#whenever someone brings up male privilege when talking about trans people i want to fucking scream

[genderqueerdykes]

someone brought up the concept of going stealth in a trans server and it made me kind of realize a thing I never see people talk about when the concept of ‘stealth privilege’ (not scare quotes just quotes) is mentioned. maybe it is mentioned but i’ve never seen it

I’m nonbinary/multigender. I can’t fucking DO stealth. I’d have to shove myself into the closet and present as a cis [my agab] or transition to looking like a cis [not my agab] (like i have the money for that (i don’t)). The closest I get to that is not mentioning my gender online IDK it just really hit me that if shit hit the fan a lot of nonbinary people would have to suck it up and present as a gender they don’t identify as. And y’know obviously in a case where i’d have to recloset myself or where other nbies would have to, I’d/we’d have way bigger worries than gender presentation and dysphoria but i never really thought about the fact that I don’t have the option to transition and then go stealth mode as someone who wants a very gender-fuck presentation

There isn’t really a point to this it just made me think more about the stuff you always talk about like how multigender people are consistently excluded from trans conversations.

(ALSO YES THERE’S ALL THE OTHER STUFF ABT STEALTH PRIVILEGE LIKE HOW GROUPS OF PEOPLE CANNOT TRANSITION OR STILL WOULDN’T BE SAFE IF GOING STEALTH, ETC ETC. THERE’S ALSO A LOT OF TRANS PEOPLE WHO COULDN’T GO STEALTH AND WOULD HAVE TO RECLOSET IN A SCENARIO WHERE YOU’D NEED TO PRETEND TO BE CIS. NOT IGNORING THAT. JUST. NOT THE POINT I’M BRINGING UP)

it's a tough conversation and while it's good that some people can go stealth, even if it's painful, even if it is presenting as the wrong gender, other trans people struggle to find ways to do that in the first place. some people can fit into the narrow male-female binary and pass as a cisgender person of gender they don't identify as for safety reasons and while it's horrible, it's good to have that there

i can't go stealth, either, it's impossible for me. i'm either gendered as a genderqueer cis guy (everyone in my neighbor thinks i'm a cis man, whenever i bring up that i'm trans theyre shocked). people dont ignore my feminine clothes or make my makeup either. ive tried to pass as a cishet "normal" looking man for a long time and while most strangers in passing didnt catch on a lot of people in my life gave me shit for it

im misgendered constantly, im sexualized for my hips and ass, but people are threatened by my beard and deep voice. i can't pass as a cis woman because of that, or how big and bulky and hairy my body is. but yet when people find out i have a uterus, i'm being constantly gendered as a straight woman instead of being recognized as a gay trans man

i can't even pass as a cis butch lesbian anymore. i'm genderfucked, like you said. there's nothing left to pass as

i don't know how to present in order to look "normal" anymore. i'm intersex. i have literally never been able to figure this out. my body is too masculine for womens clothes, too feminine for mens clothes. im androgynous, a hermaphrodite, theres nothing i can do to stop making people question my gender when they see me.

nobody should have to go stealth but some queer people literally can't, you're right. i think often about how the hell i'm supposed to unqueer myself for "Serious" situations. i can't figure it out

[forsetti]

On Defending Misogyny: Ross Douthat Edition

Ross Douthat’s latest nonsense in the New York Times is quite the pile of crap, even when compared to other piles of crap written by Douthat.  Here is my take on the article (Douthat’s article in bold.) One lesson to be drawn from recent Western history might be this: Sometimes the extremists and radicals and weirdos see the world more clearly than the respectable and moderate and sane. All kinds of phenomena, starting as far back as the Iraq War and the crisis of the euro but accelerating in the age of populism, have made more sense in the light of analysis by reactionaries and radicals than as portrayed in the organs of establishment opinion. Not one single person with an ounce of credibility thinks that extremists and radicals and weirdos see the world clearly because SEEING THE WORLD CLEARLY IS ANTITHETICAL TO BEING AN EXTREMISTS, RADICAL, OR WEIRDO.  The ONLY way Douthat's statement makes any sense is if he thinks people with enough common sense to know invading Iraq on bogus reasons with zero plan on what to do after the initial invasion was a fucking horrible idea, were extremist, radical, weirdo.

This is part of why there’s been so much recent agitation over universities and op-ed pages and other forums for debate. There’s a general understanding that the ideological mainstream isn’t adequate to the moment, but nobody can decide whether that means we need purges or pluralism, a spirit of curiosity and conversation or a furious war against whichever side you think is evil.

For those more curious than martial, one useful path through this thicket is to look at areas where extremists and eccentrics from very different worlds are talking about the same subject. Such overlap is no guarantee of wisdom, but it’s often a sign that there’s something interesting going on.

A classic Douthat move-lay out a completely bogus claim right out of the block and then construct a whole argument on top of it.

Which brings me to the sex robots. People having opinions about the Iraq war and the European Union logically leads us to sex robots because of course it fucking does.

Well, actually, first it brings me to the case of Robin Hanson, a George Mason economist, libertarian and noted brilliant weirdo. Commenting on the recent terrorist violence in Toronto, in which a self-identified “incel” — that is, involuntary celibate — man sought retribution against women and society for denying him the fornication he felt that he deserved, Hanson offered this provocation: If we are concerned about the just distribution of property and money, why do we assume that the desire for some sort of sexual redistribution is inherently ridiculous?

If you use “libertarian,” you don't get to follow it up with “brilliant.” Never....fucking ever.  As crazy as that juxtaposition of terms is the casual acceptance by Douthat of what “incel” means is even more disturbing.  The idea that women in society have to have sex with men is repulsive on every level.  That someone gives voice to this notion and give it its own term is fucked up beyond reason. Sorry men, women are not here for you to have sex with.  Here's a thought, if men want to have sex with women, then maybe, just maybe, they should behave in ways that women deem appropriate enough to where they will give up their bodies willingly to them.  Anything short of this is misogyny at the least and rape a the most. After all, he wrote, “one might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met.” Let me de-fuckify this statement because it is a Ceasar's Word Salad of nonsense.  “Men who don't get as much sex as they want, think they deserve, need to band together to find ways, even through violence, to get women to fuck them against their wills.”

This argument was not well received by people closer to the mainstream than Professor Hanson, to put it mildly. A representative response from Slate’s Jordan Weissmann, “Is Robin Hanson the Creepiest Economist in America?”, cited the post along with some previous creepy forays to dismiss Hanson as a misogynist weirdo not that far removed from the franker misogyny of toxic online males.

I can't understand why the “mainstream” would find the unionization of violent, horny men hell-bent on making women their sexual subjects offensive.  But, see what Douthat has done.  He has already constructed his argument where the mainstream is the ones who don't “see the world clearly.”  Since the mainstream has been pigeon-holed as not seeing reality for what it really is, then it logically follows for Douthat that their view cannot be correct.

But Hanson’s post made me immediately think of a recent essay in The London Review of Books by Amia Srinivasan, “Does Anyone Have the Right To Sex?” Srinivasan, an Oxford philosophy professor, covered similar ground (starting with an earlier “incel” killer) but expanded the argument well beyond the realm of male chauvinists to consider groups with whom The London Review’s left-leaning and feminist readers would have more natural sympathy — the overweight and disabled, minority groups treated as unattractive by the majority, trans women unable to find partners and other victims, in her narrative, of a society that still makes us prisoners of patriarchal and also racist-sexist-homophobic rules of sexual desire.

There is a lot to unpack here.  First, Douthat uses a philosopher, in order to bolster the credibility of his argument.  As someone with two degrees in philosophy, I can tell you that there are a lot of batshit crazy people with philosophy degrees who throw out outlandish arguments for no other reason than to be controversial and get their shit published in order to placate the Publish or Perish Gods. Second, having sympathy for how a culture views and treats groups outside the accepted norms like “overweight,” “trans,” “disabled,”... who have a difficult time having sex for a host of reasons is, to quote Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction, “...ain't the same fucking ballpark. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same fucking sport.” Third, Douthat, a devout Catholic who has carried water for the patriarchy, for misogynists, for homophobes...for years now doesn't get to pretend he is worried about the very structure he helped build.

Srinivasan ultimately answered her title question in the negative: “There is no entitlement to sex, and everyone is entitled to want what they want.” But her negative answer was a qualified one. While “no one has a right to be desired,” at the same time “who is desired and who isn’t is a political question,” which left-wing and feminist politics might help society answer differently someday. This wouldn’t instantiate a formal right to sex, exactly, but if the new order worked as its revolutionary architects intended, sex would be more justly distributed than it is today.

Not only did Douthat use a philosopher to bolster his argument, he completely misused their words in order to do so.  Notice how he uses Srinivasan's comment, “who is desired and who isn't is a political question,” and dovetails his own comment “which left-wing and feminist politics might help society answer differently someday,” as if they were one and the same statement.  Every culture has their own ideas of what is/isn't sexually desirable.  It has nothing to do with “left-wing” or “feminist” politics.  Some cultures sexually value heavier companions, those with smaller feet, those with longer necks, those with fairer skin...  We can argue the rationality of all of these but none of them are based on leftist or feminist beliefs.  In fact, left-leaning and feminists would argue the fuck against these arbitrary sexual values.

A number of the critics I saw engaging with Srinivasan’s essay tended to respond the way a normal center-left writer like Weissmann engaged with Hanson’s thought experiment — by commenting on its weirdness or ideological extremity rather than engaging fully with its substance. But to me, reading Hanson and Srinivasan together offers a good case study in how intellectual eccentrics — like socialists and populists in politics — can surface issues and problems that lurk beneath the surface of more mainstream debates.

By this I mean that as offensive or utopian the redistribution of sex might sound, the idea is entirely responsive to the logic of late-modern sexual life, and its pursuit would be entirely characteristic of a recurring pattern in liberal societies.

Shorter Douthat: “Smart people reacting honestly to the arguments of a libertarian nut job don't know what the fuck they are doing but I, a dyed-in-the-wool social conservative does because of some magical reason that is never explained.”  If you think placating angry, resentful, horny men is the way to utopia, I'm pretty sure you are either stupid as fuck and/or just about the most intellectually dishonest person I've ever read.

First, because like other forms of neoliberal deregulation the sexual revolution created new winners and losers, new hierarchies to replace the old ones, privileging the beautiful and rich and socially adept in new ways and relegating others to new forms of loneliness and frustration. Douthat's use of “neoliberal” was done on purpose and as meaningless as the term itself.  What Douthat really means by this statement is, “In the past, men could do whatever the fuck they wanted to women, whenever they wanted and women had to take it because that is the fucking way it was.  Now men can't do this and they are having a sad about it so we need to blame the women and those who support them instead of the fuck wad misogynists who were morally wrong 50, 100, 200... years ago for their behaviors.”

Second, because in this new landscape, and amid other economic and technological transformations, the sexes seem to be struggling generally to relate to one another, with social and political chasms opening between them and not only marriage and family but also sexual activity itself in recent decline.

“The sexes seem to be struggling generally to relate to one another, with social and political chasms opening up between them.”  Holy Both-Fucking-Siderism!  NO!!!  The “sexes” are not having a problem.  MEN caught up in an archaic belief system are having a problem-a big fucking problem.  Douthat doesn't get to lay the responsibility and consequences of men not adapting to women's rights on the doorstep of women.

Third, because the culture’s dominant message about sex is still essentially Hefnerian, despite certain revisions attempted by feminists since the heyday of the Playboy philosophy — a message that frequency and variety in sexual experience is as close to a summum bonum as the human condition has to offer, that the greatest possible diversity in sexual desires and tastes and identities should be not only accepted but cultivated, and that virginity and celibacy are at best strange and at worst pitiable states. And this master narrative, inevitably, makes both the new inequalities and the decline of actual relationships that much more difficult to bear …which in turn encourages people, as ever under modernity, to place their hope for escape from the costs of one revolution in a further one yet to come, be it political, social or technological, which will supply if not the promised utopia at least some form of redress for the many people that progress has obviously left behind.

There is an alternative, conservative response, of course — namely, that our widespread isolation and unhappiness and sterility might be dealt with by reviving or adapting older ideas about the virtues of monogamy and chastity and permanence and the special respect owed to the celibate.

So let me get this straight, the problem with sex in America is because of feminists and leftists but, “ the culture’s dominant message about sex is still essentially Hefnerian.”?  I've never known a single feminist or leftist who was not only okay with the views and attitudes about sex espoused by Hugh Hefner but who used them as the basis of their sexual ethics.   In fact, it has been the direct opposite.   Douthat's view of feminism and left-leaning is comical and beyond conservative stereotyping.  

But this is not the natural response for a society like ours. Instead we tend to look for fixes that seem to build on previous revolutions, rather than reverse them.

In the case of sexual liberation and its discontents, that’s unlikely to mean the kind of thoroughgoingly utopian reimagining of sexual desire that writers like Srinivasan think we should aspire toward, or anything quite so formal as the pro-redistribution political lobby of Hanson’s thought experiment.

By defacto argument, the sexual revolution was bad so men trying to come to terms with how to really treat women as equals would be a misguided approach to the problem.  We need to go back in time to when women had limited rights and almost none with regard to their bodies, their sexuality, and start from there in order to build a more perfect union where men get to get laid when they want by whomever they want.

But I expect the logic of commerce and technology will be consciously harnessed, as already in pornography, to address the unhappiness of incels, be they angry and dangerous or simply depressed and despairing. The left’s increasing zeal to transform prostitution into legalized and regulated “sex work” will have this end implicitly in mind, the libertarian (and general male) fascination with virtual-reality porn and sex robotswill increase as those technologies improve — and at a certain point, without anyone formally debating the idea of a right to sex, right-thinking people will simply come to agree that some such right exists, and that it makes sense to look to some combination of changed laws, new technologies and evolved mores to fulfill it.

Whether sex workers and sex robots can actually deliver real fulfillment is another matter. But that they will eventually be asked to do it, in service to a redistributive goal that for now still seems creepy or misogynist or radical, feels pretty much inevitable.

So, for Douthat, the need to address and placate incels is important but we shouldn't do it with legalizing prostitution or other means.  What Douthat is really saying is, “If men cannot dominate and be in control of women, then any sexual solution won't be acceptable.  Not legalized prostitution. Not sex robots.  Nothing short of actual, real women being subservient to men will do.”

At no point in this entire article by Douthat are men held responsible for their beliefs, for their actions.  NOT ONE SINGLE FUCKING TIME! “Feminists” and “left-leaning” people are the real reason behind backward thinking, immoral. egotistical men for behaving the way they do towards women. GTFOH!

[johannepetereric]

More is that Silas keeps a phone around to keep in contact with the family. Kris gave him permission to time-out (or cancel) a Bey Battle to answer it. A different ringtone is set for each parent. Running home to take care of their health is more important than Beyblade atm. Such as Kyoya falling to a seizure.

A routine is that Silas knocks first, then announces the names of himself and whomever is with him. He waits for someone to answer the never, never to barge in himself. The ones with him are forced to keep quiet. Because Boundaries.

Kyoya has lingering Mental Health Issues and is often Out of It, hallucinating, sleeping over 12-16 hours a day, and disconnecting from reality. He refuses to see a therapist, but Loving Family and No Abuses works out good enough. He is not an Absent Parent. He is not forced into anything by anyone, he can Beyblade whenever he wants, his son relies on him, people are gentle and caring to him (unlike Ryuga), and Boundaries Are Enforced. Silas fills him on his day-to-day life, new information, and consistently assured him that he can feel free to share his troubles with his family. No fucking anywhere. Whatever Ryuga did, the opposite happens here. He doesn’t have to fear for his health when he goes to bed, and it’s really only the Paranoia that believes he’ll be abused again. Nobody is telling or suggesting him to get a relationship. The focus for those are on literally everyone else. PG-13. Those relationships are more to talk about Silas and his crush. Certain words and topics are skirted around, avoided, and hush-hushed so as to not Trigger Kyoya.

Because the biology and sociology of Burstbis like canon (and our world), misogyny is toward women, Kyoya and Silas receive Male Privilege (previously known to them as Alpha Priveldge) (until they find out the genitals, and they learn about trans people and sexual orientation and their excuse for the wombs is being intersex (once they eventually find out about it) thus experiencing more Misogyny and Shaming. The Alpha-Beta-Omega-Sigma-whatever “dynamics” of this world are absolutely bullshit, considering where they’re from. Being called “Beta” is flattering, being insulted as “Omega” is sad but true, and being called “Alpha” is fucking cringe. The only time these people are right is when they call someone a Beta.

Silas fucking goes to school cuz he’s still a fucking minor, and he’s been at BC for at least a year before Evolution (but not on the team till Evolution). Because, again, they live in the same town. (I keep imagining age 12) Kris comes by one day to check out the new kid, and upon meeting Kyoya agree to not bring him up and to be careful when talking about Mental Illness. The club is considered his friend group, technically but not really, so Kyoya knows about Sol already. Kris is wary about the older Omega (might also be ableism). So Valt comes by and he actually has a friend. Honcho is still annoying as fuck, so Silas just puts up with him for Valt’s sake. Any new change, like a new member or piece of equipment, is excitedly welcomed because Don’t Pass Up Opportunities.

Also Kyoya helps with the homework cuz Awwww.

Also note that I imagine Kyoya tried to kill his kid already cuz he “wasn’t worth the trouble,” and thought Ryuga might abuse him if he did anything “bad.” Like screaming, crying, not following orders, being stubborn, etc., so he’d pick up the child hurriedly in a rabid panic and speed out of the room to take care of Silas himself. There was always caution and no sense of safety ever since Silas was born. He had a few mental breakdowns, which finally opened up King to the suffering his Mom has to undergo with Ryuga’s mere existence. Eternal hate and rage for the Alpha. He visits multiple times a week vs just once a week in order to check up on his baby brother. Also Kyoya feared that Ryuga would r33e Silas, too, if (and when) he presented as an Omega, so there’s that, too. July’s mighta pulled a Mrs. Todoroki if he had to stay with Ryuga any longer.

Suddenly, I’m tacking “Silas Carlisle is Kyoya’s kid” to my fic based solely on my Discount Kyoya joke.

And a related plot.

Sometime 7+ years after Shogun Steel (the anime), Kyoya and his 6-year-old stumble on a Magic Thingy, which then transports them to the Burst universe.

Stuck in this new world where nobody knows his name, Kyoya thinks of it as an escape from Ryuga and an opportunity to Start A New Life. They eventually get from Japan to the city BC Sol is in (or are conveniently dumped there, you pick). An kindly old but childless couple, the Carlisles, find them and take them in. After months of paperwork, the two are now living full-time with the Carlisles. Kyoya Carlisle (nee Kishatu, in the MFB world, cuz Ryuga forced him to Or Else) and Silas Carlisle. This Silas’ birth name is the deadname in the cis way. New Backstory. Silas scarcely remembers Ryuga, for the best, and King, Shun, Mimi, Benkei, Gingka cuz Memory Is Like That. So Kyoya tells him the stories himself. The two bring up their pre-Burst past to nobody, not even the kindly couple, not to anyone. Of course, in order to not stick out, Leone is converted into the Burst format, and Kinetic Satomb is born (Baby’s First Bey is back in the old universe).

And everybody but these two are Betas (no smell n’ all), and I’m pairing Silas with Valt (starts as Simp, but Valt and Shu might agree to poly with him). The heat is explained away as “a mysterious sickness~”

Extra plot if I’m feeling Generous:

King, Shun, Mimi, and Benkei stumble upon the Magic Portal Thingy and also get transported. Right around just after Valt joins BC Sol.

Or just King.

They barge into BC Sol, in the gym, on a non-canon day. King, smelling the familiar smell of his (self-imposed(?)) little brother, calls out Silas by his deadname. Silas, playing dumb cuz New Life and Nobody Knows, gets Angwy and tries to kick him out too. Too bad King is too strong. Silas has enough. So he marches up to King, and yells, “I don’t know how you know my old name,” he dies but won’t tell, “but my name is Silas now. Silas Carlisle.” And proud of it!So Silas gives him the condition, “I’ll fight. If you can beat Free.” Cuz you know how strong Free is. King obviously agrees, also cuz Fun Bey Battle.

“Here are the conditions, I’ll be ref,” King is not rushing him, “Free’s Drain Fafnir is a left-spinning Bey that steals the spin strength of his opponents.”

“That’s no problem for the King of Beyblading.” Points hsughtily at himself and laughs evilly.

“The Bey Battle you will be fighting is a 2-point system. First to 2 is the winner. If you get a Stadium-Out—a Ring-Out Finish—then Free gets 1 point, and vice-versa. If you get a Sleep-Out Finish, he gets 1 point, and vice-versus. If Fafnir explodes—a Burst Finish—then you get 2 points, thus winning the match. Obviously, a tie doesn’t count.”

“No problem for the King, Silas!”

King, obviously tremendously improved since Fury, is quite the match for Free. To the shock of everyone (except Silas, who only has mild surprise cuz Suspicions From The Stories). No Burst Finish cuz Free is Like That, but he was at the end forced to put his all into it! Or he did Burst, idk. Three battles were needed. King narrowly won, 2-1.

So Silas heavily sighs and says, “Christina, I have to check out early. Gotta take King to Daddy, per our agreement.”

And the settlement is in the city, a good walk away. They see Kyoya, the oldest Omega goes into a panic, and King catches him. They later move inside to a private-ish room of the Carlisle residence to Spill the Beans.

So in this AU, Silas is less pessimistic and is more, “Never give up on an opportunity. You gotta take them, whatever the cost, even if it has a less-than-1 percent of success!” which is inspired by their hidden backstory, of course. And now with this intervention, King sticks around for his Daddie and Little Brother and we continue fucking up canon.

[ijaws]

The $50 million Americans are spending on Viagra is what youre paying for in the long run. It doesnt matter is trans people are a low percentage in the military. If youre paying $12 million for 5 people and $50 million for 20 people, youre still gonna be paying $50 million for those 20 people.

Like I said though, that $50 Million has ACTUAL benefits to the MEN WHO TAKE VIAGRA! The pills may actually help them to do a BETTER JOB at protecting our country and serving us. Therefore it ISN’T useless. 

Meanwhile, that $12 million that is being spent on trans people I’d assume is being spent on their hormones, surgeries, and other medication to help with other mental issues that tend to accompany someone being Trans. That $12 million is being used to maintain their transition in who they want to be and it is proven to be not as healthy as being the average cis individual you were born as because you’re pumping hormones into your body to try and exist unnaturally… Therefore they’re literally making the decision that they know is going to cost a lot of money, could potentially lead to health problems down the line, AND they’re already four to five times more likely to commit suicide and yet they’re literally going into what is confirmed to be the MOST stressful industry known to humanity as we know it. The Armed Forces where your job is War and Death. 

Not only that, but when you join the Military you are no longer a human being. You’re US Property. You’re no longer a human being. You’re a number, a rank, and a rifle. While that may sound barbaric, it is actually meant to preserve a cohesive unit and Army. When you go into the Armed forces your sexuality, gender, age, religion, and whatever else you identify as should NOT matter. The enemy doesn’t care about any of that. Therefore, why should any of your officers, generals, and fellows soldiers care about that? They shouldn’t. Why? Because if you bring ANY of that shit into the mission, it impacts the mission and is a distraction. You are not your sexuality, gender, or age on the battlefield. You’re a person with a weapon shooting at the enemy. 

So while you don’t see how spending $50 million on a pill for less than a decent percentage of the over 800,000 thousand men actively serving that actually benefits them compared to how spending $12 million on individuals to maintain their personal lifestyle choices that lead to health risks, mental illnesses, and becoming distractions in the workplace as a clear indication as to which is unneeded, then this conversation is kind of over. 

Would you spend 50 thousand dollars on a large group of kid’s education that you KNOW they’re going to excel at and do their jobs and the $50 thousand is going to improve that?

Or would you rather spend 12 thousand dollars on a group of socially awkward kids that have mental issues, MAY perform decently, however their group is a LOT smaller than the other kids and they don’t exactly give a return through servicing on that 12 thousand dollar investment, for example they’d want certain lunches, certain playground privileges, certain this that and the other. Would you spend that 12 thousand dollars on those kids? 

Again, it comes down to a matter of perspective, math, and facts. While I don’t have ALL of the facts that I’d like to have, you’ve given me the numbers and I know a general idea of the Trans population in the arm forces. Approximately 15,000 people cost 12 MILLION DOLLARS. Meanwhile out of the over 1 Million active duty serviceman and servicewomen, an unknown percentage of them take Viagra and it ONLY costs $50 million… Only. If simply 15,000 people cost 12 million to maintain and yet you have a LARGE majority of male individuals ONLY costing the small amount of $50 million, then it is CLEAR which ones cost more! 

“The $50 million Americans are spending on Viagra is what youre paying for in the long run. It doesnt matter is trans people are a low percentage in the military. If youre paying $12 million for 5 people and $50 million for 20 people, youre still gonna be paying $50 million for those 20 people.”

Google: How much does viagra cost without insurance? Viagra 50 mg can cost $250 to $275 for 10 tablets; in contrast, 20 tablets of sildenafil 20 mg should fall in the $30 – $75 range, and 30 tablets would cost about$50 – $100, giving you as much as $200 in savings depending on the pharmacy. Feb 26, 2013

Google: How much does viagra 100mg cost? Even the largest pharmacy chains — like CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart — can only reduce costs so much with their enormous bulk purchases. When it comes to buying 10 Viagra tablets of 100mg each, costs are as follows at each of these chain pharmacies: CVS: $601.00 ($60.10 per tablet) Walgreens: $621.00 ($62.10 per tablet)Apr 25, 2012

I do not know the current prices of Viagra but if we go by THOSE numbers, the 100mg cost, then the number of men on Viagra that cost up to $50 million is around 83 thousand individuals…. ONLY 83 thousand individuals being allowed access to a pill that has health benefits that are documented. 

1,000,000 ( Active duty members) / $620-600 = 80,645 - 83,333 men. 

I even lowballed the numbers when it comes to the active duty members… there’s about 1.3 million active duty members. 

Lets not forget that those are the prices JUST for 10 Tablets… So that means it could very well be LESS than 80 thousand men buying those tablets because the numbers suggest that it would mean that each of those men would buy those tablets just ONCE… meanwhile men with ED would continue to have to buy them to benefit from them so that means that the number of men could even drop more. This correlates with a study…

“However, a study of a managed care claim database of 28 million individuals in 51 health plans in the U.S found 285,436 claims for men with ED whose health plans covered ED treatment.“ Source Below

https://www.accessrx.com/blog/erectile-dysfunction/viagra/cost-of-buying-viagra-at-cvs-walgreens-and-walmart-pharmacy/# 

So out of 28 MILLION men, only 285,436 thousand of them opted for ED treatment. 

So….. there you go… 8.3% of the military’s population costs $50 million which could benefit the military while %1.5 costs $12 million and is only baggage to the military.

Again, these are all by your numbers and some of the numbers I’ve found so I SERIOUSLY doubt any of this is truly accurate but with all the biased news outlets out there, I don’t know which numbers to trust sooooooo yeah… I’m bascially going off of my opinions right now coupled with whatever numbers you provided versus the numbers I provided… I wish I could look at some accurate numbers on a spreadsheet or something instead of having to sift through biased articles on either end. I’d rather look at the numbers myself than at liberal SJW garbage and Fox News Trump Sucking Dick Fucks and their numbers or any right wing numbers… :/ That’s why I liked to go to the FBI’s arrest records whenever I talk about the percentages of arrests by race categorized by the crimes they committed when talking to idiots about race-issues. 

EDIT: So I ran the numbers a bit more cause I just remembered math class and that I’m an idiot. 

50 Million Dollars divided by 80 thousand people is around $600 per person.

12 Million Dollars divided by 15 thousand people is around $800 Per person.

If you scale everything to the same numbers, you’ll be paying about 10 Million More for Trans individuals and Trans care than you would for the small percentage of men on Viagra. 

80,000 of Average Men on Viagra versus 80,000 Trans Individuals would lean in the direction of you paying upwards of 10 Million dollars per year... Again, according to the numbers you gave me. However, like I stated before, those numbers for the men on Viagra are probably wrong as it doesn’t account for men returning to receive more Viagra tablets, so the 80,000 amount would most likely be incorrect. I don’t know an estimate of how many people would be for returning individuals for Viagra users, but I’d shave a few thousand off that percentage. While that brings the numbers of the Viagra uses and Trans individuals closer to the same cost per person, you have to take into account the fact that 100% of the Trans community is going to cost that $800 as a flat baseline amount to maintain. Meanwhile, for every man and woman in the Military that are cis, you wouldn’t be paying anywhere NEAR that rate. Not only that, but people can drop the use of Viagra at any time however, for Trans individuals, I don’t know if it would be safe for them to stop taking hormones, receiving treatments, or stuff like that... I’m not educated in that bit of information but yeah.... those are the numbers though I’ve been reading in places that the amount of trans individuals are 1,500 not 15,000... I’ll have to look again. In conclusion though, the Average Trans individual costs more than the Average soldier, though when it comes to the scale of numbers in the militray the Trans issue is the least of what people should be worrying about when it comes to cutting expenses in the military. I get that we are on tumblr and everything and that it’s the capital of the Offended and SJW conglomerate but... yeah -.-