Banning of transgender people from the military

[Andrew NDB]

Where do you come down on it?

[PApagreg]

I think its stupid like whats the point, if they are able to do their job then there should't be a problem

[Zulithe]

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]

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]

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]

Is there any information about the "tremendous cost" of medicines/surgeries for transgender Armed Forces members?

Originally Posted by Zulithe

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

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.huffpos...4ebb760a2f/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]

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.

Originally Posted by TurtleWA

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

https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpos...4ebb760a2f/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]

Originally Posted by TurtleWA

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/...ntent=Politics

[snake]

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]

True, for people who are out in the field, but 100% of our military wouldn't fall under that definition.

[TurtleWA]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

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/...ntent=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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

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]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

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]

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.