I'm going to weigh in here since it personally affects me and my unit readiness. One post, that is all. I will not be replying or rebutting anything. I always get in trouble on these posts.
This is a good thing.
Up until a few years ago, transgenderism was a mental disorder. Not sure on the current status, but it is just that. It's your brain, not functioning cohesively with your body. It's a work hazard for everyone involved.
There is no such thing as "non-deployable". Either you're able to deploy, or you aren't. Pregnant women, medical injuries, psychological damage: all of it is pretty much ok short term because it doesn't affect long-term unit readiness for deployments. People are medically discharged all the time if they're deemed unfit for a period of time. Now take a transgendered person who requires medicine to keep their hormones in balance, has a 50% suicide rate, anxiety, disphoria, hormones imbalances, etc and tell me that's not going to impact a unit's ability to get boots off ground?
Now, say we are all deployed, the transgender person has fully transitioned, is mentally stable, passed all tests, and a supply line has been interrupted, the medic has run out of whatever hormones are required to maintain this person's body, and it'll be a while before another bag of pills comes in? It's a lot of "what ifs", but for the sake of a Soldier's life, I think hurting a few feelings is just necessary collateral damage. We aren't a social experiment. Joining the military isn't a right and since, up until a few years ago when PC culture took over, being transgendered was a mental illness, they don't fall under "discrimination" for a physically demanding job that can get people killed.
We disqualify people for asthma, eating disorders, long-term depression, blood disorders, EVERY physical handicap under the sun... why should this be any different? It screws with unit cohesion and the raw numbers for a unit to deploy. Especially since the government was supposed to foot the bill. How useful is someone to me if they're in and out of surgery, therapy, and recovery instead of being there for training? Feelings don't mean shit. Sorry guys, I know a couple hundred might be affected, but they're a bigger pain in the ass than they're worth to the military.
Love it or hate it... it was the right decision.
It is discrimination. If a person is physically fit and healthy to serve then let them. Although, I will say I don't think anyone should enlist just to have medical costs covered for their procedures as it isn't a life/death situation. You need to have the passion to serve. Basically, like I said, if they're healthy and have a passion to serve then whether or not they have or are transitioning shouldn't play a factor into that.
Aura loves me ♥
Accelerator's cK gma :')
I saw similar statistics. It made me wonder where they were basing their numbers to be honest. The department of defense is quite large and includes many personnel who are not active duty military, aka not people to be include in the numbers. There are TONS of contractors and other employees who are under the DOD umbrella but aren't military.
Realistically though, I have no idea how much the procedures/treatments for transgendered people are so I can't say how impactful this cut would really be.
---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------
Ive never been in the military and I'm sure a lot of others forming opinions on this haven't been either. So we will never truly understand the impact something like this can have on a day to day basis. Yes, it's discrimination.. that much is pretty obvious. But when there are lives on the line, we need personnel who are 100% fit for duty and dependable. A blanket ban may seem a little harsh, but what's worse.. that or picking and choosing who gets in? Image how much of a mess that would be. I agree it's the right decision, for the time being. Transitioning can be a very difficult process. Add that into the rigors of combat and who knows what will happen. I'm sure there are folks out there who could beyond a doubt handle it, but I'm sure there are also those who wouldn't.
What's my definition of success?
Creating something no one else can
Being brave enough to dream big
Grindin' when you're told to just quit
Giving more when you got nothin' left
So for those of you who feel this is the right decision, how do you feel about homosexuals or women serving in the miltary? I think it's relevant because a lot of the arguments being said regarding transgender people have also been said about them. Homosexuals also have a higher suicide rate. Women were also thought unfit to serve due to regular hormonal changes. I mean, what a mess that would be. Just saying.
This is absolutely ridiculous.
And this is one of trump's tweets from a while back:
"Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs."
Lol.
Aura loves me ♥
That depends on a few things then, like how disruptive is it to take hormones? How often do they need to do it? Can they afford not taking them for weeks to months if they're deployed and the military can't/won't provide them? Will the meds be taking up space that could be used for something more useful?
By fully transitioning I didn't mean they HAVE to have the surgery, but IF they had the surgery to make sure they don't have to do extra tasks that can be a nuisance if they're deployed (like the dilating part for MTF), I think what they have between their legs are of little use if what matters is if they're capable of doing their job. I know very little about the meds trans people have to take so I'm not sure if I'm talking crap and I apologize if I am cause my knowledge about this group of people is teeny-tiny.
I'm not entirely sure how it works for the military, but gender dysphoria here is considered a mental illness which immediately disqualifies someone from enlisting, I also heard that some medications they take may cause mood swings and other side effects that are a no-no if someone is serving but I don't know if it's true, just thought I'd throw this in here if someone knows more about it.
And if I think a little deeper it doesn't matter what the person identifies as, if they're FTM and are at a disadvantage physically they won't be given a free pass because that just wouldn't be very fair, as long as they can perform their tasks successfully and the military won't have any extra trouble with them then I believe they're free to serve! There's just a lot to consider beforehand.
psh
Are you fuckin' serious?
Being gay doesn't put you on medication and have lifelong affects that physically affect your body, performance, and ability to function. Being a woman doesn't weigh any of the same issues.
I don't think there's a single person on this forum who thinks that this is the right decision and thinks gays and women should be outlawed from the military.
If anyone thinks this is discrimination, you need to read a book and get off Tumblr.
I was a military kid growing up and had my father tell me all these horror stories of when he was overseas. A soldier who was depressed who took his head clean off because he couldn't deal with the mental stress that was entailed with deployment. Stories of people walking off because they didn't have it in them to kill themselves so they went AWOL to have their body turn up however long later.
As @(you need an account to see links) said, the transgender population has statistics that range on the highest for mental disabilities - Depression, anxiety, dysphoria, etc. Straight up, if the transgender community can't handle people not addressing them with proper pronouns without having a meltdown, how can they be expected to be handle and function properly with artillery being fired at them.
Like c'mon. Don't try to make this about discrimination and ask about thoughts on women and gays serving too. There was a point where I was going to try and join up because I felt like I had no other options. Guess what, I was turned away for multiple health reasons. None of which ever crossed my mind as discrimination. Sure, I'm not trying to change genders or classify myself as another gender, but regardless.
tl;dr
The army doesn't need to cover all the medical fees. People in transition CAN'T miss their hormones and any other medications that they need to take. If your overseas in a warzone, guess what? There's a good chance of that happening. The government doesn't have to coddle people to hold statutes above "discrimination" because a few people are crying out discrimination. If you can't function enough to properly ensure that you can save the life of the people around you, then you shouldn't be permitted. Plain and simple.
I'm not in the army, but I've been around it for 20 years of my life.
I'm not transphobic, nor am I transgender.
This is the right decision.
Debate me on it if you want.
But if you do, don't just ask me questions about if I'm "discriminatory" towards other people being in the army.
That's just dumb.
AyBeCee (07-26-2017),Bridge(10-26-2017),Cybun(07-26-2017),Drizzy (07-26-2017),I_royalty_I (07-26-2017),Sweet Potato (07-28-2017),Synth Salazzle (07-26-2017),Tarot (07-26-2017)
I bet people who live in bubbles will go "Oh he's not defending LGBTQKLTEMTMQOMTWOEMTQWOETWTWETWEDSFMDSOMFWIOEMR(F MWD(MFD(SMF(DSNF(SD rights" while not realizing that having a ready-to-kill lethal-at-all-times unit (which doesn't mushroom when the endocrine systems of all the members of a unit are questionable goods) makes for a freer country meaning more guaranteed rights for LGBTQKLTEMTMQOMTWOEMTQWOETWTWETWEDSFMDSOMFWIOEMR(F MWD(MFD(SMF(DSNF(SD people and fewer international domestic threats to them. Meanwhile, lefties would gladly weaken the military and import people who would be glad to throw LGBTQKLTEMTMQOMTWOEMTQWOETWTWETWEDSFMDSOMFWIOEMR(F MWD(MFD(SMF(DSNF(SD people off rooftops.
Just because the offer to serve is honorable doesn't mean you'd be able to serve more than being a liability. And judging by how LGBTQKLTEMTMQOMTWOEMTQWOETWTWETWEDSFMDSOMFWIOEMR(F MWD(MFD(SMF(DSNF(SD activists handle issues they supposedly care about, most would just want the right to serve as a political megaphone anyway before taking activism into another social institution pointlessly and ruining that too such as having men competing against women in combat spor-- oh that's right that happened already!
Last edited by Trump 2016; 07-27-2017 at 06:32 PM.
You know, honestly. I didn't think there could be a positive reason for this decision until I read this post.
When you're out in combat you need to be mentally stable. And if you can't get your hormones while transitioning, you detransition. And that's going to cause people to be unstable. You can't have ready access to your medications when you're out fighting. And that's what hormonal treatment is. It's a medication. It's the same reason I couldn't enlist because of my anxiety. (Ignoring the fact that I'm also transgender but I wasn't really out of the closet at the time so it wasn't relevant to that decision.)
I can't entirely disagree with this anymore.
And the person comparing gays and women to this? It's not the same thing. Like, at all. Not even the same ballpark buddy.
userbar: Charmander
Roland SP-55 by: Honeycomb
My contributions:
(you need an account to see links)
(you need an account to see links)
(you need an account to see links)
(you need an account to see links)
(you need an account to see links)
by: hearts
Ryu art by dankRUSE
Chegg
Being transgender is not dependent upon medical procedures; some trans people cannot or will not take those steps. Does this ban take this into consideration? Given that Trump has a track record of meaning exactly what he says quite literally, despite denials of people speaking on his behalf, this blanket ban is absolutely discriminatory.
And it's not even the point. We can debate all day, but I highly doubt that this was a thought out decision based on the merits of right or wrongness. House GOP in-fighting over one issue--banning sex reassignment operations (NOT banning transgenders altogether, by the way)--was threatening to derail a big spending bill... a bill that involved a bunch of Trump's campaign promises like funding border wall construction.
So basically it was like "help us resolve this splinter" and the response was cutting off the whole hand.
But have fun getting all worked up over divisive social issues that are used at will primarily for political expediency and have surprisingly little to do with morals or truth. I read plenty of books, and this has been the case since the concept of politics and lawmaking came into existence. I'm out.
Edit: And I have to disagree--I believe it is in the same ballpark. Look at the facts, history, and reasons given. Aside from the financial burden non-crisis, Sarah Huckabee Sanders says "This was about military readiness, this is about unit cohesion.". Guess what, unit cohesion is also a cited reason in the debate regarding gays and women in the military, and is still debated to this day. And should be. Carefully. With facts, evidence, reality. Not with a drive-by tweet in a knee-jerk attempt to pass legislation loaded with other unrelated concerns.
Last edited by Sugar Rush; 07-26-2017 at 08:03 PM.