fringe demographic that's most likely less than 1 percent of the population. Explain to me how this implies we are not number 1 on lgbt rights?

[Zephyr]

Well when the US president makes statements like this, then wherever being first place or not is irrelevant.

40% of them are suicidal. The military needs people who are reliable and efficient, they don't even let people with clinical depression in. It's not like he's sending them to death camps, he's not even saying they can't be public servants, but the military is a dangerous place to have people who are overwhelmingly statistically unstable.

You're missing the point, and speaking as if that means we've already crossed the finish line. Just because we're leading the pack doesn't mean we ourselves don't still have a great deal of ground to cover. We might be the best compared to the competition, but that doesn't mean we're as good as we need to be.

We have crossed the finish line. Name me an injustice that's within the government's purview to fix, and exists for the purpose of unfair discrimination, not practical safeguards.

It is 100% unfair discrimination. It's preemptively lumping the perfectly fit 60% (fun fact, that translates to over half) in with the unfit 40%. It's practical to bar people unfit to serve from serving on an individual basis. Barring people who are unfit to serve on an individual basis would entail barring that 40% from serving, without making needless blanket generalizations. Blanket generalizations like that are intellectually lazy, and devalue individual merit and character. So much for individual human dignity.

I can't believe that actually had to be spelled out.

[Gaffer Tape]

People outside of the trans community do not want expensive procedures that take them out of duty and require constant check up. And even with said procedure still have a significantly high suicide rate and that's without factoring the suicide rate for veterans.

You can have a problem with the policy change but there's no reason to be disingenuous.

I'm pretty sure other groups of people and individuals have medical issues that can and do require major surgery. It's disingenuous to punish one specific group of people for that while turning a blind eye to others who do. Also, not all trans people undergo reassignment surgery. To them, this claim is not even relevant. If they can do their job, they should be allowed to serve. Period. If there are medical issues, issues with leave, that can be handled on a case-by-case basis as it would with any other person. There is nothing rational about this. This is Trump pandering to his bigoted base.

None of them would even pass a psychological exam if they were rigorous enough since they all suffer from gender dysphoria, a categorized mental illness with serious symptoms that can definitely hinder combat effectiveness.

People who are trans don't coincidentally suffer from gender dysphoria, they're trans because they suffer from gender dysphoria. You wouldn't allow a schizophrenic to even take a psych exam to begin with, you already know he's a liability based on the group he belongs to.

Tell that to the all the openly trans people who are currently serving in the military. Did all of them, every single one of them, overnight, just lose their ability to do their jobs? If not, I don't see how this can be taken as anything other than discrimination. If a person can do the job, if a person successfully does the job, there is no legitimate rationale in keeping them from doing it. None.

[Doctor.]

People are still treated fundamentally differently in society on the basis of things that have no bearing on their fundamental nature as human beings (see: gender asymmetry).

This doesn't happen at a large scale, it's limited to individuals. People aren't treated differently by "society" based on their gender, they're treated differently based on their gender (when they are, as in, very rarely) by certain people, too small a number to be used as an argument.

Retributive justice is still a thing. Consumerism and other forms of religion are still abused for mass control. Human society still very strongly stimulates needless violence. The list goes on.

And none of this is inherently wrong. And what constitutes as "needless" violence and whether or not society "strongly stimulates" it is very debatable.

Corporate interests continue to take priority over the well being of future generations of humanity.

Is this communist propaganda?

I'm not sure how it looks in that pile of sand you've buried your head in, but no, in the real world, we're still far from the finish line that is "actually respecting human dignity". We're far enough away from it that we ourselves are never likely to see that finish line, nor are our children, or our children's children.

Unless you think "respecting human dignity" is the same as "neutering society to accommodate for any possible struggle someone may have in life," then and only then are you right.

Tell that to the all the openly trans people who are currently serving in the military. Did all of them, every single one of them, overnight, just lose their ability to do their jobs? If not, I don't see how this can be taken as anything other than discrimination. If a person can do the job, if a person successfully does the job, there is no legitimate rationale in keeping them from doing it. None.

I'll have to check for statistics, but that doesn't really mean anything. Just because they have managed to do their job so far doesn't negate the fact that the risk of failure for them is higher than everyone else who doesn't suffer from a mental illness. A person who suffers from depression can work a 9-to-5 job just like everyone else, it doesn't mean the chance he may kill himself one morning is any less real.

Keeping transgender folk (or any soldier suffering from a major mental illness) in the military is like sticking a time-bomb to yourself. The military is a place only for the most physically and mentally apt individuals, gender dysphoria is usually paired with depression and anxiety; I have not met one trans person in my long history of dealing with the LGBT community that didn't have some kind of major mental issue.

[Gaffer Tape]

I'll have to check for statistics, but that doesn't really mean anything. Just because they have managed to do their job so far doesn't negate the fact that the risk of failure for them is higher than everyone else who doesn't suffer from a mental illness. A person who suffers from depression can work a 9-to-5 job just like everyone else, it doesn't mean the chance he may kill himself one morning is any less real.

Keeping transgender folk (or any soldier suffering from a major mental illness) in the military is like sticking a time-bomb to yourself. The military is a place for the most physically and mentally apt individuals.

Let me get this straight. Clearly the people who are currently in the military passed all the pre-requisites to be in the military. But because there is a potential some of them might harm themselves at some nebulous point in the future, every single one of them should be banned?

Hey, you know. I read some statistic somewhere that black people are more likely to commit violent crimes, so I don't want any black people around me anymore because clearly every one of them could be a ticking time bomb. I think we should have separate water fountains.

[ABED]

Keeping transgender folk (or any soldier suffering from a major mental illness) in the military is like sticking a time-bomb to yourself. The military is a place only for the most physically and mentally apt individuals, gender dysphoria is usually paired with depression and anxiety; I have not met one trans person in my long history of dealing with the LGBT community that didn't have some kind of major mental issue.

But that's an individual issue. You can't decide who is and isn't mentally ill purely on statistics. If a transgender person can pass a mental and physical exam then why not allow them to serve?

[Doctor.]

Let me get this straight. Clearly the people who are currently in the military passed all the pre-requisites to be in the military. But because there is a potential some of them might harm themselves at some nebulous point in the future, every single one of them should be banned?

Again,

None of them would even pass a psychological exam if they were rigorous enough since they all suffer from gender dysphoria, a categorized mental illness with serious symptoms that can definitely hinder combat effectiveness.

Hey, you know. I read some statistic somewhere that black people are more likely to commit violent crimes, so I don't want any black people around me anymore because clearly every one of them could be a ticking time bomb. I think we should have separate water fountains.

Not all black people suffer from mental illness, this isn't comparable in the slightest.

But that's an individual issue. You can't decide who is and isn't mentally ill purely on statistics. If a transgender person can pass a mental and physical exam then why not allow them to serve?

They don't even allow people with major depression in. You guys are acting like trans folk are an ethnic or gender group, they're not. They're mentally ill, their group is bound together by their mental illness just like autistic people are one group and schizophrenic people are another and depressed people are one more. They're unfit for effective combat just like every other person who is mentally ill.

[AgitoZ]

It is 100% unfair discrimination. It's preemptively lumping the perfectly fit 60% (fun fact, that translates to over half) in with the unfit 40%. It's practical to bar people unfit to serve from serving on an individual basis. Barring people who are unfit to serve on an individual basis would entail barring that 40% from serving, without making needless blanket generalizations.

I can't believe that actually had to be spelled out.

It's not so much about the suicide rates, which is still incredibly high (and remember about 40 percent is the post operation number), it's about the cost of maintaining transgender soldiers. Once you have the expensive surgery, they still have to continue taking hormones and constantly taking evaluation tests. There are perfectly understandable reasons to this.

I'm pretty sure other groups of people and individuals have medical issues that can and do require major surgery. It's disingenuous to punish one specific group of people for that while turning a blind eye to others who do. Also, not all trans people undergo reassignment surgery. To them, this claim is not even relevant. If they can do their job, they should be allowed to serve. Period. If there are medical issues, issues with leave, that can be handled on a case-by-case basis as it would with any other person. There is nothing rational about this. This is Trump pandering to his bigoted base.

There is plenty of rationale as to why you can do this. To call it bigoted is a gigantic leap in logic. Transgendered people who want transition are, as far as I know, the only group that is given and payed medical treatment for reasons outside of military work.

And if you want to allow people who identify as transgendered but don't transition you'll just have people complaining that it's bigoted to not allow them to do that.

But that's an individual issue. You can't decide who is and isn't mentally ill purely on statistics. If a transgender person can pass a mental and physical exam then why not allow them to serve?

Because it's a liability. It's cold and it's heartless, but that's what statistics are.

Ultimately, I'm still not sure what any of this has to do with Dragon Ball. Having a transgender character in the franchise would not change any of this. In particular, this policy change which affects such a small number of people that it's almost negligible.

Also,

Hey, you know. I read some statistic somewhere that black people are more likely to commit violent crimes, so I don't want any black people around me anymore because clearly every one of them could be a ticking time bomb. I think we should have separate water fountains.

This is a really annoying way to talk with people. Stop being disingenuous and stop twisting people's words. Debate people on the merits of their actual arguments.

[Akyon]

So how about them gay Dragonball characters?

What's the general consensus on Kale? Lesbian? Straight/asexual with a big sis worship angle?

[Makaioshin]

Hello, male who loves fictional girls speaking:

I can see everyone right now is talking about supposed discrimination in the army and I just want to express my thoughts on them in a concise manner. The idea that we should insert alternative identities sexualities into the US Armed Forces is quite frankly ridiculous to say the least. Pardon my bluntness but I feel as though someone has to speak out here and say it is because of the increasingly retarded victim culture the west. It might just be due to my moral inclinations (I'm more a traditionalist) but I don't like the injection of this lifestyle choice in everything especially in something aimed towards the youth. I don't know if you guys are familiar with the rates but...the military kills people. With their hands. I don't know about you guys...but these guys? Not my kind of guys. Not the ideal sort of guys. Hell, there are even quotas in place that have corporations hire these guys whether they're qualified or not (they are not). I do not support the troops. I do not like this culture of sensitivity that says we should.

[Gaffer Tape]

None of them would even pass a psychological exam

But. They. Did. Obviously they did, or they wouldn't be there. But I'm sure your rigorous psychological examinations know better than the doctors employed by the U.S. Military.

You do realize that, until fairly recently, homosexuality was considered a mental illness too, right? So are we all in favor of pushing the clock back to pre-Don't Ask, Don't Tell and booting all of them out too? Or is it okay now because a book changed its mind? Does that mean it's retroactively okay, and it was always wrong to keep gay people from openly serving? Or does it mean that something about homosexuality has magically changed, and only now are these 21st-century neo-gays fit for active duty? I mean, geez, we're still fighting over whether or not all biological women should be allowed to serve in active combat duty. Is every single woman suffering from mental illness too? Female hysteria?

[ABED]

Because it's a liability. It's cold and it's heartless, but that's what statistics are.

No, that's what your conclusion of those statistics are. Stats can only give you the numbers, the conclusions you draw from them are your own.

So how about them gay Dragonball characters?

Blue's funny, but not because he's gay. Rather, he's funny because he doesn't bat an eye at murdering people, but picking your nose and rats bother him. It amuses me. His attraction to the robot who looked like a young boy is off-putting.

[Gaffer Tape]

This is a really annoying way to talk with people. Stop being disingenuous and stop twisting people's words. Debate people on the merits of their actual arguments.

I really don't care if you're annoyed. I don't care if the best argument you can pull out is that I'm somehow being disingenuous. I'm not doing this to get a rise out of you. I feel it's a completely valid comparison to make. If you disagree, maybe you should try debating the merits of my actual argument rather than making up claims that I'm somehow "twisting people's words."

[Doctor.]

But. They. Did. Obviously they did, or they wouldn't be there. But I'm sure your rigorous psychological examinations know better than the doctors employed by the U.S. Military.

You do know the U.S. Military has a reputation for letting everyone in, right? Most militaries do, in fact, I won't deny that. Plus, it's not like they can refuse someone on the grounds of being trans, no matter how justified that decision is, without some kind of ridiculous unnecessary backlash online; the fact that this rational decision is getting so much hate proves it.

You do realize that, until fairly recently, homosexuality was considered a mental illness too, right? So are we all in favor of pushing the clock back to pre-Don't Ask, Don't Tell and booting all of them out too? Or is it okay now because a book changed its mind? Does that mean it's retroactively okay, and it was always wrong to keep gay people from openly serving? Or does it mean that something about homosexuality has magically changed, and only now are these 21st-century neo-gays fit for active duty? I mean, geez, we're still fighting over whether or not all biological women should be allowed to serve in active combat duty. Is every single woman suffering from mental illness too? Female hysteria?

The reason for women not being allowed to serve has to do with their weaker bodies not being as effective as men in front-line infantry positions, this has been tested repeatedly. Whatever "discrimination" you perceive usually has a rational reason behind it, it's not to keep the minorities down.

Do you really want to go down this slippery slope? We can accept transgender as a normal condition sometime in the future, but I can easily make the argument that one day people will accept pedophilia as a normal condition as well (because pedophilia, in fact, only entails a sexual attraction to children, pedophiles don't necessarily act on it). Does this mean we should start accepting it and celebrating it now as something positive that people should be proud of? You can't predict the future, you don't know what's going to happen. Gender dysphoria is right now treated as a mental illness and rightfully so.

Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness because the "condition" itself never caused any harm to the person that identified as gay or bi (they only suffer harm from outside sources), transgender folk are inherently stressed out from their condition due to the fact that they don't feel comfortable in their own body, apples and oranges. You keep trying to compare things that are not comparable. LGB struggles and T struggles were never the same.

[Gaffer Tape]

Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness because the "condition" itself never caused any harm to the person that identified as gay or bi, transgender folk are inherently stressed out from their condition, apples and oranges. You keep trying to compare things that are not comparable. LGB and T struggles were never the same.

Have you ever actually met a transgendered person? Or a homosexual, for that matter? There isn't some magic condition with trans people that makes them naturally more depressed than other people. It's because they face the same kinds of discrimination, hatred, and sometimes mortal peril that homosexuals have traditionally faced. I am not so arrogant to presume to know what your own personal struggles are, but if you have never had to worry every minute of every day about losing your job, losing your kids, losing your friends, losing your home, or losing your LIFE over who you are, then count yourself luckier than most transgendered people. Depression and risk of suicide in transgendered people comes from the constant barrage of messages like the one the POTUS just sent out declaring that they are not good enough. They are told every day that they are not good enough. That they are not worthy. That they do not fit into the confines of society. Try living with that and see if depression doesn't come visiting you.

And just in case you think this is where I'm going with this, I'm not saying those who fit into that category of depression and suicide should get a free pass into the military just because I feel society has wronged them. I'm saying that depression is not an inherent part of the transgendered experience, and those who don't have those issues and those who have overcome those issues, have no reason to not be able to serve.

The reason for women not being allowed to serve has to do with their weaker bodies not being as effective as men in front-line infantry positions, this has been tested repeatedly. Whatever "discrimination" you perceive usually has a rational reason behind it, it's not to keep the minorities down.

And yet there are women who have made it into the Navy Seals. Women in general have weaker bodies than men. Again, you can't paint that broad of a brush. There are stringent physical tests to get there. If any woman can do it, then what difference does it make? Don't lower the bar to make it easier for women (or anyone else) to get in. Let their merits speak for themselves. How is that not logical? Those women who are proven to be physically capable? Let them in. Those transgendered people who have likewise proven themselves capable? Let them in. Those who have proven to not be capable? By all means, flush them out. But it has to be done on a case-by-case basis. Otherwise, it is discrimination.

[ABED]

There isn't some magic condition with trans people that makes them naturally more depressed than other people.

Their psychological state isn't a simply matter of discrimination. That's more than a tad reductive. They believe their gender is different than the sex they were born as. That is an inherent psychological issue.

If it sounds like I'm abivalent on this issue, I'm not. I simply think both sides are missing something.