Trump announces policy banning transgender military service

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It is meaningful. Because ED costs far outweigh the costs of transitioning surgeries. That you've chosen to break it down for "average" soldiers or per soldier is what is not meaningful b/c there are always going to be differences between between each individual. The healthy soldier with no medical history is going to cost less than the "average" soldier with asthma, or who injures him/herself, or who has allergies, or . . . pick your ailment. So, this is a bit of cute maneuvering to do it that way. Overall, the financial argument simply doesn't hold up.

And why ED is identified should be obvious. It's not necessary to be able to get an erection to serve in the military just as it isn't, according to people here, "necessary" to undergo transition while in the military. Yet, one is extensively covered. The other people are bitching and complaining about b/c, let's be honest, it has zero to do with cost and all to do with fear of what they don't know.

And, some may have ED as a result of injuries incurred in service. And, I seriously doubt that many enlistees need Viagara when they enlist. Let's see that statistic first, please.

And, let's face it--there are plenty of other factors involved. But, if the DOD starts paying for transgender surgery, I guarantee you that there will be a lot more enlistments from transgenders--and the expense will quickly escalate.

This is a bogus argument.

Also, what is your source for the amount spent on Viagara? I'd love to see that.

I agree that it's necessary for someone who wants elective sex change surgery to get it, just as I think it's necessary for someone with ED to get a Viagra prescription if they seek it (this is not a daily therapy they would need on the front BTW).

I don't agree that it's necessary for the military to enlist someone who identifies as trans and would seek sex change surgery. There are other reasons enlisting a trans who wanted to serve openly could be problematic, but I am sticking to your medical argument. That person is free to pursue a sex change by other means. Lastly, there is a 17,000 figure being floated for sex changes. What utter nonsense. There is zero way that a full transition costs 17,000. Laughable.

[Anonymous]

I think the compromise would be you pick a gender and pronoun and stick with it. You give up your hormones and privacy requirements in the field as needed (which can be 30 days or longer). You don't ask Tricare to pick up the tab for sex reassignment surgeries while serving or in retirement. You don't ask the government to give you leave for any said surgery while you are in. Save your duckets and do it when you get out.

No neutrals and otherkins (people who identify as unicorns etc)

Sound good? If people with ADHD and tattoos can't get in, I think this is a fairly hefty accommodation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is meaningful. Because ED costs far outweigh the costs of transitioning surgeries. That you've chosen to break it down for "average" soldiers or per soldier is what is not meaningful b/c there are always going to be differences between between each individual. The healthy soldier with no medical history is going to cost less than the "average" soldier with asthma, or who injures him/herself, or who has allergies, or . . . pick your ailment. So, this is a bit of cute maneuvering to do it that way. Overall, the financial argument simply doesn't hold up.

And why ED is identified should be obvious. It's not necessary to be able to get an erection to serve in the military just as it isn't, according to people here, "necessary" to undergo transition while in the military. Yet, one is extensively covered. The other people are bitching and complaining about b/c, let's be honest, it has zero to do with cost and all to do with fear of what they don't know.

And, some may have ED as a result of injuries incurred in service. And, I seriously doubt that many enlistees need Viagara when they enlist. Let's see that statistic first, please.

And, let's face it--there are plenty of other factors involved. But, if the DOD starts paying for transgender surgery, I guarantee you that there will be a lot more enlistments from transgenders--and the expense will quickly escalate.

This is a bogus argument.

Also, what is your source for the amount spent on Viagara? I'd love to see that.

I agree that it's necessary for someone who wants elective sex change surgery to get it, just as I think it's necessary for someone with ED to get a Viagra prescription if they seek it (this is not a daily therapy they would need on the front BTW).

I don't agree that it's necessary for the military to enlist someone who identifies as trans and would seek sex change surgery. There are other reasons enlisting a trans who wanted to serve openly could be problematic, but I am sticking to your medical argument. That person is free to pursue a sex change by other means. Lastly, there is a 17,000 figure being floated for sex changes. What utter nonsense. There is zero way that a full transition costs 17,000. Laughable.

Maybe, just the surgeon's fee? Of course, elective plastic surgery is one of the least expensive surgeries--because the insurance companies are not involved. But, in this case, if it is deemed "medically necessary"--and it will be--the cost will be far beyond that because insurance companies will be involved. This probably does not count time in the hospital and the therapy ahead of time--for heaven's sake, therapists are very expensive and it is required prior to surgery, and, I would think, afterwards.

I would think that it would be hard to enlist if you are going through therapy--so, how could a transgender enlist? Will the rules be different for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It is meaningful. Because ED costs far outweigh the costs of transitioning surgeries. That you've chosen to break it down for "average" soldiers or per soldier is what is not meaningful b/c there are always going to be differences between between each individual. The healthy soldier with no medical history is going to cost less than the "average" soldier with asthma, or who injures him/herself, or who has allergies, or . . . pick your ailment. So, this is a bit of cute maneuvering to do it that way. Overall, the financial argument simply doesn't hold up.

And why ED is identified should be obvious. It's not necessary to be able to get an erection to serve in the military just as it isn't, according to people here, "necessary" to undergo transition while in the military. Yet, one is extensively covered. The other people are bitching and complaining about b/c, let's be honest, it has zero to do with cost and all to do with fear of what they don't know.

And, some may have ED as a result of injuries incurred in service. And, I seriously doubt that many enlistees need Viagara when they enlist. Let's see that statistic first, please.

And, let's face it--there are plenty of other factors involved. But, if the DOD starts paying for transgender surgery, I guarantee you that there will be a lot more enlistments from transgenders--and the expense will quickly escalate.

This is a bogus argument.

Also, what is your source for the amount spent on Viagara? I'd love to see that.

The "source" is all over the media today. A simple search would find it but here it is, the Post (citing to the Military Times): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/26/the-military-spends-five-times-as-much-on-viagra-as-it-would-on-transgender-troops-medical-care/?utm_term=.96910c3375cc

The rest of your post is just conjecture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is meaningful. Because ED costs far outweigh the costs of transitioning surgeries. That you've chosen to break it down for "average" soldiers or per soldier is what is not meaningful b/c there are always going to be differences between between each individual. The healthy soldier with no medical history is going to cost less than the "average" soldier with asthma, or who injures him/herself, or who has allergies, or . . . pick your ailment. So, this is a bit of cute maneuvering to do it that way. Overall, the financial argument simply doesn't hold up.

And why ED is identified should be obvious. It's not necessary to be able to get an erection to serve in the military just as it isn't, according to people here, "necessary" to undergo transition while in the military. Yet, one is extensively covered. The other people are bitching and complaining about b/c, let's be honest, it has zero to do with cost and all to do with fear of what they don't know.

And, some may have ED as a result of injuries incurred in service. And, I seriously doubt that many enlistees need Viagara when they enlist. Let's see that statistic first, please.

And, let's face it--there are plenty of other factors involved. But, if the DOD starts paying for transgender surgery, I guarantee you that there will be a lot more enlistments from transgenders--and the expense will quickly escalate.

This is a bogus argument.

Also, what is your source for the amount spent on Viagara? I'd love to see that.

I agree that it's necessary for someone who wants elective sex change surgery to get it, just as I think it's necessary for someone with ED to get a Viagra prescription if they seek it (this is not a daily therapy they would need on the front BTW).

I don't agree that it's necessary for the military to enlist someone who identifies as trans and would seek sex change surgery. There are other reasons enlisting a trans who wanted to serve openly could be problematic, but I am sticking to your medical argument. That person is free to pursue a sex change by other means. Lastly, there is a 17,000 figure being floated for sex changes. What utter nonsense. There is zero way that a full transition costs 17,000. Laughable.

Like what? And it's not "my" medical argument. It's the proponents of this ban that are citing to the medical costs, which is really just a pretext for their own bigotry. THAT is what is laughable.

[Anonymous]

Like what? And it's not "my" medical argument. It's the proponents of this ban that are citing to the medical costs, which is really just a pretext for their own bigotry. THAT is what is laughable.

Like what? Physical problems in the field--this is not an easy surgery. Unit cohesiveness. Go read the twitter feed of Salzman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Like what? And it's not "my" medical argument. It's the proponents of this ban that are citing to the medical costs, which is really just a pretext for their own bigotry. THAT is what is laughable.

Like what? Physical problems in the field--this is not an easy surgery. Unit cohesiveness. Go read the twitter feed of Salzman.

Do you know more than the chairman of the Joint Chiefs what is good for the military? I somehow doubt it.

[Anonymous]

I hope the democrats make this part of their platforms when running for office.. It surely will help them win votes from the middle class smh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope the democrats make this part of their platforms when running for office.. It surely will help them win votes from the middle class smh

Supporting the LGBTQ community? Damn right it will be part of the platform.

Did you see that even Orrin Hatch - Orrin mfin Hatch - came out against this idiotic move of Trumps? If you think Trump made the right move, or made a popular move, you my friend are living in a bubble.

[Anonymous]

Even doddering old fools are right occasionally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the democrats make this part of their platforms when running for office.. It surely will help them win votes from the middle class smh

Supporting the LGBTQ community? Damn right it will be part of the platform.

Did you see that even Orrin Hatch - Orrin mfin Hatch - came out against this idiotic move of Trumps? If you think Trump made the right move, or made a popular move, you my friend are living in a bubble.

And you will lose again! Almost half of all transgendered folks have attempted or thought about suicide. This alone makes you not eligible for service. Why are you pushing this sjw narrative on the country and now you want to experiment in the military to??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope the democrats make this part of their platforms when running for office.. It surely will help them win votes from the middle class smh

Welp...we will see. If a war breaks out somewhere (likely) and the draft is revived. Do you think people whose kids could be drafted will look kindly on a policy that turns away troops who volunteered? In fact, I predict that will be the next big deferment scam thanks to this policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Like what? And it's not "my" medical argument. It's the proponents of this ban that are citing to the medical costs, which is really just a pretext for their own bigotry. THAT is what is laughable.

Like what? Physical problems in the field--this is not an easy surgery. Unit cohesiveness. Go read the twitter feed of Salzman.

Surely they would not go from operating table to the field in a matter of hours or days, the same way other service members with medical issues or surgeries do not.

Cohesiveness = code for catering to prejudice.

Next?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the democrats make this part of their platforms when running for office.. It surely will help them win votes from the middle class smh

Supporting the LGBTQ community? Damn right it will be part of the platform.

Did you see that even Orrin Hatch - Orrin mfin Hatch - came out against this idiotic move of Trumps? If you think Trump made the right move, or made a popular move, you my friend are living in a bubble.

And you will lose again! Almost half of all transgendered folks have attempted or thought about suicide. This alone makes you not eligible for service. Why are you pushing this sjw narrative on the country and now you want to experiment in the military to??

Did I miss where the POTUS gave this as a reason or are you just trying to backfill the reason? Because it appears that high ranking military officials, members of Congress and the lobbyists who wanted the ban on paying for the surgery are all shocked because the ban was much more than they wanted. But of course, the POTUS knows more than the people with actual experience.

[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 directed from the President. Apparently he doesn't take order over Twitter.

Apparently, Trump doesn't realize that he can't pass laws using Twitter, and it's not the same as signing an EO. Everyday he does something even more dumb than the next. I laugh and cry at the same time.