Trumps Bars Transgender From Military [Archive]

SASless

26th Jul 2017, 21:27

Yes....greatly missing Obama....like a bad case of Hemorrhoids....feels so good when they are gone.

I do wish someone would cancel Trumps Twitter Account as despite what he thinks....it does as much harm as good. Used better it would be of good benefit.

But then Trump would not be Trump would he if that were the case.

You have to admit....he is not a conventional politician as by the time one of them gets to the White House they know not to pick un-neccessary fights and stick to the script as much as possible. But....we have to accept he is not a conventional politician which means there is some good and some not so good that comes of that.

But with the Media and the Deep State....If Trump tweeted his administration had discovered a cure for Cancer....the headlines would be "Trump puts Doctors out work!".

The Obama Administration approved Transgenders serving openly in the Military but the DOD and Military Services have put a hold on that policy citing Studies needed to be done to determine policies, costs, etc.....perhaps Trump was stepping in and putting an end to the dilly dallying about by DOD and the Services.

There is more to all of this than what is in the Tweets I am sure....what....who knows!

parabellum

27th Jul 2017, 00:14

News report in Australia this morning suggests that the plan will have come from senior military advisors with Trump being given the doubtful honour of announcing it.

West Coast

27th Jul 2017, 00:37

I accept them in the military, I don't accept that the taxpayers should be on the hook for their surgery.

KenV

27th Jul 2017, 02:04

You missing Obama yet, SASless?Hmmmm. Two comments:

1. For 7 1/2 years the Obama policy was identical to Trump's current policy. Where was the outrage then?

2. Trump said he'd let his military leaders decide and gave the job to Mattis to find out what his military leaders recommended. They made the decision. He has their back and Trump is making their decision law.

Get over it.

SASless

27th Jul 2017, 02:11

Here is what Medicare/Medicaid had to say about the Government paying for medical procedures......and it is pure government double talk after they say the Population affected by the situation is too small to be able to effectively determine the need/benefit of such surgery/treatment.

Now if that is for a population far larger than described in the DOD funded Rand Studies.....then perhaps there is a lot of hot air about a very small issue.

https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/nca-proposed-decision-memo.aspx?NCAId=282

ORAC

27th Jul 2017, 05:18

Trump said he'd let his military leaders decide and gave the job to Mattis to find out what his military leaders recommended. They made the decision. He has their back and Trump is making their decision law.

".....James Mattis, the defence secretary who is on holiday, was understood to have learnt about the decision after the president tweeted it......."

".....The Pentagon appeared to be caught off guard by Trump’s announcement, and deferred to the White House when reached for comment. "We will continue to work closely with the White House to address the new guidance provided by the commander-in-chief on trans individuals serving the military,” a spokesperson for the defense department said. “We will provide revised guidance to the department in the near future.”......

........An administration official fueled speculation over the president’s motives by suggesting (https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/890202683721863168) that the shift was a political ploy that would force Democrats facing re-election in states won by Trump into complex culture wars.......

ORAC

27th Jul 2017, 06:30

Just to add to the point about it being political, it has been commented elsewhere that Trump deliberately published his decision on 26th July - the anniversary of the day that President Truman signed Executive Order 9981 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9981) abolishing racial discrimination in the US armed forces.....

serf

27th Jul 2017, 09:15

Just watched the BBC news, reported that trans gender folk are in/joining the military in much higher proportions than any other group...treatment/surgery is expensive.

Blacksheep

27th Jul 2017, 09:23

It's not so much the things that The Donald does, it's the way he says it.

wishiwasupthere

27th Jul 2017, 09:29

According the a Rand report, the US military spends upwards of $40 million a year on viagra, versus somewhere between $2m to $8m on treatments for transgender troops. Using cost as a reason is a red herring.

Blacksheep

27th Jul 2017, 09:45

Viagra? In my days in the RAF we had no need of such a thing. In fact the Air Ministry shelled out thousands of pounds putting Bromide in our tea.

ORAC

27th Jul 2017, 09:49

Did it work? :hmm:

melmothtw

27th Jul 2017, 09:59

Hmmmm. Two comments:

1. For 7 1/2 years the Obama policy was identical to Trump's current policy. Where was the outrage then?

2. Trump said he'd let his military leaders decide and gave the job to Mattis to find out what his military leaders recommended. They made the decision. He has their back and Trump is making their decision law.

Get over it.

If Eisenhower had reversed Truman's 1948 order to allow the integration of the US armed forces, would you have said: "For 3 years Truman's policy on blacks and whites in the armed forces was identical to Eisenhower's. Where was the outrage then?" That just makes no sense.

Did they make the decision? By all accounts, no one in the DoD had a clue that this was coming, and Mattis himself was on holiday.

I accept them in the military, I don't accept that the taxpayers should be on the hook for their surgery.

I'd concur with that, West Coast.

charliegolf

27th Jul 2017, 10:14

On Trump's tweets...

and will be erased, reversed and forgotten in a few years.

Oh no they won't! They are already part of the written history of the Office of the President of the USA.

As for why the announcement? A pussy grab on a pretty marine that went awry maybe?

CG

ORAC

27th Jul 2017, 10:24

People join the armed forces for various reasons, and the forces offer numerous incentives to recruit and retain the ones it wants. I'll just point the TG medical costs are an awful lot lower than the GI Bill College costs. (http://www.military.com/education/gi-bill/learn-to-use-your-gi-bill-for-grad-school.html)

Training Risky

27th Jul 2017, 10:46

If the traitor Bradley Manning is a typical example of transexual personnel in the US military, then Trump and his top brass have made the right decision.

Their trainset, their rules.

melmothtw

27th Jul 2017, 10:49

Manning is one of reportedly thousands of transexual personnel in the US military, so no, not typical at all.

Basil

27th Jul 2017, 10:55

Did it work? :hmm:
I think it's beginning to work now :E

Martin the Martian

27th Jul 2017, 11:00

Not that any non-TG person has ever done anything like that, no sir.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_people_convicted_of_spying_for_the_Soviet_ Union

By the way, is America great again yet?

ORAC

27th Jul 2017, 11:01

If the traitor Bradley Manning is a typical example of transexual personnel in the US military, then Trump and his top brass have made the right decision.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2017/07/26/transgender-airman-i-would-like-to-see-them-try-to-kick-me-out-of-my-military/

"After President Trump’s surprise announcement Wednesday barring transgender people from serving “in any capacity“ in the military, one prominent transgender airman said he’s more determined than ever to continue serving in the Air Force.

“I would like to see them try to kick me out of my military,” Staff Sgt. Logan Ireland said in an interview with Air Force Times. “You are not going to deny me my right to serve my country when I am fully qualified and able and willing to give my life.”.......

https://mco-armytimes-prod.origin.arcpublishing.com/resizer/x_zjrJ3DBpgk5YKOEwCffGv6stE=/1200x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/CH7HBTVTOZGADHTJG3UHEYSGI4.jpg

ORAC

27th Jul 2017, 12:18

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFrCE9WXsAEaAZZ.jpg

West Coast

27th Jul 2017, 12:30

ORAC

There's a societal payback to the GI bill, to the same degree the same cannot be said of taxpayers paying for an elective surgery.
To be accepted, don't expect more than what the rest of us get.

SASless

27th Jul 2017, 12:37

I remember the "old" days in the Army where Women served in non-combat roles and to the most part remained segregated from their male counterparts. I am also old enough to remember the ending of segregation by Race. In my time in the Army, merely being a Homosexual would get you bounced.

Times change, and often the US Military leads the way in those social issues.

It was the leader in de-segregation....because as a Military Organization it follows Orders given it by the Commander in Chief, in our case the President.

Every change in social issues the Military has taken, has had effects upon Unit Cohesion, Good Order and Discipline, general effectiveness of the unit, and financial cost. That is not debatable as it is a fact.

Also, overtime the Military has found a way to carry out its mission and in general has overcome those negative effects of social change but it takes time.

The Military is made up of individuals who come together to form well disciplined, organized, and effective Units with defined goals, missions, and standards.

There was resistance to de-segregation, acceptance of Gays and Lesbians, differing Religions, and in time this Transgender thing will be worked out.

In each change....Blacks were found to be just as able and effective Soldiers as Whites, Women were found to be capable, Gays and Lesbians too have found their place in the Military as is right and proper. So will the Transgendered of our country.

Trump's action is not going to stop that....it might very well act as a catalyst to hurry this along even if it is not his motive in doing what he has.

What we do need to see happen is our Military get back to what it exists for....protecting this Nation, preparing for Wars, and being a close knit organization where wearing the Uniform is a respected thing to do and is seen by all of our Citizens to be an honorable duty.

Change is never easy when it comes to social i issues but I have no doubt the Military will lead the way even though at times there is much difficulty in doing so.

What we cannot allow is for the Military to prevented from accomplishing its duties because of improperly administered change. Our Troops spend far too much time in non-Mission training and far too little time in preparing for their actual mission.

The US Army went from picking up cigarette butts on Police Call to having to sit through hours upon hours of "training" on social issues.

SecDef Mattis has gone on record about that problem.

It will be very interesting over the next few weeks and months to see how Trump's decision will be received by the Military itself. What will be more telling is how they implement that Decision once it is formally handed down to them to carry out.

sandiego89

27th Jul 2017, 12:56

The costs of surgery can be significant, but not all choose to do the final surgeries. We in the US military all had required training on the new Obama administration policy, how the transition would be done, and when the transition would be declared complete, and that we were to treat all with dignity and respect. A complex process with medical, psychology, the member and the commands involved. The "costs" can also include not being able to deploy while in transition, numerous medical screenings, and an imprecise transition period (up to 2 years I recall). The member could stop the process at any time. And yes the military was going to pay for everything.

SASless

27th Jul 2017, 13:21

If we are dedicated to genuine gender equality ....why do we not require Women to register for the Draft as we do of their Male Counterparts?

If we are going to have a double standard there....why should we not allow a double standard in other aspects of this?

Another issue to be considered....how does a Transgendered person fit into the definitions of those who must register for the Draft.....as Females do not?

Just as the Charlotte North Carolina City Aldermen decided...if one Self Identifies as a Female....he can use Female only facilities like restrooms, locker rooms, and showers.

Does that work for the Draft Registration?

http://www.transequality.org/issues/resources/selective-service-and-transgender-people

ORAC

27th Jul 2017, 13:33

Washington Post: Growing GOP backlash to transgender troop ban underscores Trump’s political miscalculation (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/07/27/daily-202-growing-gop-backlash-to-transgender-troop-ban-underscores-trump-s-political-miscalculation/5979535630fb0436795432a6/?utm_term=.903c76e53d00)

Overheard at the Pentagon: "We're taking orders via Twitter now?"

The real impetus behind Trump’s snap announcement, via Politico’s Rachael Bade and Josh Dawsey:

“House Republicans were planning to pass a spending bill stacked with his campaign promises, including money to build his border wall with Mexico. But … insiders feared they might not have the votes to pass the legislation because defense hawks wanted a ban on Pentagon-funded sex reassignment operations — something GOP leaders wouldn’t give them. They turned to Trump, who didn’t hesitate. … (But) House Republicans were never debating expelling all transgender troops from the military.

‘This is like someone told the White House to light a candle on the table and the WH set the whole table on fire,’ a senior House Republican aide said in an email. ....…

Lonewolf_50

27th Jul 2017, 19:09

I would like to see them try to kick me out of my military,” Staff Sgt. Logan Ireland said in an interview with Air Force Times. “You are not going to deny me my right to serve my country when I am fully qualified and able and willing to give my life.”....... While I empathize with the Sergeant, who has been serving, there are two major red flags going up here.

1. You don't have a right to serve. (But I am glad you are serving)
2. My military? No. Our military.

Sergeant, you've got an attitude problem called "it's all about me" that is correctable with a little leadership and counselling from a senior NCO. You won't be the first nor the last service member with that problem. Solution is rather simple.
You should report to the First Sergeant to get aligned with the reality of the needs of the service. Once you've done that, I'll make the following wager: if you're a good troop and a good NCO, First Sergeant will have your back for the duration of your time in service. (And your chain of command likewise).
What sounding off like this is called is "getting outside of your lane" and is the Michael New syndrome (http://www.jefflindsay.com/MichaelNew.shtml)all over again.

Overheard at the Pentagon: "We're taking orders via Twitter now?" Yeah. The Commander in Chief lacks style.

Basil

27th Jul 2017, 19:43

I WAS going to politely enquire whether Staff Sgt. Ireland started off as a man or a woman but perhaps not :uhoh:
I'm sure he'd have presented a formidable sight five hundred years ago charging with sword, spear or pike in hand.

West Coast

27th Jul 2017, 20:29

500 years ago, he/she would have been branded a witch and burned at the stake. Who says there hasn't been progress?

Brat

27th Jul 2017, 21:31

Lone Wolf 50, since they don’t have like buttons, that I thought was a spot on post.

Staff was plenty gung ho, which was great, just a tad me my, as pointed out by LW. to get some rather expe

Does sound a bit as though it is possible ’some' join the military to get some rather expensive medical treatment done by the Government

SASless

27th Jul 2017, 23:22

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dunsford, issued a written statement today saying there shall be no change in DOD Policy re Transgendered Service Members until official guidance is received from Senior Authorities. He reiterated all US Military personnel would be continue to be treated with respect and within existing guidelines.

Seems clear enough to me.....that Tweets are not yet considered Official Policy Guidance which should be plain to even a dull third grader.

Two's in

27th Jul 2017, 23:47

White House: Trump's tweets are 'official statements' - CNNPolitics.com (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-official-statements/index.html)

Washington (CNN)White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday President Donald Trump's tweets are indeed official statements.
"The President is the President of the United States, so they're considered official statements by the President of the United States," Spicer said, when asked during his daily briefing how they should be characterized.

...dull third graders indeed.

SASless

28th Jul 2017, 00:36

Yes like I said....The Chairman issued a written statement....how much more official do you require on the matter?

You are at risk of losing your junior high graduation certification if you use CNN as a source.

White House: Trump's tweets are 'official statements' - CNNPolitics.com (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-official-statements/index.html)

...dull third graders indeed.

The Sultan

28th Jul 2017, 04:55

Put in perspective the TG medical costs equates to just two golf trips by Trump to Florida. The US gets a benefit from the TG costs.

Trim Stab

28th Jul 2017, 05:10

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/27/donald-trump-transgender-ban-troops-pentagon-us-military

See my post 2!

Just another Trump twit that will be ignored and forgotten when in a couple of days he twits something even more bigoted and foolish. The US President is laughing stock outside of US.

Yesterday some journalist asked the Commander of US Pacific Fleet whether he would nuke China if told to do so by Trump - a rhetorical and unfairly loaded question - but clearly intended to probe whether US military consider their CiC sane.

recceguy

28th Jul 2017, 05:33

Anyway, that's just another "advance" coming from America...
As a foreigner, I'm not too much concerned.

So that's the civilisation project of this country, an Army full of transgenders, after lesbian and gays ? ?
Woaoww, no wonder some other countries consider them as the enemy.

George K Lee

29th Jul 2017, 15:56

Their trainset, their rules.

Our trainset, these rules.

Constitution for the United States - We the People (http://constitutionus.com/)

Pozidrive

29th Jul 2017, 16:59

Did it work? :hmm:

The Bromide? It kicks-in about 40 years later.

andytug

29th Jul 2017, 17:11

So the US Army along with the rest of the US Government gets its orders via an insecure medium that everyone in the world can see? What next, does Trump tweet "Nuke North Korea" and away we go?
I reckon the only reason his Twitter account hasn't been hacked yet is that the hacker would have a hard job proving it, it's not like they could send anything that looked more odd than the ones the President already sends....

Trim Stab

29th Jul 2017, 17:22

Rosevidney1

29th Jul 2017, 17:40

How many NATO member countries have a policy of banning or permitting homosexuals in the armed forces?

Two's in

30th Jul 2017, 01:01

NATO members with official policy openly allowing LBGT service (in order of NATO membership):

Belgium
Canada
Denmark
France
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
UK
USA
Greece
Germany
Spain
Poland
Bulgaria
Estonia
Lithuania
Romania
Slovenia
Albania
Croatia

NATO members disallowing LBGT service:

Turkey

Once again, the tide of history is slowly but surely eroding the bigotry and ignorance, but here we are in the US, determined to join forces with the paragons of virtue and reason such as Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. Saudi I can understand for chasing all the bribes and rampant corruption, Zimbabwe must be about emulating another geriatric tinpot dictator with a small dick and murderous ambition.

tartare

30th Jul 2017, 01:54

Ogre

30th Jul 2017, 03:02

ORAC

30th Jul 2017, 05:43

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/methode%2Fsundaytimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F7493d1b2-745c-11e7-b8e2-c49520e20944.png?crop=2143%2C1429%2C290%2C21&resize=1370

Brat

30th Jul 2017, 10:09

Tartare, I agree.

However, the risk is that being able to do the job comes with a luggage of "I want...."

And it would seem the reason why this is being proposed. Economics.

MSOCS

30th Jul 2017, 11:59

If you can't see that Trump's tweet wasn't just about the "economics" of paying for medical procedures associated with Transition, you're missing a lot. The statement that TG will be unable to serve in the US military 'in any way' runs to a much deeper vein of orthodoxy which the devout VP Pence strongly believes in. This is more than money - which, incidentally, was over-inflated by DJT for effect when actually the real cost has been stated as peanuts, relatively.

I don't believe such voluntary procedures should be covered by TriCare etc, banning TG is an abhorrent statement. He'll pay for it in the polls and it just adds to his bucket of bat-sh*t crazy tweets.

Make TG pay for elective surgery, sure. Ban them? No. That's Hitler-esque, frankly.

skydiver69

30th Jul 2017, 13:03

Exactly.
For goodness sake - if a person can fly an aircraft, shoot straight or sail, and is a good team player- who cares?!
Small minds preoccupied with what others do in the bedroom or the way they think about themselves.
All I care about is whether my fellows human beings do a good job. Couldn't give a **** if they wear a skirt or speak with a lisp...

Unfortunately a lot of people care and make their feelings known. We have a trans gender PC where I work but the roles she can do are limited because of people's prejudice and attitudes. She used to be a response officer but when she tried to go back to that she lasted one shift because of vitriol from the public which tested her patience almost to breaking point. There are also problems with colleagues. I'm pretty open minded but I was surprised by the hard nosed attitude of one of my colleagues when the topic of this officer came up in conversation. There is also the practical problem of which toilet or changing room to use as female PCs don't like to share with someone who they still think of as a man. I can't imagine that these problems and attitudes are any different among the armed forces than they are among the police and general public.

West Coast

30th Jul 2017, 13:11

Godwin's law.

It's a bit drama queenesque to make that comparison.

No one's rights have been denied, no one is wearing a star on their sleeve. The military turns people away daily for various issues. Just as private employers hire on certain criteria, the military does as well.

I know I as an employer wouldn't hire someone that I knew or suspected wold be a draw on the company bottom line through elective surgery.

The military can't be all things to all.

MSOCS

30th Jul 2017, 13:47

West Coast,

When the Commander in Chief tells serving TG they cannot serve, with tenuous (at best) reasons cited, you have to wonder. I'm not saying anyone has a "right" to serve. You do so at the pleasure of the Government or Administration. What I am suggesting is that turning on already serving people is devisive and morally wrong. Last year he promised LGBT voters he had their backs - he supported them. Now he say his "Generals and Military Experts" have advised him to boot them out and lock the gate; to the huge alarm and surprise of those very Generals

SASless

30th Jul 2017, 14:11

Skydiver brings up a situation that was part of the North Carolina House Bill 2 controversy that raged in US Politics not so long ago.

We in North Carolina who supported HB 2 were accused of all sorts of evil acts, thoughts, and actions.

What the resistance was all about was the "Self Identifying" concept.

In our view....a Law that is written as was the Charlotte City Ordinance was...that provided for any individual, to "Self Identify" (with no requirement for clinical or other professional evidence) at a moments notice was dangerous to the safety and well being and privacy of others.

By that....we saw the Ordinance presenting a situation where a sexual deviant (not a legitimate Transgendered Person) could use the Ordinance as a means to enter Restrooms, Shower Facilities, Locker/Dressing Rooms etc....by merely uttering the words of "I am a Transgendered Man who thinks of myself as being Female." and that bothered us.

Argue how you want about Transgender Rights....but one must also remember there are other members of Society who also have Rights to privacy and security from sexual predators. (Again....not Transgenders as a Class of Folk within our Society).

The conflict is how to afford both groups protection under a single Law.

The radicals on both sides of the issue have caused it to become a very divisive one.

If your daughter or wife were using a public restroom and four or five rowdy guys barged into the place, using the Charlotte Ordinance language, stated they self identified as being TG....under that Ordinance there was nothing you could do (legally).....and therein lay the problem with the City Ordinance that kicked off the Fuss that resulted in the State Law (which in North Carolina trumps City Ordinances).

It cost a Governor an Election and certainly caused a lot of discord that was un-neccessary.

That the leader of the Charlotte Movement was a convicted Sex Offender did not help the LGBT groups PR campaign attacking HB 2.

LGBT Chamber president steps down after criticism of his sex-offender status | Charlotte Observer (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article64943682.html)

Lonewolf_50

31st Jul 2017, 13:51

KenV

31st Jul 2017, 15:19

As when President Clinton made his attempt at an executive order before Don't ask Don't tell, President Trump will be advised that Congress sets the rules for the DoD. He's trying to change a rule, so Congress will be involved.We'll have to wait and see. The rule being overturned was an executive rule made by Obama. Trump has the power to change that rule. When (and if) Congress weighs in and creates a LAW either allowing or disallowing transgenders, then Trump won't have the power to change it. Truman for example issued EO 9981 independent of Congress, which effectively desegregated the military,

And the notion that transgenders serving in the military is a civil rights issue as was blacks serving in the military is beyond absurd. This is a medical issue. There are many (dozens?) of medical conditions that preclude a person from serving in the military. Those are no more civil rights issues than this one. Further, transgenders have a very high suicide rate and many other mental health issues. Putting such people into a highly stressful combat environment is not a good thing for either the transgender person, or his/her/its/their fellow soldiers/comrades.

The military exists to kill people and blow stuff up (or threaten to do so), not to be a laboratory for social experiments.

Trim Stab

31st Jul 2017, 17:29

And the notion that transgenders serving in the military is a civil rights issue as was blacks serving in the military is beyond absurd.

Actually you are wrong.

Black people have average IQ some 15-20 points lower than Caucasians (who in turn have average IQs some 5-10 points lower than north-east Asians (Japanese/Korean/Manchurian Chinese - see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence). Blacks were originally excluded from military service in many branches of US military due to their perceived lower intelligence and perceived inaptitude for military service. That exclusion was clearly racist and unfair - since they are part of US society and should be allowed to defend their society - but at least the racist logic prevalent at the time had some sort of scientific justification.

There is absolutely no scientific justification to exclude transgender people. Their average IQs and physical abilities are no different from non-transgender people.

Bing

31st Jul 2017, 18:36

Further, transgenders have a very high suicide rate and many other mental health issues.

Which is probably directly linked to their treatment by society, something their integration into the military may well help.

West Coast

31st Jul 2017, 18:45

Trim

Just because you think it's wrong doesn't make it a civil rights issue. There is no "right" outlined in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere that says there's a right to serve in the US military.

KenV

31st Jul 2017, 18:48

Actually you are wrong.

Black people have average IQ some 15-20 points lower than Caucasians.....

There is absolutely no scientific justification to exclude transgender people. Their average IQs and physical abilities are no different from non-transgender people.Oh my.
1. Your first "scientific fact" (regarding black IQ) is bunk and even if correct (which it is not) is irrelevant. It doesn't take a lot of IQ to serve in countless positions in the military.

2. The suicide rate of transgenders is some 50 times higher than the general populace. That's a scientific fact. Such mental/emotional instability in a highly stressful combat environment has a huge effect on service qualification.

And on the subject of "scientific justification to exclude" people from service, please inform us why this list (http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/disqualifiers-medical-conditions.html) of hundreds of medical conditions are "scientific justification to exclude" people from military service while transgenderism is not.

Kobus Dune

31st Jul 2017, 19:13

Anyway, that's a problem for America, maybe also Canada, UK, Australia... after all, they speak the same language, don't they ? so there should be something cultural in it.
Thanks God, they are not the only ones having a military - and because of THAT issue, it gives the enemy a reason to hate them. Remember, we are talking about war, not political discussions, and at war you don't discuss with people - if YOU consider them as a threat, or you hate them enough, then you try to blow them off - and they will do the same. That's the reason of wars - and if you win, then you are right by definition. Isn't it wonderful ?

recceguy

31st Jul 2017, 19:17

Me I don't want to fight along ... well, those people. Nobody can force me to accept them as members of the same community than me - but I'm more than ready to confront them on the other side.
I'm not American... so can I still think my way in my country, or will some sort of extra-territorial justice try to block me ?

Two's in

31st Jul 2017, 23:11

Gosh, it's just like being back in Hartlepool during the Napoleanic wars...

Trim Stab

1st Aug 2017, 05:05

Oh my.
1. Your first "scientific fact" (regarding black IQ) is bunk and even if correct (which it is not) is irrelevant. It doesn't take a lot of IQ to serve in countless positions in the military.

2. The suicide rate of transgenders is some 50 times higher than the general populace. That's a scientific fact. Such mental/emotional instability in a highly stressful combat environment has a huge effect on service qualification.

And on the subject of "scientific justification to exclude" people from service, please inform us why this list (http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/disqualifiers-medical-conditions.html) of hundreds of medical conditions are "scientific justification to exclude" people from military service while transgenderism is not.

I gave you the link to the wikipedia article on "race and IQ". Seems like you deliberately chose to ignore science and research and stick with your bigoted and ignorant views.

US Army average IQ of new enlisted men is 105. Average IQ of population as a whole in USA is 99. I strongly disagree with your assertion that many jobs in the military do not require much intelligence.

It is true that transgender people have high suicide rates - but that is because they are excluded from mainstream jobs and society by people who share your views. Many end up as sex workers and drift into downwards from there. More enlightened countries (Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand) recognise this and have strongly encompassed non discrimination policies - including in the military - without any problems whatsoever.

kbrockman

1st Aug 2017, 08:03

It is true that transgender people have high suicide rates - but that is because they are excluded from mainstream jobs and society by people who share your views. Many end up as sex workers and drift into downwards from there. More enlightened countries (Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand) recognise this and have strongly encompassed non discrimination policies - including in the military - without any problems whatsoever.

Transgenders might be more accepted here in Western Europe but that
doesn't mean that they are less likely to kill themselves, 1 in 4 have at least tried to kill themselves at least once, 62% have had suicidal thoughts.
https://www.zelfmoord1813.be/sites/default/files/Factsheet_LGBT.pdf

There are certainly many external reasons (transfobia within society,discrimination, and problems within their close personal circles) to explain these huge numbers but an important part seems to be coming from systemic psychological problems.

Personally I believe that if you are declared healthy and fit there should be no reason that prevents anyone from serving in the military, there are more groups that have specific heightened risks that could be problematic but with the right screening and guidance these issues can be dealt with.
In a free country cases are dealt with on a person to person base, there is no such thing as a group that can be excluded from the get-go.

ORAC

1st Aug 2017, 08:28

The Truth About Transgender Suicide (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/the-truth-about-transgend_b_8564834.html)

beardy

1st Aug 2017, 09:35

Simply raising the subject raises the rate of attempted suicide, according to the article. Stigmatising TG people by rejection raises the rate of attempted suicide.

Well done the 'inclusive' president. 👏

Martin the Martian

1st Aug 2017, 10:47

KenV

1st Aug 2017, 12:00

I gave you the link to the wikipedia article on "race and IQ". Seems like you deliberately chose to ignore science and research and stick with your bigoted and ignorant views.My oh my oh my. I read your cited article. You apparently did not. In the FIRST paragraph it states:

Currently (there) is no non-circumstantial evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component.

You have clearly assumed that because the article has the title "race and intelligence" that the article supports your racism. In fact, it does the opposite.

Now on the subject of "bigoted and ignorant views", please do go on about the proven and tested intellectual inferiority of the black race and continue to prove who in this conversation is "bigoted and ignorant."

It is true that transgender people have high suicide rates - but that is because they are excluded from mainstream jobs and society by people who share your views.Oh my. Blacks, gays, women, were ALL "excluded from mainstream jobs and society" for generations until very recently. And until recently they all had high suicide rates like transgenders. Oh wait. No they didn't!! Your conclusion is false. Utterly so.

More enlightened countries (Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand) recognise this and have strongly encompassed non discrimination policies - including in the military - without any problems whatsoever. And what's the suicide rate of transgenders in these "enlightened" countries? Essentially the same. The data all points in the same direction. Transgenderism is a mental/emotional condition. Hormone treatments and radically invasive surgery do not treat the underlying mental/emotional issues.

If you're going to cite "science" to buttress your points, you really need to first understand science. And with that you need to read the actual data instead of making assumptions based on what you want the data to be.

Since you appear to enjoy reading wiki articles, read the ones on "Observation Bias" and "Confirmation Bias". There are several.

SASless

1st Aug 2017, 12:09

Recceguy,

In the US Military, in the old days, Gays were serving honorably and did so for generations....and no one knew of their being homosexual.....yet they earned Medals for Gallantry in combat.

How many did we serve alongside and never remotely suspected they were Gay due to the manner in which they served.

I suppose it can be the same with the transgendered.

KenV

1st Aug 2017, 12:11

The Truth About Transgender Suicide (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/the-truth-about-transgend_b_8564834.html) Fascinating.

Essentially every one of the conditions cited in the article that "increases suicide risk" existed in blacks, gays, and most of those conditions for women for generations until quite recently. And yet the suicide risk of those groups was nowhere near what it is for transgenders.

And a blog on Huffpost? Really?

KenV

1st Aug 2017, 13:05

You could watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeUU9U9uY1I
Or this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx17P_O2LI
and possibly conclude that both nature and nurture account for IQ, and, achievement. Hmmm. So every IQ measurement in these studies is relative to the cognitive abilities of a European 16 year old. So the "average" person thinks like a 16 year old! And a EUROPEAN one at that!! And the "average" African (and American Indian!) thinks like an 11 yr old European and the "average" Chinese thinks like a 17 year old European. Isn't it interesting that an urban culture is the baseline and non urban cultures have "lower" IQ, while the super urban cultures in Asia have a "higher" IQ.

And since this discussion is about serving in the military, Europeans are by nature "average" soldiers, Africans "below average" soldiers, and Chinese "above average" soldiers. Yah shur.

Brat

1st Aug 2017, 13:13

Sorry KenV I wished to amend the post hence the deletion. My apologies.

You could watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeUU9U9uY1I

Or this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx17P_O2LI

and possibly conclude that both nature and nurture account for IQ, and, achievement.

With regard to transgender, the experience of being in a body that does not conform with one’s perception of what one should be, has to be somewhat disturbing and difficult for that individual in society in general, but in all probability more so in the Military.

The Military has a duty to the country to try in the most cost effective way to recruit those most suitable for the purpose they are intended for, with the least disruption to it’s running. Mental stability being one quality they look for.

As a complete aside Bradley Manning has probably not been the most suitable example of transgenders in the Military.

KenV

1st Aug 2017, 14:08

With regard to transgender, the experience of being in a body that does not conform with one’s perception of what one should be has to be somewhat disturbing and difficult for that individual......I agree completely. And the suicide data appears to support that. And my guess (and this is pure conjecture) whatever mental condition causes one to feel that inside they are different than outside also causes other mental/emotional instabilities independent of the society they are in. On what is this opinion based? There are societies that have accepted transgenders for generations and that even officially recognize three genders. The suicide rate of transgenders in those societies is essentially the same.

The Military has a duty to the country to try in the most cost effective way to recruit those most suitable for the purpose they are intended for, with the least disruption to it’s running. Mental stability being one quality they look for.I agree completely. Along that line, most women probably make lousy soldiers. The US having an all volunteer military, those women self-select out of the military and into a different field. The same with gays. Those gays that would make lousy soldiers tend to select different fields. Those that join tend to do just fine. Since transgenderism cannot be tested for, if a transgender person selects the military, they are an atypical transgender person and has been seen in actual experience, they tend to do fine (Manning being an egregious exception.) But if we give transgenders a special incentive to join the military by offering free hormone treatment and surgery, suddenly the calculus has changed and we get transgenders joining for the entirely wrong reason.

As a complete aside Bradley Manning has probably not been the most suitable example of transgenders in the Military.He/she/it/they are a very sad case. The former commander in chief choosing to commute his/her/its/their sentence is sadder still.

Lonewolf_50

1st Aug 2017, 17:05

The military exists to kill people and blow stuff up (or threaten to do so), not to be a laboratory for social experiments. That stopped being true during the Clinton Administration, and IMO slightly before that. I know what's on your class ring, Ken. ;) Oscar Victor.

Trim Stab

1st Aug 2017, 18:00

My oh my oh my. I read your cited article. You apparently did not. In the FIRST paragraph it states:

Currently (there) is no non-circumstantial evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component.

You have clearly assumed that because the article has the title "race and intelligence" that the article supports your racism. In fact, it does the opposite.

Now on the subject of "bigoted and ignorant views", please do go on about the proven and tested intellectual inferiority of the black race and continue to prove who in this conversation is "bigoted and ignorant."

Oh my. Blacks, gays, women, were ALL "excluded from mainstream jobs and society" for generations until very recently. And until recently they all had high suicide rates like transgenders. Oh wait. No they didn't!! Your conclusion is false. Utterly so.

And what's the suicide rate of transgenders in these "enlightened" countries? Essentially the same. The data all points in the same direction. Transgenderism is a mental/emotional condition. Hormone treatments and radically invasive surgery do not treat the underlying mental/emotional issues.

If you're going to cite "science" to buttress your points, you really need to first understand science. And with that you need to read the actual data instead of making assumptions based on what you want the data to be.

Since you appear to enjoy reading wiki articles, read the ones on "Observation Bias" and "Confirmation Bias". There are several.

Your reasoning is quite bizarre! I never once asserted that black people are less intelligent for genetic reasons (though that is debatable). I just stated the indisputable fact that black people score lower on IQ tests than Caucasians, just as NE Asians score higher than Caucasians. Black people have a number of other indisputable physical differences from Caucasians and Asians in every physical and intelligence test - higher testosterone levels in males, different muscle structure, smaller heads, curly hair, wider nostrils, and SURPRISE black skin!! Asians too are different from us - higher cranial capacity compared to body mass, less muscle density. These are differences that have evolved over thousands of years and are as a result of different levels of Homo Sapiens / Neanderthal genes (Africans are 100% homo-sapiens, Caucasians are about 90% Homo Sapiens with 10% Neanderthal, whereas Asians have about 15% Neanderthal). It is not "racist" to discuss established scientific fact. It is only "racist" when societies discriminate against persons who are different because of these reasons. Which is exactly what you are doing by advocating discrimination against tg people!

ORAC

1st Aug 2017, 19:06

Since transgenderism cannot be tested for, if a transgender person selects the military, they are an atypical transgender person There is a reputable study that shows those who are transgender are twice to three times more likely to join the military as heterosexuals.

Why? Some perhaps because it allows them to escape from their home life and persecution. However for many it is an attempt to retreat from the truth and attempt to be the most masculine they can be. Which why why you also find a higher proportion in the Marines, Seals etc. But eventually you realise that you can't hide from yourself.

I served 24 years in the RAF then 13 years with a military multinational before I admitted the truth to myself. I think in retrospect I was clinically depressed most of the time - but very good at my job. For most of that time I knew I was living a lie and, undoubtedly, was less effective than I could have been. It was the RAF who lost out as much as I did through those years of lies.

In the same years that I saw many excellent officers and airman being thrown out for being gay I was also investigated when they found out I had been buying TG informationL leaflets and books. They allowed to stay because of my skills but I was warned I had to abandon reading such materials and I would never be promoted. WhT was even more crushing was the attitude of my superiors, including those who I considered my friends who were "in the loop" and subsequently shunned me. Even years later on a tour outside the branch my OC took me aside and told me he did not know why, but he had been told that my 1369 was at best to read "Unlikely to become fit" for promotion.

In short, I have walked the walk, and know the pain, and would like to meet face to face anyone who would claim I should never have been allowed to serve Nd should have been thrown out.

West Coast

1st Aug 2017, 19:25

If during the time you served, had there been an allowance to pay for all the associated costs of transitioning, would you have taken advantage of it?

ORAC

1st Aug 2017, 19:54

Doesn't apply in the UK because of the NHS, which in the long run has paid anyway.

West Coast

1st Aug 2017, 20:08

Fair enough, but the same question either way, why should the British taxpayers be on the hook for an elective surgery that comes with associated time away from mission and added logistical challenges of accommodating the transition?

I'm firmly in the libertarian camp here, do what you need to, just don't ask me to pay for it.

ORAC

1st Aug 2017, 20:34

It's not elective. At least at present in the UK it is considered a medical necessity after extensive investigation.

In my case from the first time I spoke to my doctor to the first specialist appointment I had took 18 months - with the limited number of clinics that has for many extended to 4+ years before their first appointment. Then there are a minimum series of psychological interviews stretching over 18 months before being passed onto the doctors, then second opinions from a second psychiatrist etc etc. The whole thing can take up to 10 years for those with no private funds.

I attend a charity group where some 16-17 year olds attend whilst living in council accommodation,as they were estranged from their families, in towns where they knew no one and were regularity beaten up and abused and could afford to travel to the charity once a month. With years of a wait for an appointment, meanwhile unable to afford anti-androgen pills and physically growing into bodies they despise. Unable to obtain work and with an increasingly vocal anti-TG movement, I am surprised the suicide rate is not higher.

As to the US forces paying? The DoD medical annual budget is around $3.6B, the maximum TG estimated TG cost is around $8M, a rounding error in the annual cost and vanishingly small against the cost of VD treatment - which seems remarkably acceptable as a cost of doing business.

West Coast

1st Aug 2017, 20:49

It's not elective. At least at present in the UK it is considered a medical necessity after extensive investigation.

A necessity or that they're simply willing to pay for it?

around $8M,

The Military, at least the US military isn't an agent of social change, that's millions that could be better spent on the core missions.

Unable to obtain work and with an increasingly vocal anti-TG movement, I am surprised the suicide rate is not higher.

Joining the military shouldn't be the recourse of someone battling depression.

ORAC

1st Aug 2017, 20:59

The NHS is so squeezed it doesn't pay for anything it doesn't consider a necessity.

I would beg to differ, the military is one of the major tools the US government has to influence societal change across the nation - as it did for racial equality.

You ignore history and reality as too why many join the forces to escape depression from many causes including poverty, lack of education, familial rejection, racial discrimination etc etc - and in the armed forces find a home. As do many in other countries. The French Foreign Legion is famous for accepting those who wish to forget their past - and is renowned for their loyalty and bravery in action.

ExAscoteer

1st Aug 2017, 21:35

that's millions that could be better spent on the core missions.

Yet you are quite happy that the DoD spends 10 times that amount on viagra?

This isn't about money saving or Operational Effectiveness, but everything about pandering to a bunch of swivel eyed, drooling, Alt-Right bigots.

Bigbux

1st Aug 2017, 22:52

Is all this anger simply because of hatred for people who were born with the wrong balance of hormones for the gender of their bodies?

Or does it really come down to money, because if it does, you definitely need to re-ban women as they will all want to leave and have babies. And as for those self-interested gold diggers who get their education, licences, qualifications paid for them - burn them now.

not sure what we'd all be left with, or who would be interested in joining - but hell, down with this sort of thing!

Personally speaking, I was never happier the first time I felt a pair of breasts weighing down on my chest. Mind you, they weren't mine, so a bit off topic.

West Coast

1st Aug 2017, 22:55

No, I'm not "quite happy" about it, it's more money spent on something other than the core mission.

ORAC, you're offering opinion as to the military being an agent of social change. While it has in the past, so has professional sports by integrating the game, yet that's not it's goal, making money is. The military doesn't need additional distractions from the mission. Taking in depressed youth who are joining the further their transition needs is a burden on the mission.

Edited, the US department of defense mission statement mentions nothing about affecting social change.

recceguy

2nd Aug 2017, 03:53

The more I read all those posts, the more I become convinced that's the problem of Americans, apparently also the Brits (and therefore the Australians, the Canadians...)

What a military they have now - 20 years ago when I had the misfortune to serve along them on a couple of theaters, it was already a disaster in terms of discipline, drug addiction, racial and gender search for "equality" - fortunately for them , their industry is making good product to go to war with, and their movie industry is then convincing the population that they are always winners. Will it stay for ever ? Let's wait and see ...
In the meantime please keep your social progress within your borders.

Mil-26Man

2nd Aug 2017, 06:28

In the meantime please keep your social progress within your borders.

...and please stay on your little island, "in the eastern Pacific Ocean off the coast of Central America". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipperton_Island

It's the best place for you and your bigoted opinions.

SASless

2nd Aug 2017, 13:17

Is all this anger simply because of hatred for people who were born with the wrong balance of hormones for the gender of their bodies?

"All" this hatred?

What is this "All" you speak of?

Seems a few perhaps....but "All" seems a bit too inclusive a description.

Society has always had segments of the total population that showed some "hatred" towards others....with it going back and forth in multiple directions for any number of reasons.

Most of the concerns expressed do not in any way constitute "hatred".

Heathrow Harry

2nd Aug 2017, 13:47

"What a military they have now - 20 years ago when I had the misfortune to serve along them on a couple of theaters, it was already a disaster in terms of discipline, drug addiction, racial and gender search for "equality""

Armed forces reflect the society they come from - the ACTUAL society - not the one we hear about from politicians, movie makers and optimists. If there are problems with discipline, drug addiction etc then they are already prevalent in society - not much you can do about it TBH. But these you also get a wider view, people who can operate very high tech kit and not just blindly obey orders but show iniative, peopel who are aware of other cultures etc - swings and roundabouts

recceguy

2nd Aug 2017, 18:51

If there are problems with discipline.. not much you can do about it TBH.

Waoww !!! you would have been a great leader in any military from any country, trust me.
You do the same with your kids ? Everybody knows that they are a little bit wild in your country, from a very young age.

But these you also get a wider view, peopel who are aware of other cultures

I have no doubt they are open to other cultures :O

Pontius Navigator

2nd Aug 2017, 19:05

West Coast you ignored this important element in ORACs post
As to the US forces paying? The DoD medical annual budget is around $3.6B,. . . the annual cost . . . vanishingly small against the cost of VD treatment - which seems remarkably acceptable as a cost of doing business.

I don't have any knowledge of number or cost, but that statement needs to be acknowledged or refuted.

I know that 25 years ago the cost of discharging drug users was so high that the rules were changed and rehab was introduced.

West Coast

2nd Aug 2017, 19:29

PN

you appear to miss post 88.

downsizer

2nd Aug 2017, 19:39

I am amazed this thread has dragged on for this long.

Pontius Navigator

2nd Aug 2017, 20:00

West Coast, not at all, it is that post that caused me to point out what you had ignored.

If the incidence of VD and the cost of treatment exceeds that of TG then it is indeed a startling situation as it would appear to be tolerated. Such was its debilitating effect that condoms were issued in the Far East and I think VD, and certainly its concealment, was an offence.

Now would you care to comment.

Pontius Navigator

2nd Aug 2017, 20:01

Downsizer, three years to go yet.

ExAscoteer

2nd Aug 2017, 20:04

Idiots who think it's about cost might like to take note:

https://www.facebook.com/Stonekettle/posts/1409227869112612?pnref=story

Bigbux

2nd Aug 2017, 20:17

"All" this hatred?

What is this "All" you speak of?

Seems a few perhaps....but "All" seems a bit too inclusive a description.

Society has always had segments of the total population that showed some "hatred" towards others....with it going back and forth in multiple directions for any number of reasons.

Most of the concerns expressed do not in any way constitute "hatred".

If you read my post again you will see that the "all" refers to the anger that this subject seems to have caused. Yes, all of it. The hatred i refer to is the act of choosing a new group of people to discriminate against. And yes, I do think it qualifies as hatred.

My comments are directed at the whole debate, and not meant as a criticism of the discussion here - my apologies if it came over as such.

Pontius Navigator

3rd Aug 2017, 06:37

West Coast, you appear to miss my post 97.

BEagle

3rd Aug 2017, 12:48

West Coast, is your view that it is OK for 'openly' LGBT people to join the Armed Forces, provided that they meet all required standards of fitness, aptitude etc.?

Which seems to be the current UK position.

But someone who joins the Armed Forces as one gender, then states that they are in fact 'transgender' should NOT expect the DoD to pay for expensive surgery?

If that's your position, I support you.

SASless

3rd Aug 2017, 13:27

The rub such as it might be is whether the Physical Training Standards might get a bit confusing....as long as there are different standards for Females and Males.

If you failed someone during a Test....how would the Appeal be handled and what would the "standard" be?

Without being ugly about this...."There be Dragons in resolving all this issues.".

West Coast

3rd Aug 2017, 15:12

PN

Sorry, only have my phone which is a pain to use when a proper answer is needed.

Beagle, as evidenced by my post early on in the thread, that's my position. Even that however potentially requires special handling of said servicemember.

KenV

4th Aug 2017, 00:07

Your reasoning is quite bizarre! I never once asserted that black people are less intelligent for genetic reasons (though that is debatable).Bizarre?!! Your defense implies that the traits you listed for black people (among them low IQ) are not inherited and are somehow caused by their environment. That's not just bizarre, that's absurd. Racial traits/characteristics are by definition inherited. And as the article you cited clearly stated, there is no evidence that intelligence is heritable. So absent a genetic component, intelligence cannot be a racial trait/characteristic and claims that blacks are by nature inferior intellectually is racist poppycock.

KenV

4th Aug 2017, 00:20

I would beg to differ, the military is one of the major tools the US government has to influence societal change across the nation - as it did for racial equality.You appear to misunderstand the US military and US society. The US military does not influence US society. The US military is influenced by US society in that it tends to mirror that society. Just look at the difference between how blacks were treated in the military of the Northern States vs the military of the Southern States. Their treatment in those militaries reflected their treatment in their societies. In short, changing the military does not change society. Changing society most certainly changes the military. The only question is how much do you allow the changes in a society to change the ability of its military to perform its mission.

KenV

4th Aug 2017, 00:30

Yet you are quite happy that the DoD spends 10 times that amount on viagra?Hmmm. Two comments:
1. Who is "happy" about the viagra spending? (other than the folks receiving the viagra and perhaps their spouses/partners)
2. The vast majority of viagra is prescribed to retirees. That's an entirely different account.

This isn't about money saving or Operational Effectiveness, but everything about pandering to a bunch of swivel eyed, drooling, Alt-Right bigotsAnd there it is. "drooling Alt-Right bigots" You forgot misogynist, Nazi, Fascist, homophobe, Islamophobe, irredeemable despicable, etc etc. The folks that actually made the decision served for 8 years under Obama and his administration. Did they magically become alt-right converts on Jan 20, 2017?

KenV

4th Aug 2017, 00:37

If the incidence of VD and the cost of treatment exceeds that of TG then it is indeed a startling situation as it would appear to be tolerated. Such was its debilitating effect that condoms were issued in the Far East and I think VD, and certainly its concealment, was an offence.Hmmm The above two sentences appear to be contradictory. How can a condition be considered "tolerated" if its presence and especially its concealment "was an offense?"

ORAC

4th Aug 2017, 06:17

SASless, youndo yourself no favours by recommending a letter organised by the Family Research Council (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council), a group which, "opposes and lobbies against equal rights for LGBT people (such as same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, and LGBT adoption), abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research and pornography."

Especially when they quote their own spurious estimates of the cost being between $1.9 to $3.7B (more than the entire DoD medical budget) as opposed the Rand calculation of between $3-8M. An that is the if the final report concludes such costs should be covered, and independent of the right to serve and/or dismiss those currently serving.

Those who signed the letter are retired, obviously, and are expressing their own views such as the controversial ones of General Boykin (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Boykin#Religious.2FPolitical_views_and_comments) quoted in the article, and executive VP of the FRC......

SASless

4th Aug 2017, 11:44

I did not endorse the contents....just provided the link and the comment that Opinion within the US Military is divided on this issue....which it most certainly is.

As I have stated multiple times in the past....I look past the source and consider the accuracy of the information no matter where it comes from.

If you wish to challenge the Data....by all means do so.

Impugning the Data merely because of the source challenges your objectivity.....not mine.

I have posted information from sources that are from both sides of the argument if you care to check it.

Lonewolf_50

4th Aug 2017, 13:25

As I noted previously, Congress writes the rules on how the military is run and administered(That's from the Constitution). They continue to make changes of many sorts. While I don't think that that the Executive Order that President Obama signed is yet codified in statute, it might get added to the next DoD budget and become law depending upon how support for that particular issue is generated in Congress.

For those of you who aren't American, you don't get a vote. You are mostly passing wind here. For those of you who are American, if you feel strongly enough about it one way or the other please do write to your elected representatives. Let them know how you feel about it and why.

We now return you to the bun fight already in progress.

ORAC

4th Aug 2017, 13:31

If you wish to challenge the Data....by all means do so. I already did. I mean, do you really consider their assessment that "the transgender inclusion policy would cost between $1.9 and $3.7 billion" bears any resemblance to reality? As opposed to that of, say, Scientific American (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-of-medical-care-for-transgender-service-members-would-be-minimal-studies-show/)?

George K Lee

4th Aug 2017, 14:05

"opposes and lobbies against equal rights for LGBT people (such as same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, and LGBT adoption), abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research and pornography."

They sound like a whole barrel of laughs. No, actually, they sound like people who should be respectfully invited to :mad: off to Riyadh.

charliegolf

4th Aug 2017, 14:54

Hmmm The above two sentences appear to be contradictory. How can a condition be considered "tolerated" if its presence and especially its concealment "was an offense?"

If the punishment does not include discharge (as is threatened in the TG case), then it's being 'tolerated'.

CG

KenV

4th Aug 2017, 17:08

If the punishment does not include discharge (as is threatened in the TG case), then it's being 'tolerated'.CGAaaah, so by your standard, anything done that does not result in discharge is "tolerated." Bradley/Chelsea Manning has not been discharged. So by your standard his/her/its/their theft and release of mountains of highly classified data is "tolerated".

Yah shur.

ORAC

4th Aug 2017, 17:17

KenV

4th Aug 2017, 17:50

The sentence was 35 years imprisonment (commuted to 7 years total confinement), reduction in rank to private (E-1 or PVT), forfeiture of all pay and allowances, dishonorable discharge.

Dishonorable discharge takes after the sentence has been completed.

LINK: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning) Although sentenced during her court-martial to be dishonorably discharged, Manning was reportedly returned to active unpaid "excess leave" status while her appeal is pending.

So although not being paid, Manning still receives military medical benefits, including continued transgender treatment/therapy. Presumably, the transgender treatment will end if and when Trump's tweet gets turned into an actual Executive Order, assuming of course that Congress does not get involved and changes the law either before or after any Trump Executive Order on this subject.

Pontius Navigator

4th Aug 2017, 19:27

KenV, quite correct, I should have made it clearer that toleration appeared to be the case in the US whereas it was an offence in the UK.

cavuman1

4th Aug 2017, 20:34

Best response I saw in regards to the the negative feedback about transgenders being banned again from the military...

From Sgt. Robert Brown, US Army

Nobody has a "right" to serve in the Military. Nobody. What makes people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer? Very far from it. The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short.

Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers. Poor eyesight will disqualify you, as well as bad teeth. Malnourished? Drug addiction? Bad back? Criminal history? Low IQ? Anxiety? Phobias? Hearing damage? Six arms? Hear voices in your head? Self-identify as a Unicorn? Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair? Can't run the required course in the required time? Can't do the required number of pushups? Not really a "morning person" and refuse to get out of bed before noon?

All can be reasons for denial.

The Military has one job. War. Anything else is a distraction and a liability.

Did someone just scream "That isn't Fair"? War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful. YOU change yourself to meet Military standards. Not the other way around. I say again: You don't change the Military... you must change yourself. The Military doesn't need to accommodate anyone with special issues. The Military needs to Win Wars.

If any of your personal issues are a liability that detract from readiness or lethality... Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors.

Who's next in line?

- Ed

George K Lee

5th Aug 2017, 15:40

Bloviating nonsense. Anyone can "discriminate" against someone who can't do the job, which is why I can't be hired as a brain surgeon, sumo wrestler or leading man in a teenage zombie drama series. The question is whether one's sexual orientation &c renders one incapable of military duties, and the evidence is overwhelming that it does not.

Lonewolf_50

5th Aug 2017, 15:53

and the evidence is overwhelming that it does not.
George, I note that you make an unsupported assertion. What you say may be true, or not true, but you simply saying it doesn't make it true. While Manning is a data point against, the service member whose commentary got this thread started looks to be a point for. If you are going to complain about bloviating nonsense, I suggest you not engage in the same.

Meet the standards, be a good troop, I'll bet the notional five pound note that the chain of command will have your back.

George K Lee

5th Aug 2017, 17:08

I should perhaps amend that to "there isn't a whole lot of evidence that it does".

siddar

6th Aug 2017, 04:43

The suicide rate among transsexuals is threw the roof. Do you really want to trust them in high risk situation? Then there is the fact that it renders protections for women in the military pointless. If you're going to allow men to shower and bathe with them as long as they feel their a woman.

Their simply more trouble then there worth in military service.

ORAC

6th Aug 2017, 08:29

That sets a benchmark for bad grammar, spelling, facts and logic in such a small number of words.....

Captain Dart

6th Aug 2017, 08:41

The military does take dyslexics?

Pontius Navigator

6th Aug 2017, 16:25

Yse dadky thy does

BEagle

6th Aug 2017, 22:05

Oh highly amusing, PN...

Why don't you take the p*ss out of the disabled whilst you're at it...:mad:

siddar

6th Aug 2017, 22:16

Oh sorry thought this was serious discussion. Not a troll job by pro trans rights people. I leave that type of discussion to sites where I have more posts and know what the moderators will tolerate . Enjoy your pro-dickchopper arguments
here.

Al-bert

7th Aug 2017, 04:41

Oh highly amusing, PN...

Why don't you take the p*ss out of the disabled whilst you're at it...:mad:

I think PN's just talking Yorkshire BE :E

pasta

8th Aug 2017, 15:16

The suicide rate among transsexuals is threw the roof.
Maybe that has something with the discrimination they still face in many walks of life...

West Coast

8th Aug 2017, 15:28

Or that they suffer depression at greater rates.

KenV

8th Aug 2017, 20:48

The question is whether one's sexual orientation &c renders one incapable of military duties, and the evidence is overwhelming that it does not.Hmmmm. This is NOT simply a "question of sexual orientation." Gender dysphoria is an actual mental/emotional illness with serious consequences, among them severe depression that leads to an 800% higher suicide rate. There are many many physical, mental, and emotional conditions much less severe than gender dysphoria that disqualify people for military service. Check this LINK (http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/disqualifiers-medical-conditions.html). There are literally several pages of disqualifying conditions.

Now on the subject of bloviating, are all the people with these conditions having their civil rights denied because they cannot serve in the military? REALLY??!!

KenV

8th Aug 2017, 20:56

Maybe that has something with the discrimination they still face in many walks of life...Hmmmm. Blacks, gays, women, lesbians, etc, etc were discriminated against "in many walks of life" for generations. And their suicide rate was 800% higher than the rest of the population until fairly recently as that discrimination was removed.

O wait. No it wasn't.

Look up Red Herring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring).

pasta

10th Aug 2017, 15:31

Hmmmm. Blacks, gays, women, lesbians, etc, etc were discriminated against "in many walks of life" for generations. And their suicide rate was 800% higher than the rest of the population until fairly recently as that discrimination was removed.

O wait. No it wasn't.

Look up Red Herring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring).
I don't know about you guys, but we definitely had an issue with higher suicide rates as a result of government-sponsored discrimination. Alan Turing, who contributed quite a lot to the war effort, lost his security clearance and had to submit to chemical castration as a "treatment" for his homosexuality, and ended up committing suicide. If we'd treated him in the way we would now, he'd have been able to contribute a lot more to our country, and there's every reason to believe he'd have lived a lot longer too.

KenV

10th Aug 2017, 22:25

I don't know about you guys, but we definitely had an issue with higher suicide rates as a result of government-sponsored discrimination. Alan Turing, who contributed quite a lot to the war effort, lost his security clearance and had to submit to chemical castration as a "treatment" for his homosexuality, and ended up committing suicide. If we'd treated him in the way we would now, he'd have been able to contribute a lot more to our country, and there's every reason to believe he'd have lived a lot longer too.Two comments:

1. A single example does not a "rate" make.

2. Was the suicide rate among gays, blacks and women EVER even remotely 800% higher that the general population's suicide rate?

That being said, what happened to Turing is an abomination, and that anecdote used in this context is another example of a red herring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring).

ORAC

11th Aug 2017, 04:57

Gender dysphoria is an actual mental/emotional illness True, but that is not the same same as Gender Identity - and signifies the depression caused by the stigmatisation described above.

Gender Dysphoria: DSM-5 Reflects Shift In Perspective On Gender Identity | HuffPost (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/gender-dysphoria-dsm-5_n_3385287.html)

"......This shift reflects recognition that the disagreement between birth gender and identity may not necessarily be pathological if it does not cause the individual distress, said Robin Rosenberg, a clinical psychologist and co-author of the psychology textbook “Abnormal Psychology” (Worth Publishers, 2009). For instance, many transgender people — those who identify with a gender different than the one they were assigned at birth — are not distressed by their cross-gender identification and should not be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, Rosenberg said.

Transgender people and their allies have pointed out that distress in gender dysphoria is not an inherent part of being transgender. This sets it apart from many other disorders in the DSM, because if someone is depressed, for example, he or she is, almost by definition, distressed as part of depression. In contrast, the distress that accompanies gender dysphoria arises as a result of a culture that stigmatizes people who do not conform to gender norms, Rosenberg said.

In this regard, the change resembles the elimination of homosexuality from the manual 40 years ago........."

KenV

11th Aug 2017, 18:19

Hmmmmm. One the one hand "many transgender people....are not distressed by their cross-gender identification and should not be diagnosed with gender dysphoria."

But on the other hand, "distress in gender dysphoria is not an inherent part of being transgender....The distress that accompanies gender dysphoria arises as a result of a culture that stigmatizes people who do not conform to gender norms.."

So, some transgender people experience "distress" and some do not. But all the distress is due to external "stigmatizing" factors. And only those who experience distress can rightly be described as having "gender dysphoria." I must question these notions on at least three grounds:

1. It seems extremely improbable that some transgender people within a given culture are stigmatized while many others are not. The "stigma" is almost certainly the same within a culture, so "stigma" cannot be the cause of transgenderism allegedly morphing into gender dysphoria.

2. Other groups "stigmatized" by their cultures (blacks, gays, lesbians, women, etc etc) do not exhibit the very high suicide rate of transgenders. If "stigma" is the cause of the "distress" that leads to suicide, then those other groups being stigmatized should also have high suicide rates. And that is not the case.

3. There are cultures that have accepted transgenders and some that have recognized three genders for generations. The suicide rate of transgenders among them is essentially the same as in other cultures. So even with the stigma removed, the "distress" that results in suicide remains.

ORAC

11th Aug 2017, 20:54

West Coast

11th Aug 2017, 22:15

Then look at it another way, why should the US military fund the personal needs for cosmetic surgery? You tiptoed past that by pointing out how small the outlay would be compared to the size of the DoD budget and that the US taxpayer pays a greater amount for the Pfizer riser.

Whataboutery is a stylistic type of argument that has its place, but somewhere along the lines, your argument has to stand on its own merit. Your argument pointing out that the Government spends millions on Viagra only tells me that we're wasting money there as well.

KenV

11th Aug 2017, 22:15

The amendment to the DSM has undergone rigorous and intensive debate amongst the experts in the field. Your professional qualifications to disparage and refute their findings would be of interest. Please provide.....My argument is not with the DSM. May argument is with Wynn Parry, the author of this Huffpost piece, who is providing his interpretation of the DSM. I concede that his credentials might be better than mine in this field. On the other hand, Mr. Parry clearly has an agenda. To put his agenda into perspective, this is (allegedly) an article on the new terminology for transgenderism in the DSM (from "Gender Identity Disorder" to "Gender Dysphoria") yet deals out lots of opinion and precious little fact. To buttress his opinion, Mr. Parry provides a link to "Surprising Facts of Gay Conversion Therapy" which is totally irrelevant. In other words, yet another Red Herring.

Nevertheless, I find it fascinating that one's sexual orientation is (allegedly) defined at birth (or earlier) and is thereafter "fixed and immutable," and thus therapies to "treat" homosexuality are doomed to certain failure. Yet gender is totally "fluid" and can be "treated" with hormone therapy and even grossly invasive surgery. Even on pre-pubescent children!! Fascinating! I'm confident that in the future we will look upon such therapies with the same abhorrence we look today upon the "therapy" Alan Turing endured.

ORAC

12th Aug 2017, 06:39

West Coast.

Funding of surgery is not the subject of discussion. It could well be that the report from the DoD would have recommended that it not be funded. The subject is the unilateral announcement by Trump that those who are TG cannot serve - including those who are already successfully doing so.

That is not a decision based on the cost of their service or ability to do so, it is based purely on their being TG.

West Coast

12th Aug 2017, 18:27

The fiscal aspects have been raised, so I would suggest it is a subject of discussion, you yourself has raised the issue by pointing out how little (your opinion) the outlay would be relative to the budget.

So, I ask again, on its own merits, why should the US government fund the treatment and surgery to aid in the transition.

My belief is those serving should be able to stay minus with no money spent towards transitioning, but you've not attempted to explain why I as a taxpayer should foot the bill for cosmetic surgery.

KenV

23rd Aug 2017, 14:50

Another interesting factoid on this sad subject.

Sweden as a nation and Swedes as a people have been very accepting of transgenders for quite some time. Yet the suicide rate (which includes successful and unsuccessful suicide attempts) of transgenders in Sweden is just under 800% that of the general population. The rate of successful suicide attempts by transgenders is 2600% of the rate of successful suicide attempts by the general population. Sweden also likely has the longest history of treating transgenders with hormone therapy and surgery. The suicide rate in Sweden of those treated with hormone therapy is essentially the same as those not treated with hormone therapy. However, the suicide rate of those who undergo sexual reassignment surgery is higher relative to those who do not undergo such surgery. In other words, the "cure" is worse than the original problem. So much for "do no harm."

ORAC

23rd Aug 2017, 19:55

KenV, please post some links.

I am transgender and familiar with almost all the distorted sites with manipulated data - and haven't felt suicidual since transitioning yet, and it doesn't reflect the feelings of others who have transitioned.... facts on the ground - Just saying...

ORAC

24th Aug 2017, 06:52

White House Solution to Transgender Ban: Let Mattis Decide (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/white-house-solution-to-transgender-ban-let-mattis-decide.html)

KenV

24th Aug 2017, 14:13

KenV, please post some links.

I am transgender .....and haven't felt suicidual since transitioning yet, and it doesn't reflect the feelings of others who have transitioned.... facts on the ground - Just saying...A high suicide rate does not even remotely suggest transgenders are 100% suicidal. Even with an 800% higher rate, the great majority of transgenders are not suicidal. Most cope just fine. My point about the suicide rates is being transgender is fundamentally different than being gay. This is a mental/emotional disorder with real issues that must be addressed and not ignored. As I said previously, I see no problem in allowing transgenders to serve in the future just as they are serving now IF they are coping with their dysphoria, as most do. And as I said previously, I suspect that those transgenders who are not coping with their dysphoria will self select out of the military. Manning was clearly an exception. That being said, I believe that a transgender in the military who decides to undergo hormone treatment puts him/her self and the service in a real bind. Diabetics can't serve because the nature of the military means their supply of needles, insulin, etc are not sure in a battle environment. The same problem would exist for a transgender undergoing hormone treatment. Or is the solution to allow both transgenders undergoing hormone treatment and diabetics to serve? That sounds awfully risky to me.

Now as for the article you cited, it's clear that it has an agenda when it claims that barring transgenders from the military is "unconstitutional." That right simply does not exist. No one has the right to serve. NO ONE.

Just This Once...

24th Aug 2017, 14:41

I doubt the availability of needles and insulin is factored into our medical standards for recruitment. The health complications associated with diabetes and the confliction with military conditions are the prime factors for rejecting a candidate.

That said, I have flown in AFG and Iraq with diabetics and a transgender navigator. The sky didn't fall in either case.

recceguy

25th Aug 2017, 18:35

That said, I have flown in AFG and Iraq with (.) a transgender navigator. .

For a navigator, it's still OK

By the way, President Trump did confirm it yesterday, providing guidelines and legal backing.

ORAC

1st Nov 2017, 08:02

DidJudge blocks Trump’s attempted ban on transgender troops (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/judge-blocks-trump-s-attempted-ban-on-transgender-troops-5gmntclg3)

President Trump’s attempts to ban transgender people from serving in the armed forces has been blocked by a judge.

In a ruling in a federal court, District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found that Mr Trump’s claims that transgender officers would “cause disruption” in the military had no basis in studies carried out by the military itself. Judge Kollar-Kotelly placed a temporary ban on Mr Trump’s order, which had sought to reverse a decision by Barack Obama that would have allowed openly transgender troops to serve from July this year.

In a surprise move in June, Mr Trump announced an end to the policy on Twitter. “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail,” he said. The president also barred federal funds from being used to cover the costs of medical treatment associated with gender reassignment surgery of serving troops......

Moving to obstruct the president yesterday Judge Kollar-Kotelly, pointed out that the Department of Defense Working Group, made up of senior uniformed officers and senior civilian officers from each military department, had unanimously concluded that there were no barriers that should prevent transgender individuals from serving in the military. “In short, the military concerns purportedly underlying the president’s decision had been studied and rejected by the military itself,” she said.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a separate lawsuit arguing that Mr Trump’s ban amounts to discriminatory treatment. An attorney for the union predicted further legal challenges. “This is the first decision striking down President Trump’s ban, but it won’t be the last,” Joshua Block said in a statement. “The federal courts are recognizing what everyone already knows to be true: President Trump’s impulsive decision to ban transgender people from serving in the military service was blatantly unconstitutional. We will continue to work to ensure that transgender service members are treated with the equal treatment they deserve.”.....

parabellum

2nd Nov 2017, 05:58

But I heard on TV earlier today that the part of the order that bans further funds for transgender surgery remains in force. The reporter suggested that there was evidence of people signing up for the minimum period of service in order to get the treatment for free and being non productive on the sick list for a large part of their service. Just the messenger!

juliet

2nd Nov 2017, 06:53

It’s a mental health issue and should be treated as such. There is no “right” to serve as plenty of people with disqualifying conditions find out. I feel sorry for these people, they deserve all the help a community can give.

parabellum

3rd Nov 2017, 03:19

they deserve all the help a community can give.

Don't think Trump necessarily disagrees with that sentiment, he just doesn't want US tax dollars, allocated to the military, to be used to pay for the surgery, he is requiring that the funds be sought elsewhere, isn't he?

George K Lee

3rd Nov 2017, 11:39

It’s a mental health issue and should be treated as such.

Does that mean that depression should be grounds for immediate medical discharge?

juliet

4th Nov 2017, 06:38

It’s a mental health issue and should be treated as such.

Does that mean that depression should be grounds for immediate medical discharge?

No. A service member should be given the help they need till the point where they need to be medically discharged.

The key point with depression these days, and it’s taken a long time to get here, is that it’s starting to be understood that it can be managed. (I may have this wrong but I believe a member in here, Bob Viking?, has personally dealt with this and has a great insight. Forgive me if I have that wrong!) What is important here is that the depression is acknowledged as an illness and dealt with accordingly, just like a cancer or a broken leg. You go through the process, get the appropriate help, and in many cases you can carry on serving in a safe and productive manner.

The big difference with those with issues around their belief of their gender is that they won’t/can’t acknowledge that they have a mental illness. This as I understand it is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to them dealing with their issue. You can’t help or treat someone if they don’t believe they have a problem.

So, someone in the service, give them help till they have to be medically discharged. Someone trying to join however is quite different. If you have terrible eyesight, only one arm, depression, or are genetically a man but genuinely believe you are a woman then I’m sorry but you can’t join up. It must be hard when you want to serve your country, but realities need to be faced. The role of the Services is not to treat the illnesses of the public.

ORAC

4th Nov 2017, 07:15

Ahhh!! The transgendered, just like those who think they are Gay, can be “cured”........

juliet

4th Nov 2017, 07:47

Ahhh!! The transgendered, just like those who think they are Gay, can be “cured”........

If that was directed towards me then please do not put words in my mouth. Homosexuality is not an illness. Whatever you choose to do with your sexual organs is your business. It is quite different to someone who denies their genetic makeup.

Can it be cured? I hope so for these people’s sake, as I imagine it can be a living hell to deal with for any number of reasons. As I mentioned previously though look at how long it has taken for depression to start to be dealt with properly. We used to think those with depression were just mentally weak or lacking moral fibre. We are still have a long way to go but we generally accept that it is an illness that can be managed. What we need with regard to transgender issues is for people to first of all acknowledge that they have a psychological issue and then stand up and demand help. Very hard to do, as it is with any mental illness, but it is the only way that we can ultimately help these people.

ORAC

4th Nov 2017, 10:42

Thankfully the vast majority of the medical profession disagree with you. As someone who is TG and has gone through the process and researched the subject in depth - been there, done that, got the T-shirt so to speak - I do consider your views on a par with those who both medicated and imprisoned homosexuals on a few decades ago because they considered it, to, a mental illness.

George K Lee

4th Nov 2017, 11:59

The big difference with those with issues around their belief of their gender is that they won’t/can’t acknowledge that they have a mental illness.

You have a mental illness.

-- No, I don't.

See, you're in denial.

ORAC

4th Nov 2017, 12:06

Thankfully the two psychologists and then the three psychiatrists I had to convince before surgery disagreed. But then, they were professionals doing their daytime jobs and not TV celebrities turned politicians or internet instant experts....

juliet

4th Nov 2017, 12:14

The reality is that if a person were to state categorically that they believed that they were an inanimate object, they truly believed it, they would be treated with the respect they deserve and be given help. Believe that every single cell in your body is actually incorrect, that your DNA is incorrect, and society is forced into allowing you to follow the path of mental illness.

I imagine you may not accept it but I truly feel embarrassed that we do not provide you with the mental health support that you need.

ORAC

4th Nov 2017, 13:05

That’s OK - the world is full of religious sects who are truly sorry I do not believe that their god exists and is willing to do anything, including killing me to save my immortal soul, as well as those who believe the world was created around 6000 years ago. I am happy to differ, everybody, as they say, is entitle t9 their own stupid opinion.

Until, that is, you try and impose your beliefs on the society I belong to and to affect the way others treat me, based on nothing but your belief and against those of the experts in the field.

George K Lee

4th Nov 2017, 13:28

Kinda funny that all this stuff comes from a bloke (other posts make this pretty clear) who uses the name of a lovestruck teenage girl on PPrune...

Two's in

4th Nov 2017, 13:36

I imagine you may not accept it but I truly feel embarrassed that we do not provide you with the mental health support that you need.

Is it too early for the "most retarded ignorant bile in a thread" award this year? If not this is definitely a winner. That or it's a Russian bot...

ORAC

4th Nov 2017, 13:46

Kinda funny that all this stuff comes from a bloke (other posts make this pretty clear) who uses the name of a lovestruck teenage girl on PPRuNe...

Makes you wonder who needs the help....

West Coast

4th Nov 2017, 16:57

am happy to differ, everybody, as they say, is entitle t9 their own stupid opinion.

As you’re outside the mainstream of society seeking acceptance, I would expect a little more acceptance of others beyond “stupid opinion”.

ORAC

4th Nov 2017, 18:17

West Coast, if that’s mainstream, include me out - as they say.

I was abbreviating a well known quote by Harlan Ellison.

“Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing. It's just bibble-babble. It's like a fart in a wind tunnel, folks.”

West Coast

4th Nov 2017, 18:51

My quote stands, on solid ground as well.

You choose to ostracize one segment of society, yet you yearn to be accepted, ironic.

ORAC

12th Dec 2017, 08:28

Transgender troops ban is overturned (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/transgender-troops-ban-is-overturned-k5p883c3z)

United States Transgender troops will be allowed to serve in the US military from January 1 after a judge blocked an attempt by the Trump administration to ban them.

President Trump caught his defence officials unawares in July when he announced on Twitter that he was banning transgender people from the US forces. He said that he had made the decision after consulting “with my generals and military experts”. However, James Mattis, the defence secretary, was away at the time and other senior officers expressed surprise. Since then the Pentagon has shown little enthusiasm for the ban, and transgender troops were told that they could serve until the defence department decided how to implement it.

Last night a federal court judge in Washington said that Mr Trump’s order was likely to break constitutional rights. The judge upheld a ruling that had led to the ban being put on hold in October.......

The US military paid for an active duty member to undergo gender- reassignment surgery last month. Mr Trump had argued that the military could not withstand the cost of such procedures and that battle readiness would be impaired if transgender troops were allowed to serve. A study commissioned by the Pentagon cast doubt on both claims.

ORAC

24th Mar 2018, 08:20

White House announces ban on transgender people serving in military (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/23/donald-trump-transgender-military-ban-white-house-memo)

The White House has announced orders to formally ban transgender people from serving in the military, following up on Donald Trump’s controversial policy pledge that sparked widespread backlash last year from civil rights groups and US defense chiefs.

Despite opposition from top military officials and previous rulings against the ban, which LGBT rights groups have challenged in court, a memo from the secretary of defense released late Friday night said trans people are “disqualified from military service except under certain limited circumstances”. The memo did not elaborate on possible exceptions, but said the secretary of defense and secretary of homeland security “may exercise their authority to implement any appropriate policies concerning military service by transgender individuals”....
.