Trump, 'No transgender people in military'

[Tom Sawyer]

You know what's more disruptive to the military? Sexual assault. Why doesn't our President spend some time working on *that* problem?

I guess he'd just say something like "if you ladies can't deal with it then go be kindergarten teachers."

Heh. The joke's on them, though, because he's going to shut down all the kindergartens in order to pass the cost savings onto billionaires as a tax break.

Stupid female soldiers. They're so stupid.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

You know what's more disruptive to the military? Sexual assault. Why doesn't our President spend some time working on *that* problem?

I guess he'd just say something like "if you ladies can't deal with it then go be kindergarten teachers."

Exactly! He'd just ban women from the military. I actually don't want him working on solving any problems. He's the only person I know who could make a jigsaw puzzle more disorganized by trying to put it together.

aa

 

[Keith&Co.]

I guess he'd just say something like "if you ladies can't deal with it then go be kindergarten teachers."

My very first sexual harassment standdown consisted of a master chief telling us 'Don't fuck with the bitches.'
We said 'Aye, aye!' and then liberty was down.

The second one lasted twice as long.

The one after Tailhook, though,THAT one took a while. They had pictures.

 

[funinspace]

The Military.com article on this policy change really brought out the opinions.

I was struck by the guy insisting that 'the military needs STEERS not QUEERS!'

Kind of odd, since steers are castrated... Sounds like a lotta bull to me.

I dunno, I can think of more than a few SCPO's that it might have helped. Besides "the guy" might be onto something, as it might improve the next generation of American human stock...


Oh post Tailhook :censored2:

 

[J842P]

Yes. As long as they prohibit ALL redheads, not just enlisted or just women redheads...

He'd probably be better off propping the decision up with some carefully selected findings. Maybe show that redheads are more likely to be mistreated among serving members, with a .03% greater chance of suicide if the DOD doesn't pay for their hair coloring. Kicking them out is simply protecting them. Maybe not all of them, but we can't ignore the .03% that would be at risk.

Science cannot dictate unit cohesion. If enough sailors/soldiers are convinced that they'd be uncomfortable around a transgender member, they'll be uncomfortable around a transgendered member.

The funny thing is, it sounds a LOT like the comments about putting women in combat or on deployed vessels. Or allowing gays.
I suspect people said the same sort of thing about 'what if a white soldier has to take orders from a black officer?' or 'How will they handle the bathroom facilities on a seagoing command?'

That's kind of my point... could he ban all women from the military? All blacks? All Jews? All Muslims? All atheists?

I think so, but I'm no legal scholar. But from what I can glean, the authority of the executive over the military on these matters isn't exactly settled. It's never been challenged. If someone can come up with something more concrete, I'm all ears. As far as I know, transgender people are not a federally protected group anyway, so I don't think there is any question about the legality of this order. Where the issue gets iffy is with regards to women and ethnic minorities.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's kind of my point... could he ban all women from the military? All blacks? All Jews? All Muslims? All atheists?

I think so, but I'm no legal scholar. But from what I can glean, the authority of the executive over the military on these matters isn't exactly settled. It's never been challenged. If someone can come up with something more concrete, I'm all ears. As far as I know, transgender people are not a federally protected group anyway, so I don't think there is any question about the legality of this order. Where the issue gets iffy is with regards to women and ethnic minorities.

Actually the question is whether he has actually given a legal order, as not whether you can ban people from the military but do Tweets count? Right now the Military has told him to fuck off until something more concrete comes forth. Low end estimate to fire and replace the soldiers is approximately $250 million.

Yup, sounds like a Trump economic maneuver. And any LGBTQ who voted for Trump and is upset by this... fuck you!

 

[J842P]

I think so, but I'm no legal scholar. But from what I can glean, the authority of the executive over the military on these matters isn't exactly settled. It's never been challenged. If someone can come up with something more concrete, I'm all ears. As far as I know, transgender people are not a federally protected group anyway, so I don't think there is any question about the legality of this order. Where the issue gets iffy is with regards to women and ethnic minorities.

Actually the question is whether he has actually given a legal order, as not whether you can ban people from the military but do Tweets count? Right now the Military has told him to fuck off until something more concrete comes forth. Low end estimate to fire and replace the soldiers is approximately $250 million.

Yup, sounds like a Trump economic maneuver. And any LGBTQ who voted for Trump and is upset by this... fuck you!

Sure, but for the sake of discussion, what if had been a bona fide order?

 

[repoman]

Have transgender troops on hormones and post surgery ever served in combat in the US?

What has been the experience in other countries?

It seems that the example of transgender soldiers is people who were serving before transition. It is a bit dishonest to talk about these people and showing how they look now.

 

[bilby]

Seriously?

This guy is likely the most famous Corporal ever to serve in the US military. And that was back in the 1950s!

 

[bilby]

 

[Juma]

Have transgender troops on hormones and post surgery ever served in combat in the US?

What has been the experience in other countries?

It seems that the example of transgender soldiers is people who were serving before transition. It is a bit dishonest to talk about these people and showing how they look now.

Most transgenders arent interseted in hormones or operation... (think Eddie Izzard)

 

[iolo]

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.

No, it's not irrelevant. It's an attempt to shift the conversation away from the Russia investigations by attacking an unpopular outgroup. That's very relevant.

Yup, I see that.

 

[Malintent]

So instead of saying that they are not entitled to 'sex-change' related medical services as part of their medical benefits for being enlisted, they are banned?

People with big noses should then be banned too... they might want a nose job.

Oh, and no more religious people either... they might want a circumcision if they decide to have a Jewish religion-change.

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.

 

[LordKiran]

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.

 

[Juma]

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.

Again: transgender is not necessarily about change your biological sex. For some it is but for many, many it is definitely not!

 

[Malintent]

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?

 

[Keith&Co.]

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?

There are medical conditions which are contraindicators for certain duty, such as deployment on submarines. But you get sub dis-qualified and moved to shore billets or changed to a non-submarine rate.
Other conditions require billets near major hospitals, or within Continental United States, or if overseas, not at certain bases or facilities.
Basically, once they've paid for your schooling, they really would like to retain you, if they can wring another ounce of use out of you.

Usually on a case-by-case basis.

I saw one guy get shot in the ankle, destroyed the joint, he was disqualified subs, permanently. All those ladders...
An idiot on the crew only heard 'shot foot permanent sub disqual.' Shot himself in the foot, thinking this meant a permanent shore billet. But not at a major joint. Or even at a knuckle.
He made patrol with us, wearing a walking-cast. His choice was make an uncomfortable patrol or get written up for malingering...

Seen several guys permanently disqualified subs but we kept bumping into them in the trainers...

 

[LordKiran]

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.

 

[Malintent]

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.

 

[EricB]

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.

Restricted from most types of field duty, limited deployment capacity and lesser chance of certain positions. Any number of medical conditions limit your deployment and billet status. There is also a differentiation in status for different types of diabetics, although both receive limitations.