Trump announces policy banning transgender military service

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you ever commanded a military unit of any type?

For right now, this makes perfect sense. There are many issues to be resolved--for example: PT tests for starters. Does a transgender man have to meet the requirements of a man or a woman? Sexual harassment. This is confusing to people. And complicated.

Sure training can be provided. Training for this costs money and time when we have many hotbeds of activity around the world. And, yes, it appears that the military is attractive to people who wish to transgender because of the healthcare costs. And, think about this, the surgery must surely require a lot of time off from work--as well as the expense. Do we really want to deploy someone who is going through transition?

This is a military readiness issue.

This is not an easy topic. It is complicated and expensive.

This was said about black people.

This was said about women.

This was said about gay people.

It is not necessary to have commanded a unit to have seen this show before.

Black people do not require highly specialized surgery or special dispensation on PT tests.

I agree that women are serving well--but, if you think that it does not come with additional medical and social issues, you are very naïve. For example, a platoon leader who deployed to Iraq and had to return home (after all the training in preparation) because she was pregnant. This is expensive and dangerous--as she was replaced by a platoon leader who had not been trained for this highly specialized and quite dangerous job. Fortunately, her replacement was a great manager--but this is an "unintended consequence" of women in the military which is costly. The same with women on ships.
There are also the issues of sexual harassment and assault. It should not exist, but lots of money is being spent on this, as well. And, yes, some of it does come down to "he said, she said."

Again, do gay people require surgery? Do they require special PT tests? How many additional funds are spent on this?

This is not a "show". This is real life, real people, and real danger. The DOD needs to spend money on preparedness--not transgender surgery and more social training than we already have. A company commander out in the desert does not need to deal with this. There is a lot more to war than fire fights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you ever commanded a military unit of any type?

For right now, this makes perfect sense. There are many issues to be resolved--for example: PT tests for starters. Does a transgender man have to meet the requirements of a man or a woman? Sexual harassment. This is confusing to people. And complicated.

Sure training can be provided. Training for this costs money and time when we have many hotbeds of activity around the world. And, yes, it appears that the military is attractive to people who wish to transgender because of the healthcare costs. And, think about this, the surgery must surely require a lot of time off from work--as well as the expense. Do we really want to deploy someone who is going through transition?

This is a military readiness issue.

This is not an easy topic. It is complicated and expensive.

Why yes, I have commanded a military unit. These were the exact same arguments used to exclude women. Pregnancy making them non-deployable and all that. What PT standards they should meet. The problems turned out to be completely manageable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you ever commanded a military unit of any type?

For right now, this makes perfect sense. There are many issues to be resolved--for example: PT tests for starters. Does a transgender man have to meet the requirements of a man or a woman? Sexual harassment. This is confusing to people. And complicated.

Sure training can be provided. Training for this costs money and time when we have many hotbeds of activity around the world. And, yes, it appears that the military is attractive to people who wish to transgender because of the healthcare costs. And, think about this, the surgery must surely require a lot of time off from work--as well as the expense. Do we really want to deploy someone who is going through transition?

This is a military readiness issue.

This is not an easy topic. It is complicated and expensive.

It's also expensive to recruit and train 15,000 people who will now replace those being ejected from service.

Bottom line, if someone wants to sacrifice for the liberty and freedom of our country, what difference does it make whether they are white, black, brown, mail, female or trans?

It doesn't.

Any answer to the contrary is simple bigotry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you ever commanded a military unit of any type?

For right now, this makes perfect sense. There are many issues to be resolved--for example: PT tests for starters. Does a transgender man have to meet the requirements of a man or a woman? Sexual harassment. This is confusing to people. And complicated.

Sure training can be provided. Training for this costs money and time when we have many hotbeds of activity around the world. And, yes, it appears that the military is attractive to people who wish to transgender because of the healthcare costs. And, think about this, the surgery must surely require a lot of time off from work--as well as the expense. Do we really want to deploy someone who is going through transition?

This is a military readiness issue.

This is not an easy topic. It is complicated and expensive.

DA civilian here who posted above. DOD did a complete legal roll out of its transgender policy, and we all had to train on it. It IS complicated, but in our unit, we feel prepare, and we were proud the military was on the right side of this issue. So this is pretty embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

How sad. How truly sad that we have a president who doesn't care for all this country's people.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you ever commanded a military unit of any type?

For right now, this makes perfect sense. There are many issues to be resolved--for example: PT tests for starters. Does a transgender man have to meet the requirements of a man or a woman? Sexual harassment. This is confusing to people. And complicated.

Sure training can be provided. Training for this costs money and time when we have many hotbeds of activity around the world. And, yes, it appears that the military is attractive to people who wish to transgender because of the healthcare costs. And, think about this, the surgery must surely require a lot of time off from work--as well as the expense. Do we really want to deploy someone who is going through transition?

This is a military readiness issue.

This is not an easy topic. It is complicated and expensive.

This was said about black people.

This was said about women.

This was said about gay people.

It is not necessary to have commanded a unit to have seen this show before.

Black people do not require highly specialized surgery or special dispensation on PT tests.

I agree that women are serving well--but, if you think that it does not come with additional medical and social issues, you are very naïve. For example, a platoon leader who deployed to Iraq and had to return home (after all the training in preparation) because she was pregnant. This is expensive and dangerous--as she was replaced by a platoon leader who had not been trained for this highly specialized and quite dangerous job. Fortunately, her replacement was a great manager--but this is an "unintended consequence" of women in the military which is costly. The same with women on ships.
There are also the issues of sexual harassment and assault. It should not exist, but lots of money is being spent on this, as well. And, yes, some of it does come down to "he said, she said."

Again, do gay people require surgery? Do they require special PT tests? How many additional funds are spent on this?

This is not a "show". This is real life, real people, and real danger. The DOD needs to spend money on preparedness--not transgender surgery and more social training than we already have. A company commander out in the desert does not need to deal with this. There is a lot more to war than fire fights.

How is it that the military can spend millions of dollars on a single aircraft but surgery for a few people is unaffordable? I though the military was supposed to be defending the rights of Americans, not violating them.

Every single time the military has been asked to become less discriminatory, it has raised the same tired list of objections. This time, there is the added item of cost. As if the military ever worried about money before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


Black people do not require highly specialized surgery or special dispensation on PT tests.

I agree that women are serving well--but, if you think that it does not come with additional medical and social issues, you are very naïve. For example, a platoon leader who deployed to Iraq and had to return home (after all the training in preparation) because she was pregnant. This is expensive and dangerous--as she was replaced by a platoon leader who had not been trained for this highly specialized and quite dangerous job. Fortunately, her replacement was a great manager--but this is an "unintended consequence" of women in the military which is costly. The same with women on ships.
There are also the issues of sexual harassment and assault. It should not exist, but lots of money is being spent on this, as well. And, yes, some of it does come down to "he said, she said."

Again, do gay people require surgery? Do they require special PT tests? How many additional funds are spent on this?

This is not a "show". This is real life, real people, and real danger. The DOD needs to spend money on preparedness--not transgender surgery and more social training than we already have. A company commander out in the desert does not need to deal with this. There is a lot more to war than fire fights.

The DOD had said in May that this was a non-issue. The President is overriding his generals. It is his right, but it goes against his campaign rhetoric and is timely to curry favor with the hard right who are blasting Trump on the Sessions issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump tweet, June 14 2016:

Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.

He does not know what transgender means nor, what LGBT stands for.

The only possible positive I can see coming out of this is any dumb as rocks LGBT voter that fell for this will hopefully realize that he is not a friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How sad. How truly sad that we have a president who doesn't care for all this country's people.

Sad that people do not understand the mission of the military.

[Anonymous]

Mattis is on vacation...so this is happening outside of his purview. He was already on record of supporting the previous policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How sad. How truly sad that we have a president who doesn't care for all this country's people.

Sad that people do not understand the mission of the military.

What, defending the US against foreign adversary and defending freedom and liberty for all but the LGBTQ?

[Anonymous]

What, defending the US against foreign adversary and defending freedom and liberty for all but the LGBTQ?

Doubtful that your grandmother can serve in the military--but she still gets her freedom and liberty defended. Poor argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How sad. How truly sad that we have a president who doesn't care for all this country's people.

Sad that people do not understand the mission of the military.

The mission of the military is not incompatible with civil rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What, defending the US against foreign adversary and defending freedom and liberty for all but the LGBTQ?

Doubtful that your grandmother can serve in the military--but she still gets her freedom and liberty defended. Poor argument.

Yes, she couldn't pass the PT requirements. Poorer argument on your part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What, defending the US against foreign adversary and defending freedom and liberty for all but the LGBTQ?

Doubtful that your grandmother can serve in the military--but she still gets her freedom and liberty defended. Poor argument.

You're right. Yours is a poor argument. Thanks for pointing it out