LordKiran
Veteran Member
Please it's hardly the same thing.
even then, Ravensky said this:
Moreover, the AMA passed a resolution in 2015 that there is no medical reason transgender people cannot serve in the military. From a legal standpoint, what basis could the military enforce that fucking asshole's verbal vomit even if they wanted to?
I'm willing to take her word for it, so moot argument at this point.
How is a guarantee for free ELECTIVE SURGERY on one part of the body different than another part of the body, with respect to what the military should offer enlistees? Reading comprehension note: The subject is the military's policy on elective surgery, and not the emotional issues with being transgender and wanting a sex change, or a fat person who wants liposuction, or a jew that wants their foreskin back, or even if Pinocchio wants a regular nose (because he is a BOY!).
- - - Updated - - -
All this stuff is, I think, irrelevant. Homosexuality was long seen to be a bar, for instance, yet homosexual soldiers have been some of the best in history - take the Theban Sacred Band, who finally put paid to the Spartans who, I think, tended to have similar tastes. If there really were Amazons (and there are serious arguments) they would also be important in terms of opinion versus sense.
I agree... totally irrelevant.. The relevant part concerns what benefits the military chooses to offer enlistees... elective surgery or not.
It's not really about the surgery itself, further I am aware that not everyone who transitions uses it. What pretty much every transition does include though is a steady stream of estrogen and usually a male hormone blocker. The important thing is that you need to keep taking them, albeit in smaller doses if you get the surgery too. I've gone off of such things cold turkey because I wasn't able to secure more to ween myself down, It was not a fun time I promise you. Not having it for an extended period would render the person mentally and emotionally vulnerable, which is important when deployed and perhaps supplies are scarce or cut off for an extended duration due to one logistics fuck-up or another. That's all.
At any rate, this would hardly be a problem for many if not most roles in military service so it's still a crummy reason to bar trans people from serving period.
Are diabetics also banned from service (even after being diagnosed post-enlistment)? Many (FAR more than the total number of trans) need daily insulin shots.... how is that handled? medical discharge?
Truthfully I don't know. I imagine however that Diabetics are usually not considered for missions which take them away from the logistics train for extended periods. I would imagine the case would be the same or similar for trans people.
well, not ALL trans people... just ones that are 'transitioning' medically. And not all people that eat sugar should be disqualified... just the ones that need daily insulin to process the sugar.
If they're not transitioned or transitioning then there's no extra medical consideration so logically they're no different from any other perfectly healthy man or woman. How would trans people not transitioned or transitioning even factor into the discussion? Not only is there no justifiable reason to remove or restrict them but there's no way to know who they are in any official capacity unless they're outwardly claiming Trans status or have it noted on their medical history. Which is still bad but come on, I may be playing devil's advocate here but even the devil has limits.