• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump - No transgender individuals in the military

Trump did this to divert attention from the Russia investigations and Sessions
 
Stacko said:
Today is also the 69th anniversary of President Truman desegregating the military. Have to wonder if it's cluelessness or signaling with the people in this administration. I'm leaning toward the former.
Click to expand...

With this administration, cluelessness is always the way to bet. You might lose once in awhile, but you're guaranteed to make money.
 
Meadmaker said:
I just wish that more people understood that this really is the only worthwhile question.

I don't know the answer to the question. I've never served in the military. I'll leave it to those who have to answer the question, but I know that this is the one and only question that matters on this, and several other, military related questions.
Click to expand...

The Pentagon is currently studying these issues and a report is due by year end. Trump ignored all that and decided he knows better.
 
johnny karate said:
Who was the other one?
Click to expand...

Teehee!

I always love how those who portray homophobia as this awful thing never hesitate to still make jokes where the premise is that being gay is worthy of mockery.

I actually don't have too much of an issue with homosexuals. I don't think it's a choice, and they have my sympathy. Some have my admiration. I just don't think a healthy society celebrates it or even seeks to remove the stigma. The stigma serves a purpose. It helps define normality and enforce normality.

I certainly don't have any issue with women, but they have no business in combat, policing or firefighting. Neither do trans.
 
I seem to remember reading less than a year ago that the military, in some cases, would pay for gender reassignment surgery. Did a quick search:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...sex-change-operations-transgender-troops.html

The department will begin providing transgender service members on active duty all "medically necessary" treatment starting Oct. 1, said Air Force Maj. Ben Sakrisson, the Pentagon spokesman. Treatment could include behavioral health care, hormone therapy, and in some cases gender reassignment surgery. Service members must be diagnosed as stable in their preferred gender for 18 months before they can receive treatment.

.....

Defense Secretary Ash Carter on June 30 repealed the longstanding ban on transgender men and women serving openly in the U.S. military, but he gave the services one year to determine and implement many of the changes that would be necessary for transgender service members – ranging from policies on communal shower facilities to physical fitness standards.
Click to expand...

Could this be what he is referring to when he talks about the cost? It may be giving Trump too much credit to suggest this was a consideration, but just mentioning it. The military may pay for some reassignment surgery? We can't even agree on who should use which bathrooms in the general public.
 
Aepervius said:
White are 80% about. Even if you exclude some which are seen as Caucasian, but may not be seen as such by racist, it is 60%. You could still field the number the military has on the field, as Caucasian only, leaving the support in "other role" segregated.

But that objection does not address the main point : this is not about numbers, this is about : are they able to do the same role or not, physically and mentally. Skin color was objected at a time. For similar BS reason, while it is clear that mentally and physically there is no difference.

So yes it applies. If there is no mental and physical problem, then the objection are pure BS like the skin color objection.
Click to expand...

Oh ok, so a 40% reduction in force is no big deal.
And transgender individuals make up a similar percentage of the population, therefore numbers are not a consideration. Wow.

Look, I am not attempting to make the point that it is fair for the military to discriminate against transgendered individuals. My point is that they are simply weighing the positives and negatives in regard to effectiveness, and I haven't seen much of an upside presented other than fairness to a relative few individuals. The downsides can be argued against as artifacts personal bias, but they still exist.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I wonder how a transgender people feel being told discrimination against them is a distraction.
Click to expand...

A diversion.
And that doesn't imply it's not real or important. It only implies a motivation for the person committing the act.

Of course, you know that but you're looking for an argument, as usual.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Teehee!

I always love how those who portray homophobia as this awful thing never hesitate to still make jokes where the premise is that being gay is worthy of mockery.
Click to expand...

I always love how those who don't understand how jokes work try to explain how a joke is supposed to work.

I actually don't have too much of an issue with homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Just that they're abnormal and should be excluded from full participation in society. But other than that, you're totally cool with them.

The stigma serves a purpose. It helps define normality and enforce normality.
Click to expand...

So then you agree that Nazis and white supremacists should be stigmatized as much as possible. Good to know.
 
Pterodactyl said:
My point is that they are simply weighing the positives and negatives in regard to effectiveness,
Click to expand...

Evidence?

and I haven't seen much of an upside presented other than fairness to a relative few individuals. The downsides can be argued against as artifacts personal bias, but they still exist.
Click to expand...

Not eliminating people from your talent pool for spurious reasons increases your chances of getting the most talented people. That's a pretty strong upside. Weeding out those who are unable to work professionally with diverse populations is actually an upside for the global work the US military engages in, as well as potentially a downside.
 
mgidm86 said:
I seem to remember reading less than a year ago that the military, in some cases, would pay for gender reassignment surgery. Did a quick search:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...sex-change-operations-transgender-troops.html

Could this be what he is referring to when he talks about the cost? It may be giving Trump too much credit to suggest this was a consideration, but just mentioning it. The military may pay for some reassignment surgery? We can't even agree on who should use which bathrooms in the general public.
Click to expand...

I assumed that's what he meant. It's already been memed about on the alt right, often with some mockery of Chelsea Manning thrown is, so Trump might have heard about it.
 
tyr_13 said:
Evidence?
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
I may be going too far presuming that generals are advising the president professionally and in good faith.

Not eliminating people from your talent pool for spurious reasons increases your chances of getting the most talented people. That's a pretty strong upside. Weeding out those who are unable to work professionally with diverse populations is actually an upside for the global work the US military engages in, as well as potentially a downside.
Click to expand...

Spurious reasons? I think this amounts to a spurious argument unless, considering the percentage of the population we're talking about here, you have some evidence that transgendered people tend to excel in similar circumstances elsewhere. But to your last point, the military knows exactly how and where to recruit the type of people it needs to do its job. I honestly doubt they want a bunch of Harvard grads out there toting machine guns. Enlightenment doesn't actually make someone better at killings things and destroying stuff. It's ugly, but that's the job.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
I certainly don't have any issue with women, but they have no business in combat, policing or firefighting. Neither do trans.
Click to expand...

The first half of your sentence disagrees with the second half of your sentence.

Women have been in combat, policing the streets and fighting fires, with bravery, skill and dedication, since before you were born. They deserve your sincere thanks and respect. The transgender community deserve nothing less.

You do a disservice to hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dedicated, self-sacrificing individuals, and I think you should be ashamed of yourself.
 
johnny karate said:
While you were busy falling over yourself to applaud the question, did you happen to come across an answer?
Click to expand...

I didn't applaud the question, I condemned it! It wasn't at all in keeping with the spirit of the politics forum! But otherwise, your own post is right on target: we must all have our minds made up already about everything. That's the way things are done around here, and don't nobody get any ideas about trying anything different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom