• 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

Two things:

1. This is probably a typical Trump distraction.
2. It's fair to ask, why is this necessary? Where is the evidence that transgender people have compromised readiness?

Anecdotes aside. Trump is just being a dick. You think he cares? No.

**this is a distraction**
 
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.

Why not bash Kristin Beck who was on seal team 6?
 
This is awesome. I only wish he'd reverse allowing homosexuals, nonwhites and women* to serve as well.

*Obviously there are probably some appropriate roles far from combat for women, maybe.

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.

No sane society would even need to have a discussion about whether transsexuals can serve.

Honestly man I usually agree in part with your posts, but this one is off the mark. White people (can no longer technically call myself that, after learning my biological family history. White is the minority I'm my genetc make up, much to my surprise. ) are on the low end of the bell curve physically (who wants to watch all white football? ) if I am going to pick someone to fight it's not gonna be the white guys.

Now if you are talking unit cohesion, then I'd ask a very simple question.

How would you know what that would be like in an all black unit? I'm guessing you are white so by very definition you wouldn't be in one.

And to further blow your mind, ask yourself, do you not think there is a black man with a similar philosophy to yours saying the same thing about all black units?

So either you are both wrong, you need to show some stats to back yourself up, or this view is less about fact, and more about folks who like their own kind promoting that ideal.

Just as a curiosity, if I wanted to join the military, should I be allowed? I look as white as anyone, was raised by a white, fairly racist family, but actually contain very little white. Would I blend with the unit? And if so, why would this be different for someone who looks like their genetic makeup?
 
Fair enough.
I may be going too far presuming that generals are advising the president professionally and in good faith.

No, you're going to far in presuming that Trump is telling the truth when he says the generals advised him to do this.



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.

No, the evidence would have to be in the other direction; you'd have to show that transgendered people are unfit to serve because of their being transgendered. Your argument here is backwards. It would have to be shown that it prevents them from excelling. Remember, they as individuals still have to pass all the other tests and evaluations.

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.

The military probably also knows that most of their jobs don't actually involve toting machine guns nor directly killing things. I mean, hot damn, do you even know anyone in the military? It's not just all direct combat. On top of that, why on earth do you think being trangender prevents someone from being good at carrying machine guns or killing things? There have been front line combat transgender people, who ironically PICK to put in for front deployment because the rules weren't as enforced and they could dress and behave as the gender they feel they are.

Besides killing things, we want soldiers who can kill the RIGHT things. Who behave professionally and have a basic level of 'enlightenment' as to not cause a disruption because the guy next to them is black, or doesn't have a penis, or is an atheist or Muslim, and focus on if they can get the job done.
 
<snip>

I support transgender rights. I dont view joining the military as a right. I do believe that a transgender person could carry a weapon and do the job of a soldier roughly as well as anyone else. But to what extent would their presence be a disruption to current protocols and culture would be the primary question. Not fairness.


Pretty much the same arguments used to support claims that allowing blacks or women or gays would mean the destruction of our armed forces.

They were all wrong, too.
 
Some Republican Congresswoman was on CNN claiming that the reason to ban transgenders was because their sex-change operations would cost too much. She cited some BS numbers. Blitzer called her on it, asking for the source. She BS'd some more and he kept pushing until she finally admitted someone in her office ran the numbers.

Honestly, these people. Someone on our NextDoor forum (i.e. neighbors) complained about the state school policy of introducing LGBTQ issues beginning in kindergarten (age appropriate curriculum of course). Fortunately the objectors were in the minority. But like the BS excuse above claiming it was about the money, some of these people claimed there wasn't time to teach anything like this. :rolleyes:

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

I support transgender rights. I dont view joining the military as a right. I do believe that a transgender person could carry a weapon and do the job of a soldier roughly as well as anyone else. But to what extent would their presence be a disruption to current protocols and culture would be the primary question. Not fairness.
Why not look at current examples instead of buying this unsupportable conjecture?
 
Re Trump's general:

Mattis in his confirmation hearing:
GILLIBRAND: “In your book, Warriors and Citizens and the interviews you did afterwards…you said in recent policy debates such as those about allowing homosexuals to serve openly…you believe that ‘the American public is not nearly as concerned as it should be that the changes to military policies are accruing risk to our forces. We fear that an uninformed public is permitting political leaders to impose an accretion of social conventions that are diminishing the combat power of our military disregarding our war-fighting practitioners advice.’ Do you believe that openly serving homosexuals along with women in combat units is undermining our force?”

MATTIS: “Senator, my belief is that we have to stay focused on a military that is so lethal that on the battlefield it will be the enemy’s longest day and their worst day when they run into that force. I believe that military service is a touchstone for patriots of whatever stripe. That’s simply the way they demonstrate their commitment and I believe right now the policies that are in effect unless a service chief brings something to me where there has been a problem that has been proven then I’m not going in with the idea that I’m going to review these and right away start rolling something back.”

GILLIBRAND: “Do you believe that allowing LGBT Americans to serve in the military or allowing women in combat is undermining our lethality?”

MATTIS: “Frankly, senator, I’ve never cared about two consenting adults and who they go to bed with.”
He had a hard time saying no, but he almost got there.


The First Openly Gay Army Secretary in U.S. History - Obama appointed, unanimously confirmed Eric Fanning Carter also promoted Fanning earlier as the first Openly Gay Pentagon Chief of Staff

Fanning stepped down when Trump moved into office.
 
Last edited:
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.


And sensibly, we know that other efficient and effective military forces have no problems at all including women, gays, and transgenders in their forces.

So where does that suggest the ideological rigidity lies?
 
I wouldn't be surprised if The Pidget backtracks a bit, saying, "Those who are already serving can finish out their terms." hoping that everyone will think "Well, that's not so bad in comparison. Let's do it!!!
 


And a comment from our last SecDef;
Ash Carter, who as secretary of defense last year ended the ban on transgender people serving openly in the military, is criticizing President Donald Trump's decision to ban their service.

Carter issued a statement Wednesday saying that the important thing for choosing who is allowed to serve is whether they are best qualified.

"To choose service members on other grounds than military qualification," he said, "is social policy and has no place in our military."

Carter added that transgender individuals already are serving capably and honorably in the military.
There's some ideological rigidity for ya, right there.
 
Ignoring your usual vile racist nonsense, why excluse women and gays and trans? How does that work into your ideology?

Just another kind of people to hate. If you hate one kind, why not 10 or 20 kinds. Or even, why not, anyone who is not you!!!!!!!!!!
 
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.

The point is Trumpy could have said "Transgenders can serve,but don't expect the service to pick up the cost of your elective surgery". Instead he chose a total ban. You see why some of us think this is pure bigotry?
 
Oh, were you Russian front, or did you get to spend the war in Paris?

A little late to the Party,but you win the thread.
(Imhotep's Corporal Klinger reference takes honorable mention).
I am betting that if he saw "Dunkirk" ST was rooting for The Other Side.....
 
Trump hasn't technically done anything, the media keeps conflating the Tweet with an Executive Order.

On the other hand, the current military policy was set to accept transgendered recruits and it was delayed last month.

June 30th, WA Po: On eve of deadline, Pentagon delays plan to allow transgender recruits by 6 months
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has delayed a plan approved by the Obama administration a year ago to begin allowing transgender recruits to join the U.S. military, providing the Joint Chiefs of Staff with a six-month reprieve that they requested, the Pentagon said Friday night.

The decision was made on the eve of a deadline set a year ago by then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter. The services can now delay processing transgender recruits until Jan. 1, following another review of accession plans and providing information about how doing so will affect the military and its lethality, Mattis said in a memo. Details about that review must be provided back to Mattis by Dec. 1.

Seems the Tweet caused more of a stir than the policy delay.
 
And sensibly, we know that other efficient and effective military forces have no problems at all including women, gays, and transgenders in their forces.

So where does that suggest the ideological rigidity lies?

Do we know that? We know that other military forces manage to include transgenders in their forces without catastrophic consequences, but how do you know that the benefits of including them outweigh any associated costs? How was this established? How certain are you that it's correct? How certain are you that the results for other countries would translate directly to the same result here? And do you have any sources to back up this position?

As for ideological rigidity, it's everywhere. This is, after all, the politics forum.
 

Back
Top Bottom