West Coast, you appear to miss my post 97.

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.

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.".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?"

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......

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.

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.

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?

"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.

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.

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.

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.

Received From A Viet Nam Vet Friend
 

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.