Trump - No transgender individuals in the military

[Beelzebuddy]

Conservatives: "Umm, that isn't what we asked for. What are you doing?"

He's doing exactly what they wanted, just not the way they wanted it. Instead of creating a hostile environment with layers of passive-aggressive little regulations that drive off the transgendered without explicitly saying the term, he's just saying "I'm the boss, no transgendered at all because we say so."

I can almost respect him for that, if I didn't think he was just doing it for his own ego.

 

[Civet]

Of Trump's various and sundry jerk moves, this is one of the few I don't recall being telegraphed during the campaign. Did he ever express any particular hostility to transgender people (military or otherwise) before the election?

 

[The Don]

Of Trump's various and sundry jerk moves, this is one of the few I don't recall being telegraphed during the campaign. Did he ever express any particular hostility to transgender people (military or otherwise) before the election?

Trump repeatedly assured LBGTQ voters that he would support them (in contrast to unspecified actions Hillary would have taken against them). Turns out he lied - what a surprise

 

[Worm]

This Washington Post article seems to be a reasonable summary.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nce-on-lgbt-rights-has-always-been-confusing/

 

[Meadmaker]

If it blows your skirt up, I'll amend my previous post to discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin is wrong.

There's a point to it. It's not just "blowing up my skirt". (Seems somewhat sexist.)

Men and women really are different. Groups that include both men and women really do behave differently. This isn't a myth and it isn't social conditioning. When confronted with a situation that is related to sex, a lot of people seem to think that they can just declare that "discrimination is wrong", and that's it. A variation on this is to say that this kind of discrimination is just like that kind of discrimination, and that kind of discrimination is wrong, so this kind must be too.

In other words, every reference to "they said the same thing about racial integration", is fallacious. It may be true that people said those things, or still say these things, but that is not an element of any valid argument.

The question that needs to be asked is whether the characteristic used to discriminate (e.g. race, age, sex, gender dysphoria) actually has some sort of impact on the decision that needs to be made. (e.g. employment, marriage, service in the military.)

In this specific topic, the question is whether the inclusion of transgenders will improve, harm, or have no effect on the ability of the military to perform its mission. I will not claim to have an answer to that question. I am simply saying that if your argument is, "We have to include them because discrimination is wrong," that's a fallacious argument.

 

[Border Reiver]

There's a point to it. It's not just "blowing up my skirt". (Seems somewhat sexist.)

Men and women really are different. Groups that include both men and women really do behave differently. This isn't a myth and it isn't social conditioning. When confronted with a situation that is related to sex, a lot of people seem to think that they can just declare that "discrimination is wrong", and that's it. A variation on this is to say that this kind of discrimination is just like that kind of discrimination, and that kind of discrimination is wrong, so this kind must be too.

In other words, every reference to "they said the same thing about racial integration", is fallacious. It may be true that people said those things, or still say these things, but that is not an element of any valid argument.

The question that needs to be asked is whether the characteristic used to discriminate (e.g. race, age, sex, gender dysphoria) actually has some sort of impact on the decision that needs to be made. (e.g. employment, marriage, service in the military.)

In this specific topic, the question is whether the inclusion of transgenders will improve, harm, or have no effect on the ability of the military to perform its mission. I will not claim to have an answer to that question. I am simply saying that if your argument is, "We have to include them because discrimination is wrong," that's a fallacious argument.

It's not fallacious when you can point to a number of militaries from western style democracies that incorporate women, gays and transsexuals into their forces with no loss of operational efficiency, to the efficiency of the US military after racial integration. Discrimination based on grounds unrelated to the required tasks is wrong and should not be permitted in any society that even pretends to be based on notions of freedom and equality.

 

[quadraginta]

Trump repeatedly assured LBGTQ voters that he would support them (in contrast to unspecified actions Hillary would have taken against them). Turns out he lied - what a surprise

Maybe he didn't know what the "T" stands for.

Who knew it could be so complicated?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Men and women really are different. Groups that include both men and women really do behave differently. This isn't a myth and it isn't social conditioning

True to a point, and the problem comes when you generalise. With a large group of men and women, you will find women that act in more masculine ways, and men that act in the ways that are deemed feminine. There is a lot of overlap between the two groups and where people sit, so yes while as groups they tend to act differently, you can't assume that any individual will act in a specific way based on their gender.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Pretty stupid excuse for an argument.

For starters, if they can qualify, then so what? ...

I found the argument specious that transgender people would join the military to get surgery paid for. But even if true, how does it differ from joining the military for GI benefits? College tuition? Home loan? For citizenship?

Edit: I see ponderingturtle beat me to this.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

History would prove [proved] you wrong [decades ago].

On all your points above.

ftfy

 

[Ziggurat]

It's not fallacious when you can point to a number of militaries from western style democracies that incorporate women, gays and transsexuals into their forces with no loss of operational efficiency

I've heard this claim before, and asked for evidence, but none was provided. I can easily accept that other militaries incorporate transsexuals without HUGE negative consequences, but if the negative consequences are small, how would you know they don't exist? How can you be certain that you would have heard of any small problems that might exist? Furthermore, if there are issues which would only arise during combat deployment abroad (for example, medical issues with hormone treatments), many western militaries might not have even experienced them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Of Trump's various and sundry jerk moves, this is one of the few I don't recall being telegraphed during the campaign. Did he ever express any particular hostility to transgender people (military or otherwise) before the election?

The opposite.

As Stephen Colbert put it last night answering a question posed in the news by Caitlyn Jenner: "He lies."

 

[theprestige]

Trump: I bet I can get liberals to defend joining the army.
Mattis: No way.
Trump: Hold my beer while I tweet.

https://twitter.com/BasedElizabeth/...1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://ace.mu.nu/

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Recall that during his RNC nomination speech, he gave a line:

"As your president, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens..."

At this point, a low swell beings, but mostly in the "O" and "U" range, not so receptive.

"from the violence and oppression of a hateful. Foreign! IDEOLOGY!” (the last three words were hurled with increasing, full-breath-each emphasis).

"Believe me."

Wild applause and shouting in the "A" and "E" range.

He and his supports give no *****.

ETA: Notice he has made no promise to protect them from a hateful domestic ideology.

 

[Cleon]

I've heard this claim before, and asked for evidence, but none was provided. I can easily accept that other militaries incorporate transsexuals without HUGE negative consequences, but if the negative consequences are small, how would you know they don't exist? How can you be certain that you would have heard of any small problems that might exist? Furthermore, if there are issues which would only arise during combat deployment abroad (for example, medical issues with hormone treatments), many western militaries might not have even experienced them.

I give you two senior British Naval commanders. The IDF, which I know y'all have a soft spot for, is so comfortable with trans soldiers that they were confused by the very question. Canada is stepping up LGBTQ recruitment just because they're Canada.

I eagerly anticipate your hand-waving away of this.

 

[Border Reiver]

I've heard this claim before, and asked for evidence, but none was provided. I can easily accept that other militaries incorporate transsexuals without HUGE negative consequences, but if the negative consequences are small, how would you know they don't exist? How can you be certain that you would have heard of any small problems that might exist? Furthermore, if there are issues which would only arise during combat deployment abroad (for example, medical issues with hormone treatments), many western militaries might not have even experienced them.

I've served for 31 years with the CAF Primary Reserves (since February .1986), and am presently the RSM of my unit. In addition, my dayjob is as a paralegal with DND's Claims and Civil Litigation section.

Women have served in all Army occupations since 1989. Homosexuals have been allowed to serve openly since 1993, and the first transgender person was accommodated in 1995/96 (working off memory here). There are about 150 persons in the CAF who identify as Trans at this time, including sailors on our ships and soldiers who've served in Afghanistan - the issues you are talking about haven't arisen. If they have they have not been significant enough to even get a minor line in any of the AARs I have read from the Army Lessons Learned cell concerning medical services on the field (there were several such reports issued during the Afghanistan War (2002-2014).

 

[quadraginta]

I've heard this claim before, and asked for evidence, but none was provided. I can easily accept that other militaries incorporate transsexuals without HUGE negative consequences, but if the negative consequences are small, how would you know they don't exist? How can you be certain that you would have heard of any small problems that might exist? Furthermore, if there are issues which would only arise during combat deployment abroad (for example, medical issues with hormone treatments), many western militaries might not have even experienced them.

Do you ever get the feeling you are trying too hard?

You should, because you are.

And it shows.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I give you two senior British Naval commanders. The IDF, which I know y'all have a soft spot for, is so comfortable with trans soldiers that they were confused by the very question. Canada is stepping up LGBTQ recruitment just because they're Canada.

I eagerly anticipate your hand-waving away of this.

But we are americans, we are far more bigoted than all of those nations.;

 

[Ziggurat]

I give you two senior British Naval commanders.

This is opinion, not evidence. It's a statement of the speakers' values, not a claim that actually addresses my question.

The IDF, which I know y'all have a soft spot for, is so comfortable with trans soldiers that they were confused by the very question.

"I knew there were homosexual individuals serving with me. No transgendered people that I knew of, but maybe."
More importantly, note that the article makes zero claims that the Israeli military doesn't encounter any issues with transgender members. Maybe it doesn't, but again, that claim is actually absent from the article.

Canada is stepping up LGBTQ recruitment just because they're Canada.

Exactly: they're doing it because they're Canadian.

I eagerly anticipate your hand-waving away of this.

Of what? You presented no evidence.

 

[Ziggurat]

There are about 150 persons in the CAF who identify as Trans at this time, including sailors on our ships and soldiers who've served in Afghanistan - the issues you are talking about haven't arisen. If they have they have not been significant enough to even get a minor line in any of the AARs I have read from the Army Lessons Learned cell concerning medical services on the field (there were several such reports issued during the Afghanistan War (2002-2014).

See, this is more useful information. Do you know of any systematic reviews? If there are, and they support your own experience, that would be quite solid evidence.