• 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

The Don said:
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 :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I am sure the clue to him lying was that words were coming out of his mouth!!!!!
 
pgwenthold said:
So the response from the Pentagon is basically, "Nah, business as usual."

And the response from others I've seen is, by whose authority? Trump's tweet yesterday was a clear directive. He is the commander-in-chief. How can the Pentagon response be anything but 'yes sir"?

The White House has indicated that tweets are official statements.

Turn this around. If he had ordered integration/non-discrimination via Twitter, would you be ok if the Pentagon said no?
Click to expand...

The Department of Defense is a civilian organization. They work according to law and executive orders, just like every other agency of the US government.
 
Last edited:
Border Reiver said:
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.
Click to expand...

If indeed the associated characteristics are unrelated to the required tasks, then I agree that discrimination based on those characteristics is counterproductive. I would prefer to talk about what is productive, or effective, when it comes to the military, as opposed to "wrong". The military is one of those cases where I'm less concerned about some hypothetical ethic than I am about what works and what doesn't.

I agree with all those who have said that we should look and see if this makes our military better, or worse, and I would agree that the best place to look for that evidence is other nations who have already adopted similar policies.

I just get nervous in debates like this one where what people talk about are rights, and equality, and opportunity.......and a whole lot of things that just aren't very closely correlated with killing people and breaking things.
 
Meadmaker said:
The Department of Defense is a civilian organization. They work according to law and executive orders, just like every other agency of the US government.
Click to expand...

In addition, on the military side, they need properly formatted, properly authenticated orders originating from proper, secure channels within the chain of command. When it's your fellow service personnel on the line, even margins, sizes, and fonts can be clues to forgery.

Twitter is not a secure military channel.
 
Meadmaker said:
If indeed the associated characteristics are unrelated to the required tasks, then I agree that discrimination based on those characteristics is counterproductive. I would prefer to talk about what is productive, or effective, when it comes to the military, as opposed to "wrong". The military is one of those cases where I'm less concerned about some hypothetical ethic than I am about what works and what doesn't.

I agree with all those who have said that we should look and see if this makes our military better, or worse, and I would agree that the best place to look for that evidence is other nations who have already adopted similar policies.

I just get nervous in debates like this one where what people talk about are rights, and equality, and opportunity.......and a whole lot of things that just aren't very closely correlated with killing people and breaking things.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out a number of times in the thread all the evidence available points to there being no practical reason to exclude the transgendered from military service, so barring any evidence to the contrary they have the same right to serve as anyone else, which is why the term comes up. Barring any practical consideration that no one has yet offered up they deserve equality with any other person wishing to serve in the armed forces.

Frankly its those opposing the transgendered serving who appear to be driven by purely subjective motives, it makes them uncomfortable so its bad and they don't care about whether there's any practical reason to promote their agenda of discrimination.
 
Last edited:
The_Animus said:
Seems to me that if someone is so mentally fragile that working with homosexual or transgender people causes them sufficient distress to render them unable or less able to do their job, they are the ones who should be kicked out of the military.
Click to expand...


Maybe each of the branches should create a "safe space squad" for those sensitive soldiers.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Everything he does is for his ego.








But from his ID!
 
Skeptic Tank said:
During my time in the military, I had the opportunity to see how much better an almost entirely white male unit functions than any other kind.
Click to expand...
What kind of messed up unit were you in that could not function at its peak because its members were too racist or misogynist?

I've served with women and men of all races. There was only one unit I served in where a woman was the weakest link. Otherwise the weakest links were white men. This was not because they were white, but because they outnumbered all others. The strongest performers were simply those who did well based on the education, drive and skill sets they brought to the table; it had nothing to do with race or gender.

I've much less experience with transgendered persons. I know two at the shipyard I work in who are transitioning from male to female. Both have had or have chips on their shoulders at times it seems. The single female to male transgendered person I know is a well rounded individual who seems to be doing well with others and her transition is not a problem so far.

Ranb
 
Last edited:
Ranb said:
I've much less experience with transgendered persons. I know two at the shipyard I work in who are transitioning from male to female. Both have had or have chips on their shoulders at times it seems. The single female to male transgendered person I know is a well rounded individual who seems to be doing well with others and her transition is not a problem so far.
Click to expand...
This is an extremely small sample size that even taken at face value does not translate to questions of military readiness. If Trump has data that support his position, that's fine. But people of all different degrees of sexual identity have been fighting together for centuries. Their genitals, or their personal feelings about their genitals, have not been shown to be a problem. Why Trump makes these leaps is beyond me, but perhaps there is evidence I'm not aware of.
 
The Don said:
Seems he will reverse everything Obama did - regardless of merit :mad:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40729996



As well as the whole message being the usual ill-informed reactionary nonsense, the thing I find very disturbing is his description of what the military should be focused on:



Putting to one side whatever the "tremendous medical costs" would be, I thought that the military should be focused on keeping the US safe, not on "decisive and overwhelming victory" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
And that's an order. I think.
 
Minoosh said:
This is an extremely small sample size that even taken at face value does not translate to questions of military readiness. If Trump has data that support his position, that's fine. But people of all different degrees of sexual identity have been fighting together for centuries. Their genitals, or their personal feelings about their genitals, have not been shown to be a problem. Why Trump makes these leaps is beyond me, but perhaps there is evidence I'm not aware of.
Click to expand...

I am pretty certain that Trumpf and real data have no connection or correlation between each other!
 
Ranb said:
I've much less experience with transgendered persons. I know two at the shipyard I work in who are transitioning from male to female. Both have had or have chips on their shoulders at times it seems.
Click to expand...

Well, they certainly sound like bitches.

Speaking of bitches, all of the fascist commenters on Yahoo were celebrating the "cancer-stricken" service dog (Marine Corps) that was getting a funeral with all of the stupid military pageantry. It turns out a non-human species is fit to serve, but not transgender people.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's an appeal to false authority, which is a bit different.
Click to expand...

No, the fallacy of appeal to authority IS appeal to false authority. Appealing to relevant authorities is NOT a fallacy.

You just couldn't resist, could you?
Click to expand...

What, pointing out that you should know this? If you were a junior member I would've given you some slack, but your mistake is... well, I'm not sure it's a mistake, see?
 
I'm still waiting to hear what it is that a Transgender solider can't do.
 
Travis said:
I'm still waiting to hear what it is that a Transgender solider can't do.
Click to expand...

President Trump's tweet was clear - Transgender soldiers don't contribute to "overwhelming and decisive victory". The reasons for this are so blindly obvious that Mr. Trump didn't think it necessary to explain them, but once again the MSM pre$$titutes are making out like transgender people are real humans with rights or something*

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove rule 12 comment
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I did a little bit of reading about transgenders in the British military. I didn't save any links, so I can't point you to where I found this information. Also, I was finding bits and pieces in a few scattered articles, so it's possible that those articles did not contain up to date information. Some of this may be obsolete.

The British military discourages, but does not prohibit, transgenders from joining the military until their surgical transformation is complete.

While transitioning (i.e. on hormone therapy) their deployments and/or assignments may be restricted.

After transition is complete, the transgender is required to meet the physical standards of the newly assigned gender, but some allowance may be made in the case of female to male transition. Those soldiers may be given temporary waivers while they attempt to increase their physical capabilities to those expected of male soldiers.


Every reference I found to transgenders in the British military referred to someone who is transitioning, or has transitioned. In previous discussions about transgender issues, I have frequently discussed or encountered discussion of "non-operative" transgenders. i.e. people who identify as the opposite of their biological sex, but have not yet, and may never intend to, undergo physical alterations intended to make their bodies more like their desired gender. I do not know how the British military treats such people.

When I was searching in google, I specified "British" in the search terms, so I don't know how much, if any, of that policy would apply to other militaries. I ran across one site that said 19 countries allow transgenders in their militaries.
 
The South African military allows LGBTQ individuals to serve openly:
wiki said:
LGBT people are allowed to serve openly in the South African National Defence Force (SANDF). In 1996 the government adopted the White Paper on National Defence, which included the statement that, "In accordance with the Constitution, the SANDF shall not discriminate against any of its members on the grounds of sexual orientation."[34] In 1998 the Department of Defence adopted a Policy on Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action, under which recruits may not be questioned about their sexual orientation and the Defence Force officially takes no interest in the lawful sexual behaviour of its members.[35] In 2002 the SANDF extended spousal medical and pension benefits to "partners in a permanent life-partnership".
Click to expand...
link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom