Trump announces policy banning transgender military service

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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........

There are zero reports of Chelsea Manning causing problems in the military due to being trans.

Chelsea Manning coming out as trans while in prison - not while serving - opened up issues, that were dealt with.

[Anonymous]

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.

No. "Gay" people don't require surgery. Idiot. Why don't you learn the difference between gay and trans and come back to the conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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........

Manning transitioned in prison, you dope.

And, there is zero support in any financial argument here. When the military spends 5x's as much on erectile dysfunction meds than it would on trans surgery, you've lost that argument. Last time I checked, getting an erection was not a mission critical requirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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........

Part of Manning's adjustment disorder was an inability to comes to terms with her gender identity. Maybe if the military had been a more welcoming place, where she could have talked to someone, she wouldn't have ended up doing what she did.

[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.

+1. I bet the PP would say the same thing about young, enlisted personnel having problems with POC, women, and gay people serving.

[Anonymous]

Transgender people join the military to get free sex re-assignment surgery. It costs tax payers a couple million a year, but better than botching their bodies in Thailand.

[Anonymous]

How long before Trump tweets that Muslims are no longer allowed in the military?

[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.

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.

Clearly, PP, has never served and understands nothing about those who do serve where POCs, gay, straight, or transgendered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Transgender people join the military to get free sex re-assignment surgery. It costs tax payers a couple million a year, but better than botching their bodies in Thailand.

The military pays 5 times as much on viagra then on gender reassignment surgery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How long before Trump tweets that Muslims are no longer allowed in the military?

He will want them to go directly to designated areas to be monitored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm troubled by the push for changes under the last administration preceding a thorough plan to implement well. I am fine with a moratorium simply because the way it was rolled out was by fiat with the chips falling as they may. We are actively fighting a war on many fronts, we have airplanes flying without sufficient parts. I do believe the day will come when all of this is moot, and no one bats an eye at trans in the military or elsewhere. But we are not there. Unfortunately I think president Obama probably set this back. No one is going to want to touch this again for a long time .

You are wrong on several counts. The previous administration launched a comprehensive planning process which was due to end this month. The current administration delayed the implementation of the plan. The actual fiat occurred this morning on Twitter. As far as touching it goes, several senators, including Republicans, couldn't wait to touch it today. I assume that you know that just last week the Republican-dominated House voted against cutting funding for Transgender surgeries for military members. Trump went well beyond what even the hardliners were hoping for. [/quot,e]

I am the PP. I don't like what Trump did, but I don't like what President Obama did. My spouse was throughout and continues to be active duty military. I would like the military to be a great place for our daughter to serve, a great rape free (or highly consequence behavior--which it isn't in America at large btw) for both men and women (men get raped too in the military). I like the idea that trans may bring something special to the table. I watch Billions and "They" scares the #@& out of me and I'd love to set They on the enemy. However, I also like the idea of spouse currently focused on war fighting, well supplied, not deliberating over his/hers/theirs shower arrangements in the field and I am personally uncomfortable with co-berthing. If I were in the field and could die the next day the person next to me, even if not the subject of my marriage vows, might form a special bond and be extremely tempting. I think the military currently has its hands completely full with integrating women. The changes under President Obama were quick, by fiat, and unrelenting. There seems to be endless money for trainings to support them. Meanwhile, military ships are crashing in the Pacific and military airplanes are falling out of the sky. Where is the training and supplies for these? Enough. I don't like what Trump did but I don't like what Obama did either. Both are all or nothing guys. Again, where is our person who mediates? I think Obama set us back, and Trump is a reaction that does as well. Another sad day for America, but not completely unpredictable.

So, in no particular order:

1. How does your DH feel about trasgender people in the military?
2. How long go was his affair?
3. Isn't your real problem women in general, and not transgendered women specifically?
4. Do you usually blame problems in your marriage on the other woman/man?
5. You do realize that the Japanese ran into us in the pacific, right?
6. What's your stance onViagrraain the military. Funds diverted plus enables cheating, amirite?
7. How many times a day, on average, do you say, I'm not a bigot, but...

TIA for you answers!

This is the insufferable "amirite" poster. Always seeing issues where there are none in defense of an issue not worthy of defense.

[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.

very well stated, especially with regard to fluidity.

[jsteele]

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff just told Reuters that there will be no policy change with regard to transgender service members until directed from the President. Apparently he doesn't take order over Twitter.

[Anonymous]

And just to hammer home how ill conceived Trump's new policy is, both in terms of substance and how it's received by those in the military - the chairman of the joint chiefs issued a statement saying that they would not be implementing this new ban and plan to treat "all our personnel with respect."

https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/890589409329983489

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff just told Reuters that there will be no policy change with regard to transgender service members until director from the President. Apparently he doesn't take order over Twitter.

jinx