• 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

Pterodactyl said:
The only relevant question to me is: To what degree does allowing/disallowing transgender individuals to serve promote or detract from effectiveness?
Click to expand...

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.
 
ponderingturtle said:
What hyperbole, that is why the psychiatrists were making sure they got dishonorable discharges instead of help. That is the army way.

Weakness like this should be punished and that was policy for exactly those reasons.

http://www.npr.org/2006/12/04/6576505/soldiers-say-army-ignores-punishes-mental-anguish

"Almost all of the soldiers said that their worst problem is that their supervisors and friends turned them into pariahs when they learned that they were having an emotional crisis. Supervisors said it's true: They are giving some soldiers with problems a hard time, because they don't belong in the Army.

Jennings called a supervisor at Ft. Carson to say that he had almost killed himself, so he was going to skip formation to check into a psychiatric ward. The Defense Department's clinical guidelines say that when a soldier has been planning suicide, one of the main ways to help is to put him in the hospital. Instead, officers sent a team of soldiers to his house to put him in jail, saying that Jennings was AWOL for missing work."


Weakness like PTSD needs to be punished.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how any of this relates to the subject of the thread, but I do not agree that people who incur PTSD as a service related injury should get a dishonorable discharge or that such a diagnosis denotes "weakness".
 
Pterodactyl said:
I'd be open to looking at the success/failures of allowing service of transgender individual in the militaries of other countries and the relative effectiveness in combat. How haver such individuals faired in similar fields, policing, etc.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. I know that a number of other countries including Canada, Israel and the UK permit transgender people to serve openly. This wiki page cites some studies claiming that the evidence from those countries was favorable. Given that those three nations have some cultural similarities to the US they'd seem like good comparison points. I've not read the studies to be able to offer a personal opinion on the matter.
 
Civet said:
That makes sense. I know that a number of other countries including Canada, Israel and the UK permit transgender people to serve openly. This wiki page cites some studies claiming that the evidence from those countries was favorable. Given that those three nations have some cultural similarities to the US they'd seem like good comparison points. I've not read the studies to be able to offer a personal opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...

You might think that but it seems that the US is a special little snowflake and things that work quite well in other countries will not, and can not work in the U.S. because of *reasons* :rolleyes:

Oh and the way the U.S. does things, however bass-ackwards they may look from another country, is the only right way to do things too ;)
 
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...

Well, I think racial integration initially degraded somewhat the armed forces' effectiveness - at least it's quite a credible debating point. But that wasn't the only issue in question: the military is not a force unto itself but subservient to the government and the laws of the land.
 
Oh, and according to Fortune, the cost rationale is a crock...

But a 2016 RAND study commissioned by the Pentagon itself contradicts the President's rationale, finding that the medical costs for transgender military members would be an "exceedingly small portion of active-component health care expenditures."

By analyzing private health insurance data on gender transition-related expenditures, (such as hormone therapy or surgical treatment, for instance), researchers found that Military Health System costs could increase by $2.4 million and $8.4 million per year if it were extended to cover the costs of the estimated 1,320 to 6,630 transgender people in the military. This amount pales in comparison to the Department of Defense's $49.3 billion health care expenditures in 2014, for example, and would represent between 0.005% to 0.017% of the department's overall health care costs, according to the study.
Click to expand...

http://fortune.com/2017/07/26/donald-trump-transgender-military-costs-fact-check/
 
Pterodactyl said:
I think a lot of this depends on a lot of factors that we really dont have sufficient information to go on, and that the military is probably not the right place to carry out the experiment. For one thing, when we say "transgender' we're talking about quite a broad range of individuals, aren't we? Those on hormone treatments, those who have had operations, those who haven't but identify as if they have, those who quit along the transition somewhere in between. Females with male genitalia, males with female genitalia. You've got people showering together, packed in shelters together.... I dont see where such inclusion would actually help anything. A significant portion of our society can't even agree on restroom usage and we're going quite a step further here.

For one thing, unit cohesion is a primary driver of effectiveness. I can certainly imagine ways in which allowing a transgender person in an otherwise constructed unit might disrupt cohesiveness.

Of course you can force people by military law to just ignore such differences on a professional level, but I imagine what you're going to end up with is just a million different lawsuits and busted morale with lessened effectiveness in the interim. Who thinks we spend too little on the military now? Who thinks this will result in us spending less? Maybe someday it would all shake out fine.

I'd be open to looking at the success/failures of allowing service of transgender individual in the militaries of other countries and the relative effectiveness in combat. How haver such individuals faired in similar fields, policing, etc.
How about sports teams? How have transgendered individuals managed to do as professional athletes?
Click to expand...
I think a lot of this depends on a lot of factors that we really dont have sufficient information to go on, and that the military is probably not the right place to carry out the experiment. For one thing, when we say "desegregated' we're talking about quite a broad range of individuals, aren't we? Those who are fully of another race, mulatos, mixed races, "one drop," those who don't know but fall somewhere in between. Coloreds who looks white, whites who look colored. You've got people showering together, packed in shelters together.... I dont see where such inclusion would actually help anything. A significant portion of our society can't even agree on restroom usage and we're going quite a step further here.

For one thing, unit cohesion is a primary driver of effectiveness. I can certainly imagine ways in which allowing a colored person in an otherwise constructed unit might disrupt cohesiveness.

Of course you can force people by military law to just ignore such differences on a professional level, but I imagine what you're going to end up with is just a million different lawsuits and busted morale with lessened effectiveness in the interim. Who thinks we spend too little on the military now? Who thinks this will result in us spending less? Maybe someday it would all shake out fine.

I'd be open to looking at the success/failures of allowing service of colored individual in the militaries of other countries and the relative effectiveness in combat. How haver such individuals faired in similar fields, policing, etc.
How about sports teams? How have colored individuals managed to do as professional athletes?
 
Pterodactyl said:
I have no idea how any of this relates to the subject of the thread, but I do not agree that people who incur PTSD as a service related injury should get a dishonorable discharge or that such a diagnosis denotes "weakness".
Click to expand...

You use the same logic as the army psychiatrists in punishing them for being sick.
 
llwyd said:
Well, I think racial integration initially degraded somewhat the armed forces' effectiveness - at least it's quite a credible debating point. But that wasn't the only issue in question: the military is not a force unto itself but subservient to the government and the laws of the land.
Click to expand...

I should think that our military having experience with a contentious racial integration would make it better than most countries at figuring out how to integrate transgender people. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if there was a temporary performance issue during any integration period, but I'd expect our military professionals to figure out ways to deal with it and solve the problems that crop up.
 
llwyd said:
Well, I think racial integration initially degraded somewhat the armed forces' effectiveness - at least it's quite a credible debating point. But that wasn't the only issue in question: the military is not a force unto itself but subservient to the government and the laws of the land.
Click to expand...

I'll grant that we have to distinguish between short and long term effectiveness.

When you allow a new group (blacks, gays, women, transgender, old people) to enter the military or take on a new role, there might be some backlash from "traditionalists" which might cause a short term disruption. That, by itself, is not a good reason to continue existing practices. If could affect the timing or the rollout of the change, but it shouldn't be a permanent effect. If, in the long run, the military would be more effective by allowing such people to enlist/take on a new role, then it ought to be done, as soon as short term conditions allow it.


(In other words, I won't fault FDR for deciding not to integrate the military during WWII. It would have been bad timing. However, Truman's decision to do it was the right move, even if the racism within the military caused a short term loss of effectiveness.)
 
Beelzebuddy said:
I think a lot of this depends on a lot of factors that we really dont have sufficient information to go on, and that the military is probably not the right place to carry out the experiment. For one thing, when we say "desegregated' we're talking about quite a broad range of individuals, aren't we? Those who are fully of another race, mulatos, mixed races, "one drop," those who don't know but fall somewhere in between. Coloreds who looks white, whites who look colored. You've got people showering together, packed in shelters together.... I dont see where such inclusion would actually help anything. A significant portion of our society can't even agree on restroom usage and we're going quite a step further here.

For one thing, unit cohesion is a primary driver of effectiveness. I can certainly imagine ways in which allowing a colored person in an otherwise constructed unit might disrupt cohesiveness.

Of course you can force people by military law to just ignore such differences on a professional level, but I imagine what you're going to end up with is just a million different lawsuits and busted morale with lessened effectiveness in the interim. Who thinks we spend too little on the military now? Who thinks this will result in us spending less? Maybe someday it would all shake out fine.

I'd be open to looking at the success/failures of allowing service of colored individual in the militaries of other countries and the relative effectiveness in combat. How haver such individuals faired in similar fields, policing, etc.
How about sports teams? How have colored individuals managed to do as professional athletes?
Click to expand...

Great, but it's not an apples to apples comparison. It may have been at one time though.

I think at this time in history, you would be hard pressed to field an effective military, just from a numbers standpoint without including different races. Thus we are able to claim that, by necessity, people of all races are needed to defend our country. It is a beautiful thing because it is true. This is not true of transgendered people, and thus any negative aspects of inclusion wouldn't be offset by some great influx of qualified recruits to serve. It's such a small minority. It would simply be the military making sacrifices or altering their ways in the interest of fairness or inclusivity and not in the interest of gaining effectiveness. Which is the whole point.

I should say, I don't have some moral opposition to transgendered people being allowed to serve in the military. I'm not convinced it will make anyone happy or help anything. It can be a rough way to go for anyone, let alone someone who is different from his/her peers and might ultimately require additional accommodations.
 
Pterodactyl said:
Great, but it's not an apples to apples comparison. It may have been at one time though.

I think at this time in history, you would be hard pressed to field an effective military, just from a numbers standpoint without including different races.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ziggurat said:
Where do you think you are? This is the politics forum. You're not allowed to be sensible about the issue. You need to have an ideologically rigid response.
Click to expand...

While you were busy falling over yourself to applaud the question, did you happen to come across an answer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom