PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   Trumps Bars Transgender From Military (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/597523-trumps-bars-transgender-military.html)

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


Originally Posted by West Coast (Post 9849325)
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


Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
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.


Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
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...12?pnref=story

Bigbux 2nd Aug 2017 20:17


Originally Posted by SASless (Post 9849915)
"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


Originally Posted by Trim Stab (Post 9849158)
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


Originally Posted by ORAC (Post 9849329)
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


Originally Posted by ExAscoteer (Post 9849358)
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 bigots
And 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


Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator (Post 9850262)
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, 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 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?

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


Originally Posted by KenV (Post 9851473)
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


Originally Posted by charliegolf (Post 9852084)
If the punishment does not include discharge (as is threatened in the TG case), then it's being 'tolerated'.CG

Aaaah, 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

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.

KenV 4th Aug 2017 17:50


Originally Posted by ORAC (Post 9852196)
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: 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

Received From A Viet Nam Vet Friend
 

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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:08.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.