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.

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??

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.