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.

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

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.

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

The military does take dyslexics?

Yse dadky thy does

Oh highly amusing, PN...

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

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.

I think PN's just talking Yorkshire BE :E

Maybe that has something with the discrimination they still face in many walks of life...

Or that they suffer depression at greater rates.

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. 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??!!

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.

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.

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

"......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........."

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.

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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...

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.

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.

For a navigator, it's still OK

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

DidJudge blocks Trump’s attempted ban on transgender troops

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.”.....

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.