+
A PERSONAL MESSAGE FROM UPWORTHY
We are a small, independent media company on a mission to share the best of humanity with the world.
If you think the work we do matters, pre-ordering a copy of our first book would make a huge difference in helping us succeed.
GOOD PEOPLE Book
upworthy
More

The big argument defending the trans military ban just got debunked ... by the military.

None of the reasons hold up to even a little scrutiny.

Among its latest reasons for attempting to ban transgender people from the military (again), the Trump administration points to potential disruptions to something called "unit cohesion" — basically, how well members of a troop work together.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis wrote that allowing trans people to serve in the military "could undermine readiness, disrupt unit cohesion, and impose an unreasonable burden on the  military that is not conducive to military effectiveness and lethality."

Using that memo, Trump announced that trans people would be "disqualified from military service except under certain limited circumstances." The entire process was clearly just a way to reverse-engineer a rationale for implementing his impulsive July 2017 tweets on the subject.

Yet while the ban remains tied up in courts, trans people continue to serve openly in the military — which means we can see how those claims hold up in the real world. Let's take a look at the three most important ones.

President Donald Trump addresses members of the Air Force in September 2017. Photo by Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images.

1. Is that unit cohesion narrative legit?

Over the past several weeks, chiefs of staff for the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard have all weighed in — offering a surprising, and pretty much unanimous, answer.

Testifying before the Senate on April 12, Gen. Mark Milley, the Army's chief of staff, was asked by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), "Are you aware of any problems with unit cohesion arising? ... Have you [heard] anything, how transgender service members are harming unit cohesion?"

"No, not at all. ... We have a finite number [of trans service members]," he replied. "We know who they are, and it is monitored very closely because, you know, I'm concerned about that and want to make sure that they are in fact treated with dignity and respect. And no, I have received precisely zero reports of issues of cohesion, discipline, morale, and all those sorts of things. No."

[rebelmouse-image 19476564 dam="1" original_size="500x261" caption="GIF via Political News/YouTube" expand=1]GIF via Political News/YouTube

Five days later, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), asked Vice Adm. Karl Schultz, the incoming Coat Guard commandant, the same question. He replied, "I am not aware of any disciplinary or unit cohesion issues resulting from the opening of the Coast Guard to transgender individuals."

On April 19, Gillibrand asked Adm. Jon Richardson, the Navy's chief naval officer, and Gen. Robert Neller, the Marine Corps commandant, whether they were aware of any issues resulting from open service.

"We treat every one of those sailors, regardless, with dignity and respect that is warranted by wearing the uniform of the United States Navy. By virtue of that approach, I am not aware of any issues," replied Richardson.

[rebelmouse-image 19476565 dam="1" original_size="500x278" caption="GIF from CSPAN." expand=1]GIF from CSPAN.

"There's 27 Marines that have identified as transgender ... . I am not aware of any issues in those areas," said Neller.

Finally, on April 23, Gillibrand asked Air Force Chief of Staff, General David Goldfein, whether he was aware of any "issues of morale or discipline resulting from open transgender service." He responded, "The way you present the question, I have not."

[rebelmouse-image 19476566 dam="1" original_size="500x278" caption="GIF from CSPAN." expand=1]GIF from CSPAN.

2. How about that popular argument put forward by Trump about transgender troops' "tremendous medical costs"?

"After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military," Trump tweeted on the morning of July 26, 2017. "Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you."

Of course, pretty much none of this is accurate. A study commissioned by the Defense Department found that the total added cost of allowing trans people to service and access health care would amount to somewhere between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually. To put that in perspective, the military spends as much as ten times that amount annually on erectile dysfunction medication. That same study found no basis in cost, cohesion, or medical status to prevent trans people from serving in the military.

People protest the trans military ban outside of the White House on July 26, 2017. Photo by Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images.

3. Then there are those who say trans people simply aren't fit to serve, medically. Is that true?

In a letter on April 3 addressed to Mattis, American Medical Association CEO Dr. James Madara wrote, "There is no medically valid reason — including a diagnosis of gender dysphoria — to exclude transgender individuals from military service.  Transgender individuals have served, and continue to serve, our country with honor, and we believe they should be allowed to continue doing so."

On March 26, the American Psychological Association slammed the administration for its "misuse of psychological science to stigmatize transgender Americans and justify limiting their ability to serve in uniform and access medically necessary health care," adding, "Substantial psychological research shows that gender dysphoria is a treatable condition, and does not, by itself, limit the ability of individuals to function well and excel in their work, including in military service."

Dr. Joycelyn Elders testifies before the Senate during her confirmation hearings in July 1993. Photo by Kort Duce/AFP/Getty Images.

Former Surgeons General Joycelyn Elders (who served under Bill Clinton) and David Satcher (who served under Clinton and George W. Bush) came out with a joint statement on the issue, writing, "We are troubled that the Defense Department’s report on transgender military service has mischaracterized the robust body of peer-reviewed research on the effectiveness of transgender medical care as demonstrating 'considerable scientific uncertainty.' In fact, there is a global medical consensus that such care is reliable, safe, and effective."

Sure, that's what a bunch of experts say. But a small group of anti-LGBTQ activists and a famously anti-LGBTQ vice president have a few thoughts, too.

Though the White House has been extremely reluctant to divulge how they arrived at the decision to try and ban trans service members and who was involved in those conversations, Slate's Mark Joseph Stern landed on a bit of a scoop:

"According to multiple sources, Vice President Mike Pence played a leading role in the creation of this report, along with Ryan Anderson, an anti-trans activist, and Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, an anti-LGBTQ lobbying group. Mattis actually supports open transgender service, but he was effectively overruled by Pence, and chose not to spend his limited political capital further defending trans troops. In a memo released on Friday, Mattis encouraged Trump to ban transgender people from enlisting in the military, and to discharge those service members who wish to transition. Trump has now formally adopted these suggestions."

Here's hoping that the courts, while ever increasing in their Trumpiness, stand on the side of expertise, science, and facts over anti-LGBTQ culture warriors. The arguments being made here, especially ones about unit cohesion, are the same ones used to keep people of color, women, and gays, lesbians, and bisexuals out of the military — this just just the latest hurdle.

The Trump administration has taken aim at trans people during these first 15 months in office. Whether it's banning trans people from the military, giving doctors the green light to refuse trans people medical treatment, reversing course on a policy intended to protect trans students, argued that trans people aren't covered by employment non-discrimination laws, and more. It's an obsession that goes beyond the military, which is why it's so important to fight back against bigotry, starting here.

From Your Site Articles
Science

Researchers dumped tons of coffee waste into a forest. This is what it looks like now.

30 dump truck loads and two years later, the forest looks totally different.

assets.rebelmouse.io

One of the biggest problems with coffee production is that it generates an incredible amount of waste. Once coffee beans are separated from cherries, about 45% of the entire biomass is discarded.

So for every pound of roasted coffee we enjoy, an equivalent amount of coffee pulp is discarded into massive landfills across the globe. That means that approximately 10 million tons of coffee pulp is discarded into the environment every year.


When disposed of improperly, the waste can cause serious damage soil and water sources.

However, a new study published in the British Ecological Society journal Ecological Solutions and Evidence has found that coffee pulp isn't just a nuisance to be discarded. It can have an incredibly positive impact on regrowing deforested areas of the planet.

via British Ecological Society

In 2018, researchers from ETH-Zurich and the University of Hawaii spread 30 dump trucks worth of coffee pulp over a roughly 100' x 130' area of degraded land in Costa Rica. The experiment took place on a former coffee farm that underwent rapid deforestation in the 1950s.

The coffee pulp was spread three-feet thick over the entire area.

Another plot of land near the coffee pulp dump was left alone to act as a control for the experiment.

"The results were dramatic." Dr. Rebecca Cole, lead author of the study, said. "The area treated with a thick layer of coffee pulp turned into a small forest in only two years while the control plot remained dominated by non-native pasture grasses."

In just two years, the area treated with coffee pulp had an 80% canopy cover, compared to just 20% of the control area. So, the coffee-pulp-treated area grew four times more rapidly. Like a jolt of caffeine, it reinvigorated biological activity in the area.

The canopy was also four times taller than that of the control.

Before and after images of the forest

The forest experienced a radical, positive change

via British Ecological Society

The coffee-treated area also eliminated an invasive species of grass that took over the land and prevented forest succession. Its elimination allowed for other native species to take over and recolonize the area.

"This case study suggests that agricultural by-products can be used to speed up forest recovery on degraded tropical lands. In situations where processing these by-products incurs a cost to agricultural industries, using them for restoration to meet global reforestation objectives can represent a 'win-win' scenario," Dr. Cole said.

If the results are repeatable it's a win-win for coffee drinkers and the environment.

Researchers believe that coffee treatments can be a cost-effective way to reforest degraded land. They may also work to reverse the effects of climate change by supporting the growth of forests across the globe.

The 2016 Paris Agreement made reforestation an important part of the fight against climate change. The agreement incentivizes developing countries to reduce deforestation and forest degradation, promote forest conservation and sustainable management, and enhance forest carbon stocks in developing countries.

"We hope our study is a jumping off point for other researchers and industries to take a look at how they might make their production more efficient by creating links to the global restoration movement," Dr. Cole said.


This article originally appeared on 03.29.21

From Your Site Articles
climate change
Pop Culture

Woman's goes on relatable, accurate rant about directions that require you to carry a compass

"I have spent no time in a crow's nest on a pirate ship."

Photo credit: Canva

Woman's rant about 'pirate' directions is going viral

There are some people that are more directionally aware than others and that's fine. Others of us, not so much. North, south, east and west—what are those words outside of the names of one of Kim Kardashian's kids and an airline? They certainly aren't directions for people in the 21st century.

Taryn Delanie Smith took to Instagram to ask people to stop with the madness. Smith is not lost in the woods looking for what side of the tree moss is growing on to hopefully lead her to the nearest stream. The woman needs landmarks, and she's letting everyone know that they need to get with the directionally challenged program.

"If I'm trying to meet up with you, do not tell me that you are north, south, east or west of something. Respectfully, I don't know what that is and I'm tired of being ashamed that I don't have...I have spent no time in a crow's nest of a pirate ship," Smith jokes.

It may be hard to believe, but there is a portion of the population that has no idea what those words mean while standing on a sidewalk trying to meet a friend for lunch. Are you north of the interstate or south? Is this some sort of grown up quiz everyone is supposed to pass because it seems to have skipped a few folks.

In the caption of the video, Smith reiterated that she is not aware of these directional words, "I do not own a compass. Before y'all say 'use the compass app on your phone!' Literally why would I do that, I refuse."

Maybe a public service announcement of television would reach a wider audience, because other commenters were in agreement with her rant.

"I’ve never felt so seen," one person says.

"LOL!!!!!! AND DONT TALK TO ME IN ARMY TIME EITHER LOL TALKIN BOUT ILL BE THERE IN 1800 hours," another writes.

"Ma’am I’ve never related to something as much as I have this," a commenter reveals.

"I missed that lesson in grade 5 and to this day I believe North is directly in front of me no matter what," someone else shares.

Smith is clearly not alone in her aimless wandering as she looks for a flag with skull and crossbones to locate friends. Not everyone can be a pirate. It probably takes some sort of special training that involves parrot talk and making a compass out of sea water and a leaf. Be kind to the directionally challenged folks in your life and just include landmarks that are hard to miss.

From Your Site Articles
relatable humor
Family

Naming twins is an art. Here are some twin names people say are the best they've ever heard.

With twins, all the regular pressures of having a baby are doubled, including choosing a name.

Photo credit: Canva

Are you in favor of rhyming twin names? Or is it too cutesy?

Having twins means double the fun, and double the pressure. It’s a fairly known rule to name twins in a way that honors their unique bond, but that can lead to overly cutesy pairings that feel more appropriate for nursery rhyme characters than actual people. Plus, it’s equally important for the names to acknowledge each twin’s individuality. Again, these are people—not a matching set of dolls. Finding the twin baby name balance is easier said than done, for sure.

Luckily, there are several ways to do this. Names can be linked by style, sound or meaning, according to the baby name website Nameberry. For example, two names that share a classic style would be Elizabeth and Edward, whereas Ione and Lionel share a similar rhythm. And Frederica and Milo seem to share nothing in common, but both mean “peaceful.”

Over on the /NameNerds subreddit, one person asked folks to share their favorite twin name pairings, and the answers did not disappoint.

One person wrote “Honestly, for me it’s hard to beat the Rugrats combo of Phillip and Lillian (Phil and Lil) 💕”

A few parents who gave their twin’s names that didn’t inherently rhyme until nicknames got involved:

"It's the perfect way! Christmas cards can be signed cutely with matching names, but when they act out you can still use their full name without getting tripped up.😂"

"The parents of a good friend of mine did this: her name is Allison and her sister is Callie. Their names don’t match on the surface, but they were Alli and Callie at home."

“Alice and Celia, because they’re anagrams! Sound super different but have a not-so-obvious implicit connection.”

This incited an avalanche of other anagram ideas: Aidan and Nadia, Lucas and Claus, Liam and Mila, Noel and Leon, Ira and Ria, Amy and May, Ira and Ari, Cole and Cleo…even Alice, Celia, and Lacie for triplets.

Others remembered name pairs that managed to sound lovely together without going into cutesy territory.

twin names, twins, babies, baby namesThese matching bunny ears though. Photo credit: Canva

“I know twin toddler boys named Charlie and Archie and they go so well together,” one person commented.

Another wrote, “Tamia and Aziza. I love how they follow the same sound pattern with the syllable endings (-uh, -ee, -uh) without being obnoxiously matchy matchy.”

Still another said, “Lucy and Logan, fraternal girl/boy twins. I think the names sound so nice together, and definitely have the same 'vibe' and even though they have the same first letter they aren't too matchy-matchy.”

Other honorable mentions included: Colton and Calista, Caitlin and Carson, Amaya and Ameera, Alora and Luella, River and Rosie, and Eleanor and Elias.

One person cast a vote for shared style names, saying, “If I had twins, I would honestly just pick two different names that I like separately. I tend to like classic names, so I’d probably pick Daniel and Benjamin for boys. For girls my two favorites right now are Valerie and Tessa. I think Val and Tess would be cute together!”

Overall though, it seems that most folks were fans of names that focused on shared meaning over shared sound. Even better if there’s a literary or movie reference thrown in there.

twin names, twins, babies, baby namesMany adult twins regret that their names are so closely linked together. Photo credit: Canva

“My mom works in insurance, so I asked her. She’s seen a lot of unique ones, but the only twins she remembers are Gwenivere [sic] and Lancelot... bonus points... little brother was Merlin,” one person recalled.

Another shared, “If I had twin girls, I would name them Ada and Hedy for Ada Lovelace and Hedy Lamarr, both very early computer/tech pioneers. Not that I’m that into tech, I just thought it was a brilliant combination.”

Other great ones: Susan and Sharon (think the original “Parent Trap”), Clementine and Cara (types of oranges), Esme and Etienne (French descent), Luna and Stella (moon and stars), Dawn and Eve, plus various plant pairings like Lily and Fern, Heather and Holly, and Juniper and Laurel.

Perhaps the cleverest name pairing goes to “Aubrey and Zoe,” since…wait for it… “they’re A to Z.”

It’s easy to see how naming twins really is a cool opportunity for parents to get creative and intentional with their baby naming. It might be a challenge, sure, but the potential reward is having the most iconic set of twins ever. Totally worth it!

From Your Site Articles
babies
Family

People who choose to be child-free are just as happy at 70 as those with kids, study finds

What about all the regret they were supposed to feel?

via Jens Lindner/Unsplash

A woman looking content with her child-free life.

Every couple that has ever considered being child-free has had to deal with people who have children telling them they will regret their decision. They're often told that they’ll be lonely when they get older and never understand the joy and fulfillment of having a child.

Even though there is so much pressure for couples to have kids, more and more people are deciding to live child-free lives. A recent study found that 47% of adults under 50 without kids say they're unlikely to have them — up 10 percentage points from 2018.

There are many different reasons why people don’t want to have kids, whether it’s affordability, the state of the world and the environment, or they just don’t feel like it. The child-free movement gets even stronger as people get younger.

Sixty-seven percent of young women and 50% of young men say they just don’t want children. So, are all of these people setting themselves up for a lifetime of regret because they choose not to have kids? A recent study out of Michigan says no, they probably won’t.

The Institute for Public Policy and Social Research at Michigan State University studied 1,000 Michiganders, asking whether they have or want children. The study separated those who wish to be child-free from those who want children but can’t have them.

The study found that by the time people reach the age of 70, people who have children and those who decided not to are just as satisfied with their lives.

child-free, no kids, childrenA couple enjoying coffeevia MART PRODUCTION/Pexels

“Childfree people, especially women, are often told they’ll be dissatisfied with life or regret their decision later,” Jennifer Watling Neal, one of the study’s authors, told PsyPost. “In this study, we compared how much adults age 70 and older said they’d want to change something about their life — in other words, whether they had any regrets about how their life had gone. We didn’t see any difference between child-free people and parents. This suggests that child-free people are similar to others in terms of life satisfaction and often don’t regret their decision later.”

The researchers found that child-free people may be happier than those with kids.“In fact, older parents were slightly more likely to want to change something about their life,” Neal said in a statement.

The study was conducted on 1,000 people; times change and everyone’s experience is different, so there’s no telling who will or will not have regrets about their decision to have children. But the study should bring some peace of mind to those who are tired of hearing that they may regret their choice to be child-free, whether from friends, family or the little voice in their heads.

The discussion also raises a deeper question: How do we create a society where people are excited about having children? What changes could be made to make it affordable for people to have families? How can we create a brighter future so that parents can feel confident that the children born today will be able to thrive as adults?

From Your Site Articles
child-free
Family

Woman sparks dialogue after saying she doesn't take advice from men no matter how successful

"I tend to take their advice with a grain of salt," says Paige Connell.

Courtesy of Paige Connell

Woman says she doesn't take advice from men.

Being a woman comes with certain expectations, no matter where in the world you live. Becoming a mother adds another layer to those expectations, with traditional society often not considering the impact on the woman experiencing that shift. For instance, many women work outside of the home and are still expected to be the one who figures out which childcare center would be best.

Women are also often expected to put their careers on hold to stay at home if it's decided that outside childcare isn't feasible. Sure, some dads may do the heavy lifting in this area, but that's not a societally expected thing. Because these things are typically expected of women, men don't generally have to consider many of the logistics of children if they're partnered with a woman.

Paige Connell sparked a conversation when she shared on social media that she doesn't take advice from men, even if it's their job. On the surface that sounds harsh, even though she clarifies that she considers the advice but takes it with a big grain of salt, and her reasoning involves the invisible labor aspect.

"I do not tend to take a lot of advice from men, even the most successful men. And I mean advice in the form of self-help books, podcasts from successful men or just men in general. I tend to take their advice with a grain of salt because I do not think it is applicable to women and mothers in particular," Connell share before revealing her reasoning.

In the video she shares that she was recently listening to "The Diary of a CEO" podcast where the man talked about all the risks he took, including moving from Connecticut where his young child and ex-girlfriend live to New York. Connell pointed out through the entire episode detailing his risks and upward mobility, he never mentioned his child, which caused her to surmise that it was because childcare concerns weren't a part of his journey.


@sheisapaigeturner I do not often take advice from men, even the most successful of men, because the common thread is usually that they were able to become successful, because there was a woman standing beside them, or behind them, supporting them. Without acknowledging this, the advice means very little because women often don’t have men standing besides them, or behind them to support them. #caseyneistat #diaryofaceo #millennialmom #workingmom #wfhmom #corporatemom #successfulwomen ♬ original sound - Paige


She continued explaining how the burden of childcare tends to fall on women, working and nonworking, allowing the male parent to be free to corporate climb uninhibited by the worry. Connell shares that she prefers to listen to professionally successful moms because they share the help needed with childcare and how they navigated these spaces being the default parent. Others agreed to much of what she was saying.

"I came to a similar conclusion…I have read quite a few books of men going on their 'hero’s journey' where they did all these extravagant endeavors and eventually found success or enlightenment. But nothing about how a mother deep in the trenches of child raising is the [true] hero’s journey. Motherhood can chew you up and spit you out. A mother dies a million deaths and finds strength to continue to show up for her child day and night. Motherhood changes and refines us. No mother goes unchanged after motherhood. It is late nights and isolation. The flames of motherhood, the true hero’s journey," one person revealed, describing her own experience of realization.

"I love that you talk about it. Also all the so called geniuses, poets, writers, great personalities were able to accomplish all they did because their wives babysat their 8 kids at that time," someone else sighed in frustration.

"Couldn’t agree more. It’s the equivalent of men being able to work late, work weekends, put in the face time, to get ahead - whilst someone else is looking after their children," another wrote.

"I remember reading one comment in the daily routine of a successful writer. He had four kids and yet he could write for 6 hours daily during the day. Never once mentions his household manager, cook, cleaner, nanny—his wife," a commenter pointed out.

What do you think? Should more women be talking about this reality when it comes to the success of their male partners?

From Your Site Articles
women's issues
Trending Stories