Trump announces policy banning transgender military service

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A woman transitioning to male with a 3 year enlistment will take 2 years to transition and be non depoloyabke.

2 years of medical cost and care for one year of service is a bad deal for taxpayers and Military service.

This is not true. You are required to serve a certain amount of time before beginning any transitioning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Veteran and I think this was a reasonable policy change.

Transgender persons, in my observations (admittedly only a few, in the last couple years before I separated from service) have a negative effect on small unit cohesion and moral, especially with younger enlisted personnel.

I have no issue with transgendered persons, I just don't think they belong in the military, because they have detrimental effect on other members who serve with them. I've seen this firsthand, and no amount of study-citing or name calling will convince me otherwise.

Unless you've served, frankly, your opinion isn't even valid.

Your last sentence is very interesting. I wonder why then men seem fit to pass abortion laws, people who have not been affected by gun violence seem fit to pass gun laws, non-parents seem fit to pass laws re children, able bodied seem fit to pass laws affecting the disabled, etc. Hmmm.

"I have no issue with transgendered (black, women, Jews, someone born in another country, gays, etc), I just don't think they belong in the military because they have detrimental (what) effect on other members who serve with them". Like Pence isn't allowed to eat meals alone with women who aren't his wife because that has a detrimental effect on him and his lack of self control. Like the military should spend exponentially more than it costs for medical care for transgendered to cover erectile disjunction medication for military members (guess only the men count) because in order to properly serve and fight a war you need to have an erection at will? That sounds more like a distraction to me. Sorry man, I can't cover you or help you because I'm impotent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Veteran and I think this was a reasonable policy change.

Transgender persons, in my observations (admittedly only a few, in the last couple years before I separated from service) have a negative effect on small unit cohesion and moral, especially with younger enlisted personnel.

I have no issue with transgendered persons, I just don't think they belong in the military, because they have detrimental effect on other members who serve with them. I've seen this firsthand, and no amount of study-citing or name calling will convince me otherwise.

Unless you've served, frankly, your opinion isn't even valid.

Well, I served. A full career actually. So by your rules, my opinion counts, the genetic fallacy notwithstanding. There are trans people serving now and they have served in the past. if you think 18-year olds have a problem with trans people, you don't know many 18 year olds. It's the older generation that objects to this policy. Your convenient rejection of all contrary objective evidence in advance pretty much is the giveaway about where you stand, I won't bother with any facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any openly transgender people in the military now? Is this a pressing issue? I also don't understand the impetus for this decision. As stated, there is much bigger fish to fry in the military and outside of it.

I just read on twitter there are an estimated 15000 transgender currently in the military. Not sure about openly.

I just read on twitter there are 6 transgenders serving in the military. My source is closer to being right than your source.

[Anonymous]

Rand corporation study said between 1320 and 6630 active duty. I have to point out that it would seem pointless to debate costs if it affected only six people.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/numbers-transgender-individuals-serving-us-military/story?id=48869563

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unless you've served, frankly, your opinion isn't even valid.

Clearly you do not understand that the military is answerable to the civilians in America.

Also you probably need a refresher about blacks in the military, women in the military, and gays in the military. "Unit cohesion" was the soldier's excuse for all of these, too, and somehow we managed to work through it all.

[Anonymous]

Fine. I'll continue here from the other locked thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Transgenders have a much higher suicide rate and other psychological problems. Don't need that in the military, especially where other people's lives are at risk in a high stress environment.

The military's mission is to kill people and destroy property. It's not a social experiment.

Trump did not say or do anything about gays or lesbians in the military.

Trump's not attacking or saying anything about their behavior or positions.

He's focusing on a small group of people who identify as transgendered, and want to transitition while in the military.

If having a transgendered military is so important, why did obama wait till june 2016, to have Ash Carter change the policies to allow transgendered personnel into the military?

I thought his edict applied to all trans people, regardless of whether they had already transitioned medically or even had any plans to do so.

Where do you draw your conclusion that it is limited from?

AND as in both groups, not AND as in both qualifiers.

Wait -- so what number qualifies as a "small group" for you, then?

I don't know. 2400 people out of the whole military.. maybe?

DOD says 2,400.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2016/10/20/army-outlines-path-to-transition-for-transgender-soldiers/

"The Army does not track the number of transgender soldiers currently serving, according to Paul Prince, an Army spokesman, but a 2016 Rand Corp. report commissioned by the Defense Department estimated that there are about 2,400 transgender men and women currently serving in the military as a whole."




Trump technically didn't ban anybody that wasn't already "banned"...

Transsexualism has long been a "disqualifying factor" when entering the service as it is classified as a mental disorder.

http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/F01-F99/F60-F69/F64-/F64.0

https://community.apan.org/wg/saf-llm/m/documents/184254

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Veteran and I think this was a reasonable policy change.

Transgender persons, in my observations (admittedly only a few, in the last couple years before I separated from service) have a negative effect on small unit cohesion and moral, especially with younger enlisted personnel.

I have no issue with transgendered persons, I just don't think they belong in the military, because they have detrimental effect on other members who serve with them. I've seen this firsthand, and no amount of study-citing or name calling will convince me otherwise.

Unless you've served, frankly, your opinion isn't even valid.

A policy change announced out of the blue on Twitter with no appreciation of its impact, and without signoff by DoD principals is by definition not reasonable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Veteran and I think this was a reasonable policy change.

Transgender persons, in my observations (admittedly only a few, in the last couple years before I separated from service) have a negative effect on small unit cohesion and moral, especially with younger enlisted personnel.

I have no issue with transgendered persons, I just don't think they belong in the military, because they have detrimental effect on other members who serve with them. I've seen this firsthand, and no amount of study-citing or name calling will convince me otherwise.

Unless you've served, frankly, your opinion isn't even valid.

Being in service doesn't bar myself or anyone else from a valid opinion. That's the beauty of a democracy, which last time I checked is what we live in. For now, at least.

Despite the fact that you clearly do have an issue with trans people, let's put that aside. Your approach would cater to third party prejudices, and that's not ok. There has been so financial, mission-related or other reason to ban trans folks from the military. There's a "moral" argument, that is not relevant or valid. And, the fact is, the Pentagon was on it. They had been considering the issue and were preparing to act in a thoughtful way. The President just shit all over that and their decision-making. By Twitter, no less. As someone who serves, I can't believe your ok with that. Finally, I'll say this, there are plenty of people who have already posted here that contradict what you've said, that it affects morale to have trans people in the military. So, you're view is not the view of all. Thankfully, not every service member's sensitivities are so delicate.

[Anonymous]

I love all the "I have nothing against trans people but. . . . "

As Jon Snow said on GoT this week, everything before the "but" is bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Veteran and I think this was a reasonable policy change.

Transgender persons, in my observations (admittedly only a few, in the last couple years before I separated from service) have a negative effect on small unit cohesion and moral, especially with younger enlisted personnel.

I have no issue with transgendered persons, I just don't think they belong in the military, because they have detrimental effect on other members who serve with them. I've seen this firsthand, and no amount of study-citing or name calling will convince me otherwise.

Unless you've served, frankly, your opinion isn't even valid.

Again: this is exactly what was said about blacks, and women, and gays. Fear mongering. Next up you'll be talking about showers. The people who want to impede progress and equality always get real worked up about showers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Veteran and I think this was a reasonable policy change.

Transgender persons, in my observations (admittedly only a few, in the last couple years before I separated from service) have a negative effect on small unit cohesion and moral, especially with younger enlisted personnel.

I have no issue with transgendered persons, I just don't think they belong in the military, because they have detrimental effect on other members who serve with them. I've seen this firsthand, and no amount of study-citing or name calling will convince me otherwise.

Unless you've served, frankly, your opinion isn't even valid.

It's very disturbing that you believe you're entitled a taxpayer funded paycheck, pension, and Tricare at the most fiscally irresponsible government agency but don't believe that the civilian taxpayers funding your lifestyle should have any criticisms of your employer's policies.

Who the f#ck do you think you are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Veteran and I think this was a reasonable policy change.

Transgender persons, in my observations (admittedly only a few, in the last couple years before I separated from service) have a negative effect on small unit cohesion and moral, especially with younger enlisted personnel.

I have no issue with transgendered persons, I just don't think they belong in the military, because they have detrimental effect on other members who serve with them. I've seen this firsthand, and no amount of study-citing or name calling will convince me otherwise.

Unless you've served, frankly, your opinion isn't even valid.

Again: this is exactly what was said about blacks, and women, and gays. Fear mongering. Next up you'll be talking about showers. The people who want to impede progress and equality always get real worked up about showers.

This is not the same thing. FWIW, there was an article in news yesterday by a female WP grad and an Army doctor. The point of the article is that there are definitely additional physical risks to women and that the services need to make that clear. And, there are different rules for women. The transgender issue is much, much more complicated.

As far as transgenders currently serving, let's please not forget Bradley/Chelsea Manning--who I think is fighting to get reassignment surgery paid for by the taxpayers. Great example. And, yes, I know, a bad example.

The transgender issue is very fluid. In fact, there is a "gender fluid" category these days, which means it can vary from day to day. There is also a "gender neutral" category for some people.

There are some transgenders who want surgery and some who do not. There are some who are still attracted to the opposite sex of their birth gender (Caitlin Jenner comes to mind) and have said they do not want the surgery (although, I think that may have changed recently).
If they do select gender reassignment, then that requires lots of counseling prior to this. It removes them from



The military operates on rules and regulations. How in the world is this worth the effort? The training alone would be quite time consuming. Do you have any idea how much sexual assault prevention training goes on these days? There is still race relations training, as well.

This is a very, very difficult issue. It is not comparable to integration--this involves logistics that were never considered when Obama put this forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Veteran and I think this was a reasonable policy change.

Transgender persons, in my observations (admittedly only a few, in the last couple years before I separated from service) have a negative effect on small unit cohesion and moral, especially with younger enlisted personnel.

I have no issue with transgendered persons, I just don't think they belong in the military, because they have detrimental effect on other members who serve with them. I've seen this firsthand, and no amount of study-citing or name calling will convince me otherwise.

Unless you've served, frankly, your opinion isn't even valid.

Again: this is exactly what was said about blacks, and women, and gays. Fear mongering. Next up you'll be talking about showers. The people who want to impede progress and equality always get real worked up about showers.

This is not the same thing. FWIW, there was an article in news yesterday by a female WP grad and an Army doctor. The point of the article is that there are definitely additional physical risks to women and that the services need to make that clear. And, there are different rules for women. The transgender issue is much, much more complicated.

As far as transgenders currently serving, let's please not forget Bradley/Chelsea Manning--who I think is fighting to get reassignment surgery paid for by the taxpayers. Great example. And, yes, I know, a bad example.

The transgender issue is very fluid. In fact, there is a "gender fluid" category these days, which means it can vary from day to day. There is also a "gender neutral" category for some people.

There are some transgenders who want surgery and some who do not. There are some who are still attracted to the opposite sex of their birth gender (Caitlin Jenner comes to mind) and have said they do not want the surgery (although, I think that may have changed recently).
If they do select gender reassignment, then that requires lots of counseling prior to this. It removes them from



The military operates on rules and regulations. How in the world is this worth the effort? The training alone would be quite time consuming. Do you have any idea how much sexual assault prevention training goes on these days? There is still race relations training, as well.

This is a very, very difficult issue. It is not comparable to integration--this involves logistics that were never considered when Obama put this forward.

There are trans people serving now and there's been zero reports of it causing the sorts of problems these fear mongers are now saying would be inevitable.

And while you want to draw distinctions between how terrible trans people would be in the military as opposed to these other groups: the arguments are *exactly* the same. These are 100% the same fear mongering statements that folks used to try to keep blacks, women, and gays out of the military - before they were allowed in and it turned out to be just fine.

[Anonymous]

There are trans people serving now and there's been zero reports of it causing the sorts of problems these fear mongers are now saying would be inevitable.

Chelsea Manning comes to mind........