PDA

View Full Version : Banning of transgender people from the military


Andrew NDB
07-31-2017, 12:27 PM
Where do you come down on it?

PApagreg
07-31-2017, 12:32 PM
I think its stupid like whats the point, if they are able to do their job then there should't be a problem

Zulithe
07-31-2017, 12:35 PM
There is so much to say about it and why it's not only wrong but incredibly stupid. But in short, I strongly oppose the notion. Thankfully, I don't think it will really come to pass.

I do want to point out however that Trump's big argument for doing it is as a cost saving measure. The amount that would be saved is incredibly, INCREDIBLy small!

The amount of yearly savings it would have to our country is equal to about the flight costs (just the flight itself) of Trump going to Mar-a-Lago and back about 3 times (or less.) Which, btw... he goes there just about every weekend. What an INCREDIBLE waste of tax payer money.

plastroncafe
07-31-2017, 12:35 PM
Banning someone capable of doing a job from doing a job because they're a "kind" of person is stupid.

If someone meets the requirements to do a job and can do said job, they should be allowed to do that job. And they should be compensated for doing that job the exact same amount as anyone else who does said job.

Not all Military positions are combat boots on the ground, and to remove/keep someone from filling one of those other positions because they're a "kind" of person is dumb, and makes our military weaker.

Think of all the translators and logistics folks who were removed from their positions under Don't Ask/Don't Tell.

Autbot_Benz
07-31-2017, 12:37 PM
I am against it just another stupid thing from the dumbest president ever. If they can do there job let them. Trump is such a shitstain on America.

Andrew NDB
07-31-2017, 12:38 PM
Is there any information about the "tremendous cost" of medicines/surgeries for transgender Armed Forces members?

There is so much to say about it and why it's not only wrong but incredibly stupid. But in short, I strongly oppose the notion. Thankfully, I don't think it will really come to pass.

It seems like it will. The Joint Chiefs thing just said that it's not happening "until the President's direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidelines." I'm not sure what that entails, but it doesn't sound too tedious.

plastroncafe
07-31-2017, 12:47 PM
Trump made the announcement via Twitter when Mattis was on vacation.
Which...oh what I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall when MadDog gets back from vacay and addresses his Commander in Chief.

Because I bet that's going to be SPECTACULAR.

TurtleWA
07-31-2017, 12:51 PM
Is there any information about the "tremendous cost" of medicines/surgeries for transgender Armed Forces members?

Here is a short article and video that may or may not help answer your question.

https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_597e0e1fe4b02a4ebb760a2f/amp

Interesting quote from the article...
"The military’s transition-related health care costs, for example, amounted to less than 10 percent of what it spent on erectile dysfunction prescriptions in 2014."

sdp
07-31-2017, 01:02 PM
It's stupid and if someone can do their job then who cares but maybe it creates a logistics problem?

I have a problem with having to pay for the transition, but then again so do I with people asking for erectile dysfunction prescriptions. But don't they offer free University if you join as well? These "costs" could or could not really mean much and unless you have the figures then people are talking out of their ass whether it's affordable or not affordable.

Here is a short article and video that may or may not help answer your question.

https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_597e0e1fe4b02a4ebb760a2f/amp

Interesting quote from the article...
"The military’s transition-related health care costs, for example, amounted to less than 10 percent of what it spent on erectile dysfunction prescriptions in 2014."


Without numbers that quote is worthless, I mean how many people are getting erectile dysfunction prescription over transition-related costs. Only then could we know.

Andrew NDB
07-31-2017, 01:03 PM
Interesting quote from the article...
"The military’s transition-related health care costs, for example, amounted to less than 10 percent of what it spent on erectile dysfunction prescriptions in 2014."

Well, I've read about the viagra thing... but it seems kind of ignorant, as a comparison. Definitely not apples to apples. See here:

http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/07/934346-comparing-military-spending-viagra-spending-transgender-surgeries/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Owned&utm_term=ijamerica&utm_campaign=ods&utm_content=Politics

snake
07-31-2017, 01:03 PM
Soldiers should be 100% focused and sharp out in the field. A group of emotionally weak people who need daily medication aren't exactly what I call focused or stable.

The costs thing is BS tho. Transgender people make up less than 1% of America's population, if that.

plastroncafe
07-31-2017, 01:05 PM
True, for people who are out in the field, but 100% of our military wouldn't fall under that definition.

TurtleWA
07-31-2017, 01:23 PM
Well, I've read about the viagra thing... but it seems kind of ignorant, as a comparison. Definitely not apples to apples. See here:

http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/07/934346-comparing-military-spending-viagra-spending-transgender-surgeries/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Owned&utm_term=ijamerica&utm_campaign=ods&utm_content=Politics

I imagine PTSD is very difficult. The link did touch on the "tremendous cost" aspect of which I thought you asked about in your question. Feel free to post something you would consider an "apples to apples." I'm always looking for enlightenment.

Utrommaniac
07-31-2017, 01:30 PM
Not every person who works in the military is a soldier! And anyone who wants to join the military, under any area of any branch, should be able to. Combat is not the only thing people do in the military. My father was even a US-based medic for the air force during Vietnam when he was my age.

And I think that a transgender soldier would be able to focus on their work in the field just fine, like any other one. They have bigger things to worry about out in the field than their dilemmas.

GoldMutant
07-31-2017, 01:38 PM
As with Chester Bennington's passing, I love how Cube's name is here in the tags despite not appearing as of yet.
__________________________________________________ ___

With the topic at hand, my dad was a former soldier after his high school years in the 80s. He both served as a teacher and a soldier. I have a few friends who also served in ROTC at school and are entering either the Air Force or military in general after high school. For that, I have immense respect for soldiers risking their lives.

The way I see it, if you want to serve your country, then you should be allowed. However, the issue dad had was with the rather accessible healthcare that soldiers have. I'm not sure on that detail being true or not because my dad and his family honestly don't have a strong grasp on politics, despite my respect towards him.

Claiming that transgender people can't be compensated in that regard... I'd honestly need some clarification. I don't think a transgender soldier would use their job for what they need in terms of costs. That I would need to be clarified about before making a final judgment.

However, as I said earlier, it doesn't matter if you instruct, play an instrument, or anything. You have a right to defend your country; hell, the whole thing on rights is one of the first sentiments in the Declaration of Independence. As a result, I'm frustrated in that regard.

Andrew NDB
07-31-2017, 01:38 PM
I do agree with the sentiment against "this is unfair!" with the logic of, "Well, war is not supposed to be fair." The military's duty is to make the very best machine it can, with the very best parts. That's it.

Now, as to whether or not transgender people do actually pose an undue burden on "cost" (it's definitely their call to do so but I definitely wouldn't want my tax dollars paying to turn people's weiners inside out) or any sort of personnel issues, I have no idea. I've not really read any compelling evidence either way.

It smells like a bit of smoke and mirrors from Trump. "Don't worry about this fire over here, here's a new one for ya." It's not really needed.

GoldMutant
07-31-2017, 01:44 PM
On the issue of transgender people or even the LGBT community itself, a friend of mine found an article the other day. If I recall correctly, Trump's administration has slowly begun to damage it with key events over the past six/seven months. I'll have to dig it up and post it here. Also, Hillary, if I recall, was no saint on the community during her campaign, but it's been a while and I might be wrong.

The fans are going to keep being flamed because that's what Trump or any politician will do. Until the debacle of Obamacare gets resolved, this is certainly the next way to get attention.

Regardless, I still need information on the situation before I join one side. Staying neutral for the time being due to that reason.

TurtleWA
07-31-2017, 01:55 PM
I do agree with the sentiment against "this is unfair!" with the logic of, "Well, war is not supposed to be fair." The military's duty is to make the very best machine it can, with the very best parts. That's it.

Now, as to whether or not transgender people do actually pose an undue burden on "cost" (it's definitely their call to do so but I definitely wouldn't want my tax dollars paying to turn people's weiners inside out) or any sort of personnel issues, I have no idea. I've not really read any compelling evidence either way.

It smells like a bit of smoke and mirrors from Trump. "Don't worry about this fire over here, here's a new one for ya." It's not really needed.

personnel issues? Like what?

edit: My reading comprehension isn't always the best. I might have interpreted your post incorrectly. I read it as no tax dollars towards personnel related issues. My bad dude. I'm sure your fine with some spending on personnel problems that arise.

ToTheNines
07-31-2017, 03:05 PM
Banning someone capable of doing a job from doing a job because they're a "kind" of person is stupid.

If someone meets the requirements to do a job and can do said job, they should be allowed to do that job. And they should be compensated for doing that job the exact same amount as anyone else who does said job.

Not all Military positions are combat boots on the ground, and to remove/keep someone from filling one of those other positions because they're a "kind" of person is dumb, and makes our military weaker.

Think of all the translators and logistics folks who were removed from their positions under Don't Ask/Don't Tell.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I don't foresee this being a big issue in the end, though. He was probably just trying to stir **** anyways.

Katie
07-31-2017, 09:08 PM
I really don't understand the logic of removing people who WANT to be in the military from being in the military.

My dad was in the army. Vietnam veteran. The service was good to us and I respect it, but I don't wanna do it. I'm ecstatic that there are people who want to do it. If you take those people away, and something happens, you're gonna have to draft people who don't want to be in there to replace them.

For God's sake, let people who want to serve, and are physically and mentally capable of serving do it. Who cares what they identify as. AND its none of my business what their medical needs are and what they use their insurance for.

sdp
07-31-2017, 10:32 PM
Can we just ban every gender/people from the military?

PApagreg
07-31-2017, 10:46 PM
Can we just ban every gender/people from the military?

I'm personally happy with cutting the military budget in half but that can work too.

I was joking with the latter

sdp
07-31-2017, 11:33 PM
No. Ban everyone from the military.

BWf-eARnf6U

BubblyShell22
08-01-2017, 03:17 PM
We need the military to survive because they're the ones protecting us so that we're safe. I may not condone the transgender lifestyle, but I do feel that if someone of that lifestyle wants to serve their country, they should be allowed to do so. Trump is just like any other politician who says one thing and then does another. He said that he was for the transgender community and would protect the rights of the LGBT community and then he goes and says this. He's no different than any other politician out there.

This is why I don't vote, people. You can't trust any of these politicians no matter what they say.

Andrew NDB
08-01-2017, 03:27 PM
We need the military to survive because they're the ones protecting us so that we're safe. I may not condone the transgender lifestyle, but I do feel that if someone of that lifestyle wants to serve their country, they should be allowed to do so.

Though to be fair, serving in the Armed Forces isn't and has never been a "right" of any sort.

Redeemer
08-01-2017, 03:37 PM
Though to be fair, serving in the Armed Forces isn't and has never been a "right" of any sort.

I have to agree. The first thing they told us at meps was that this is a "job interview" No matter how good of a soldier you could become if there is something wrong or abnormal (past injury, genetic defect ex:diabetes) they will not take you.

It is not a right to join the military its a privilege. That being said I don't agree with banning transgender people completely from the military. I would get why they would not want them on the frontline, but from the entire military? The only reason I could think from the entire military is if transgenders have to constantly take chemicals (Estrogen/Testosterone).
Regardless it is quite a quagmire.

BubblyShell22
08-01-2017, 03:43 PM
You both have a point but they shouldn't be banned from serving their country if they want to do so. That would be like banning a black person from the military because of their race or banning someone for their religion or lack of religion.

dl316bh
08-01-2017, 03:54 PM
Though to be fair, serving in the Armed Forces isn't and has never been a "right" of any sort.
It's a volunteer military, though, so I find the idea of turning away able bodied people who want to serve and could do their job well for a reason like being transgender downright silly and counterproductive. There were excuses for segregation of blacks in the armed forces up until the 1950's, once upon a time, as well as the more recent discrimination of gays in the military. Eventually, the old ways died off. Didn't exactly hurt us.

Andrew NDB
08-01-2017, 03:56 PM
It's a volunteer military, though

Not precisely. I couldn't join any Armed Forces right now if I wanted to.

dl316bh
08-01-2017, 03:57 PM
Not precisely. I couldn't join any Armed Forces right now if I wanted to.
Well, okay, you're right on that, it's not entirely open. They can disqualify you for age and serious health issues, of course. But you get my point.

plastroncafe
08-01-2017, 04:01 PM
Not precisely. I couldn't join any Armed Forces right now if I wanted to.

Yes precisely.
You could still volunteer, that doesn't mean they're required to take you.

Redeemer
08-01-2017, 04:11 PM
You both have a point but they shouldn't be banned from serving their country if they want to do so. That would be like banning a black person from the military because of their race or banning someone for their religion or lack of religion.

They actually ban people for certain beliefs already. White Supremacist/ Black Panther ect....

Like I said before I think they have an argument for ban on the ground of chemical dependency as I mentioned before.

It's a volunteer military, though, so I find the idea of turning away able bodied people who want to serve and could do their job well for a reason like being transgender downright silly and counterproductive. There were excuses for segregation of blacks in the armed forces up until the 1950's, once upon a time, as well as the more recent discrimination of gays in the military. Eventually, the old ways died off. Didn't exactly hurt us.

I never understood the banning of the gay community at all. As I said before if a transgender person is reliant on chemical for transition or to maintain a certain look then I understand the ban bc it is a chemical dependency, but I have no experience with transgender transition and what they have to do after. I assume they would have to constantly take testosterone and estrogen for the rest of their life, but I maybe wrong which is why I could understand a ban, but to ban them for any other reason is stupid.

ProactiveMan
08-01-2017, 07:29 PM
I think anyone who wants in should have the opportunity to try. Not to say everyone gets in, but some of the blanket bans don't make sense to me. I know two people who tried to join in their early 20s and were turned away because they had a history of asthma. Neither one was still asthmatic, but the rule said no one who had asthma could join the army. It struck me as silly, because both of these guys were very fit and athletic.

Utrommaniac
08-01-2017, 07:36 PM
I don't think "chemical dependency" will matter when it comes to non-soldiers, or anyone who isn't working out in the field. That would probably make up a very, very tiny percentage.

And even then, I think at least a few of those might be willing to put a hold on transitioning for at least a little while. That being an even smaller percentage or that tiny percentage.

But rather than making assumptions, maybe we should look into how trans people actually served in the military and learn from their experiences?

Redeemer
08-02-2017, 03:16 PM
I think anyone who wants in should have the opportunity to try. Not to say everyone gets in, but some of the blanket bans don't make sense to me. I know two people who tried to join in their early 20s and were turned away because they had a history of asthma. Neither one was still asthmatic, but the rule said no one who had asthma could join the army. It struck me as silly, because both of these guys were very fit and athletic.

That sucks, but if they have a history of Asthma then they may have another Asthma occurrence in Basic which is why they are no allowed in. It sucks to hear, but your friends should have told the recruiters they were misdiagnosed. Also for childhood Asthma you might be able to get a waiver if the individual has not had Asthma symptoms for years.

I don't think "chemical dependency" will matter when it comes to non-soldiers, or anyone who isn't working out in the field. That would probably make up a very, very tiny percentage.

And even then, I think at least a few of those might be willing to put a hold on transitioning for at least a little while. That being an even smaller percentage or that tiny percentage.

But rather than making assumptions, maybe we should look into how trans people actually served in the military and learn from their experiences?

Unfortunately people with diabetes cannot join either, if you are diagnosed with ADHD you cannot join either. If you rely on a chemical at all whats so ever you cannot join and I assume that bc of the strict restrictions of drugs on bases.

Andrew NDB
08-02-2017, 03:22 PM
Unfortunately people with diabetes cannot join either, if you are diagnosed with ADHD you cannot join either. If you rely on a chemical at all whats so ever you cannot join and I assume that bc of the strict restrictions of drugs on bases.

Yeah, or maybe you're stuck out somewhere, pinned down for days, possibly weeks and you can't get your meds. Probably those kinds of situations aren't good for anybody.

ProactiveMan
08-02-2017, 09:51 PM
That sucks, but if they have a history of Asthma then they may have another Asthma occurrence in Basic which is why they are no allowed in. It sucks to hear, but your friends should have told the recruiters they were misdiagnosed. Also for childhood Asthma you might be able to get a waiver if the individual has not had Asthma symptoms for years.

Makes sense. S'funny, one of them tried to join the police force that same year. He passed all the physicals and fitness requirements, but washed out of the psych evaluation every time because he kept getting speeding tickets between attempts. Apparently they grill you really hard about stuff like that along the lines of 'why you don't think you have to obey the law?!' I guess he didn't have a convincing answer.

eskater
08-03-2017, 03:24 PM
Speaking as someone who remembers the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't tell", I can say not a lot of people on the ground in the Marine Infantry didn't really care all that much.
Having said that I do remember when they wanted to start integrating women in the infantry there being (and to some extent is) a HUGE controversy over that....so I do think this would be some sort of quasi-extent of even that issue honestly (even though I personally feel that is a non-issue as well).
I think it's safe to say that most people on this forum would probably be against the ban (for the record so am I) but having several old buddies who are or were in combat orientated units I can tell you they aren't so keen to change and are especially not keen to civilians telling them how their units should be ran or integrated.
Friend once told me that ultimately every job in the Corps is orientated to one thing and anything that interferes with that is a non-issue. The cost argument is weak at best, and any person who thinks the diagnosis of "gender dysphoria" or that "they're confused argument" is legit I challenge them to post not just an "article" but several scientific ones that we may read to be properly informed and even then I'll be skeptical just because I know the DSM-5 can be a bit of a mess sometimes. But coming as someone that understands the warrior mindset of those men I get why
Gen. Mattis had this brought up and he deflected by leaving 6 months for he himself to make a decision about it....and now even Gen. Dunford is saying he's gonna wait until he gets a proper directive from the White House. So the message I get from them is that, it's not an issue.
The only issue I see is an orange puppet sticking his two cents into an issue he knows little about, and the culture (especially in combat related units) having an issue with people (who are already serving) possibly threatening their masochistic culture.
If this was a real issue (transgender people in the military that is) it would have been brought up awhile ago....like possibly when they repealed DADT.

eskater
08-03-2017, 03:39 PM
I don't think "chemical dependency" will matter when it comes to non-soldiers, or anyone who isn't working out in the field. That would probably make up a very, very tiny percentage.

And even then, I think at least a few of those might be willing to put a hold on transitioning for at least a little while. That being an even smaller percentage or that tiny percentage.

But rather than making assumptions, maybe we should look into how trans people actually served in the military and learn from their experiences?

I don't even think "chemical dependency" is something that would be that much of an issue in garrison at least. I know people with all types of mental disabilities that make them rely on meds, the only time it'll come up is if they are ever called up for a deployment and even then I think more on combat deployments honestly. I imagine most transgender people who have served would give a similar answer honestly.
This whole "controversy of transgenders in the military" is really a non-issue for me.

mrmaczaps
08-03-2017, 08:00 PM
The military, in every portion of it, is like that line from the first MJB movie: only the best of the best fof the best. People who have any kind of illmess, sickness cannot and should not serve. Transgenderism still falls into the mentally unfit for duty. You join the military, its about the military and not you or your needs. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or one. It has zero to do with anything else. Top of the line skils. Top of the line standards. No time off for endless sensitivity training. You join to become part of a machine to do one of two things, kill or be killed for your country. Feelings are irrelevant.

PApagreg
08-03-2017, 09:38 PM
The military, in every portion of it, is like that line from the first MJB movie: only the best of the best fof the best. People who have any kind of illmess, sickness cannot and should not serve. Transgenderism still falls into the mentally unfit for duty. You join the military, its about the military and not you or your needs. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or one. It has zero to do with anything else. Top of the line skils. Top of the line standards. No time off for endless sensitivity training. You join to become part of a machine to do one of two things, kill or be killed for your country. Feelings are irrelevant.

1. I would't really call most of the military "The Best of the best" if we're talking about special forces then yes.

2. There are other jobs in the military hell I have a friend whos job in the military is to make sure people get their checks.

eskater
08-04-2017, 07:56 AM
The military, in every portion of it, is like that line from the first MJB movie: only the best of the best fof the best. People who have any kind of illmess, sickness cannot and should not serve. Transgenderism still falls into the mentally unfit for duty. You join the military, its about the military and not you or your needs. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or one. It has zero to do with anything else. Top of the line skils. Top of the line standards. No time off for endless sensitivity training. You join to become part of a machine to do one of two things, kill or be killed for your country. Feelings are irrelevant.

All true statements, although I still am not convinced that being trans falls too heavily in the mentally ill category. As some have pointed out being homosexual once upon was thought to be a mental illness in the DSM...but that's mostly unfounded. I still think the topic of transgender individuals serving is a serious non-issue and anyone who is seriously considering a ban on them is probably taking more away from the mission at hand than anyone who is for them serving.