No transgender in the Military....

glhs837

Power with Control
Every command needs an IT.

for those not familiar with the navy, that's a person who works on computers.

And most commands need an IT that is there working IT, not off on required counseling sessions or on a crying jag due to hormone therapy or taking six months off to get a weinierectomy/silkpurseotomy.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
I don't think trans people or evil and I do agree with the science that some people identify with the opposite sex gender than what their actual body functions as... I do NOT at all believe that he reversed this decision because he wanted winning points with a select group of supporters. I do completely believe that the DOD command is trying to redirect the funds, focus and energy on getting our military back to mental and physical discipline to be war ready at the drop of a hat again.

Why all of this uproar for political correctness when we have imminent threats from a variety of world players is mind boggling. And those parties that could assault us at any time... well, none of them... I repeat.... NONE of them provide any type of acceptance or support of THEIR LGBT community. In fact, death or mutilation is pretty much a guarantee. We as a country have protected our LGBT community and we have not declared to stop doing so. Seriously, folks. Stop and think about it.

So why do you believe this decision was reversed? and why not reverse the decision to allow gays in the military?

Or how about people in wheel chairs?


It just seems like (to me) this is an arbitrary decision that serves little purpose at the moment other then to appease those who are trying to lump Trans people in as other and ( as was once done to gay people) continue to discriminate against them hoping to make the issue more of a US vs Them an capitalize on some of the outrage over bathroom bills and pander to people who dislike trans people.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
And most commands need an IT that is there working IT, not off on required counseling sessions or on a crying jag due to hormone therapy or taking six months off to get a weinierectomy/silkpurseotomy.

Is that what you would say about a woman serving in that position? she would be too hormonal to be capable of doing her job without crying or going to therapy?
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
I don't believe they are evil. They may be cery nice people.

But they are mentally ill.


Why do you believe that? IS there any science to back up your claim or is it just a feeling?

Were you not born White, black or latino with no choice in the matter? Why is it so hard for you to understand that sometimes nature makes mistakes?
 

Restitution

New Member
I don't think there should be ANY ban for transgenders to enter the military provided they pass all of the required entry criteria needed.

However, if this reassignment surgery is to be had, it MUST be negotiated during the enlistment process and therefore compensated back to the government.

Oh... you want reassignment surgery? Then you must sign up for an additional 3-4 years to cover costs. Failure to fulfill this requirement will incur a levy on future post-service income. End of story!

You have to remember... reassignment surgery is ELECTIVE surgery that in NO WAY benefits the service. Its not like LASIK where improved eyesight will be of benefit.
 

Radiant1

Soul Probe
I don't think there should be ANY ban for transgenders to enter the military provided they pass all of the required entry criteria needed.

However, if this reassignment surgery is to be had, it MUST be negotiated during the enlistment process and therefore compensated back to the government.

Oh... you want reassignment surgery? Then you must sign up for an additional 3-4 years to cover costs. Failure to fulfill this requirement will incur a levy on future post-service income. End of story!

You have to remember... reassignment surgery is ELECTIVE surgery that in NO WAY benefits the service. Its not like LASIK where improved eyesight will be of benefit.

I feel the same way about pregnancy. It's elective. A knocked up soldier is of no benefit to the military. But, it certainly happens and more so than any reassignment surgery but yet nobody is calling for a ban on women.

It's the inconsistency of the justification that bugs me. Either do the ban across the board or not at all.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I guess I agree with glhs837 on this. I see no reason why a person that has already fully transitioned should not be able to serve.
 
So why do you believe this decision was reversed? and why not reverse the decision to allow gays in the military?

Or how about people in wheel chairs?


It just seems like (to me) this is an arbitrary decision that serves little purpose at the moment other then to appease those who are trying to lump Trans people in as other and ( as was once done to gay people) continue to discriminate against them hoping to make the issue more of a US vs Them an capitalize on some of the outrage over bathroom bills and pander to people who dislike trans people.
I think the decision was reversed because there is no question that the legal, logistic and medical ramifications of having to define, document and enforce every aspect of transgenderism is a huge waste of resources that are already not enough to go around. It would be along the lines of the same reasons they are revisiting all of the mandatory yearly training on subject matters that in no way pertain to combat readiness. Our military weighs the liability factors of it's personnel rigorously each year (FITREPS).

I'm just not understanding why you are bringing up gay military people when today's announcement was specifically about transgenders. Being gay does not mean that you think you are the opposite sex. Whereas a person that is born a woman and mentally but not physically identifies as a man is a person that may look like a man but is not. A man does not get periods or get pregnant. A woman who looks like a man does not have the physical structure and endurance that she would have had had she had the luxury of testosterone in her formative years. Just take a moment to think about the true logistics of the monumental time and effort that you are asking our already underfunded and undermanned military to take on for the satisfaction of a minute few. I am patriotic and I find many ways to support our military and our nation without being military. Nobody is saying transgenders can't support their country so in my opinion the theatrics abound today are truly misguided.
 
Is that what you would say about a woman serving in that position? she would be too hormonal to be capable of doing her job without crying or going to therapy?
If a woman in the military has a hormonal imbalance you can bet your bippy (everybody has a bippy) she will most likely not make it to full retirement.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
I think the decision was reversed because there is no question that the legal, logistic and medical ramifications of having to define, document and enforce every aspect of transgenderism is a huge waste of resources that are already not enough to go around. It would be along the lines of the same reasons they are revisiting all of the mandatory yearly training on subject matters that in no way pertain to combat readiness. Our military weighs the liability factors of it's personnel rigorously each year (FITREPS).

I'm just not understanding why you are bringing up gay military people when today's announcement was specifically about transgenders. Being gay does not mean that you think you are the opposite sex. Whereas a person that is born a woman and mentally but not physically identifies as a man is a person that may look like a man but is not. A man does not get periods or get pregnant. A woman who looks like a man does not have the physical structure and endurance that she would have had had she had the luxury of testosterone in her formative years. Just take a moment to think about the true logistics of the monumental time and effort that you are asking our already underfunded and undermanned military to take on for the satisfaction of a minute few. I am patriotic and I find many ways to support our military and our nation without being military. Nobody is saying transgenders can't support their country so in my opinion the theatrics abound today are truly misguided.

These rules and regulations are already in place and Trans people are currently serving. The expense has been incurred already. Just as it was when they changed the laws to allow gay people and rules and regulations and support services were put in place in case of problems. The only thing that could cost additional funds at this point is the lawsuits this will inevitably create.

If we really want to save money we would make a rule like many others have suggested that you need to do extra duty to make up for the cost of reassignment surgery or pay for it out of pocket


I keep bringing up gay people because it wasnt long ago we were told that letting gays in would be the end of the world and fire and brimstone would rain upon us and none of that happened and none of that will happen with Trans people either using common sense and not allowing the few religious or bigoted lunatics to decide how we treat American military personnel that want to serve our country.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I feel the same way about pregnancy. It's elective. A knocked up soldier is of no benefit to the military. But, it certainly happens and more so than any reassignment surgery but yet nobody is calling for a ban on women.

It's the inconsistency of the justification that bugs me. Either do the ban across the board or not at all.

I do not think that pregnancy is considered "elective". Often, when a sailor became pregnant, they were removed from their ship, and often from the Navy.

Realignment surgery is hella expensive, and purely elective. There is no driving medical need for it, like delivering a child.

I do not believe the military pays for nose jobs, or face lifts, or other similar cosmetic elective surgery, and those things are far less expensive. Heck, everyone wins if sailors get boob jobs, right? But, I don't think they're paid for either.

If John wants to dress up as Jane, talk like Jane, have people call him Jane colloquially, etc., I see no problem. So long as John fights as John, meets the physical requirements of John (including dress in uniform), etc., I still see no problem.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
I keep bringing up gay people .

We've noticed that. So we've naturally all concluded that you are gay. Or transgender. Or both.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

And you are far too old to serve in the military anyway. And you'd fail the ASVAB. And the physical.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
it wasnt long ago we were told that letting gays in would be the end of the world and fire and brimstone would rain upon us

Who said any such thing?

As a veteran, I can say that when you bunk people, you generally separate the ones with penises from the ones without, due to the 98% of people who are attracted to the opposite sex. I knew openly homosexual men and women serving when Clinton said, "don't ask, don't tell" and before. Very few of us cared about it. But, the issue for me has always been the same as having people date other people within their division, or department, or ship - it leads to a problem with military discipline and conflicts of interest.

So, we don't bunk men and women together, where do you bunk a homosexual person?
 

Restitution

New Member
I do not think that pregnancy is considered "elective". Often, when a sailor became pregnant, they were removed from their ship, and often from the Navy.

Well... yes, it kinda is. If you think about it... a decision is made between two people to conceive (or as the result of making a decision to have unprotected sex) a child. There is no need or benefit to the government to have that child. So, it is technically an elective process. This, of course, applies to the member that is enlisted in the military.

I do not believe the military pays for nose jobs, or face lifts, or other similar cosmetic elective surgery, and those things are far less expensive. Heck, everyone wins if sailors get boob jobs, right? But, I don't think they're paid for either.

Correct me if I am wrong but... even if the military member wanted elective cosmetic surgery that didn't benefit the government... didn't they need to seek prior permission to do so?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Well... yes, it kinda is. If you think about it... a decision is made between two people to conceive (or as the result of making a decision to have unprotected sex) a child. There is no need or benefit to the government to have that child. So, it is technically an elective process. This, of course, applies to the member that is enlisted in the military.

You are making the "if we wanted you to have a kid we would have issued it in your sea bag" argument. In that respect, if rape is not involved, of course the pregnancy is elective.

But, then all accidents are actually elective, right? If a service member is injured in a car crash while on leave, it was their choice to be on leave and to be in a car, so all repair is elective, right? If you fall down a ladder on a ship, it was your choice to take that ladder so your injuries were cause by your choice so any repairs to your body would be elective medical coverage?

I just don't see it the same way. There's a child inside a woman's body, and that child ain't gonna stay there indefinitely, so (while, yes, getting pregnant is a choice when rape is not involved) it's not really elective medical coverage to take the child out of the body. If there is no physical health need to remove or add a penis to a body, then doing so is just as elective as a face lift.

Correct me if I am wrong but... even if the military member wanted elective cosmetic surgery that didn't benefit the government... didn't they need to seek prior permission to do so?

I never knew of such an instance (except for teeth cleaning), so I can't say with any certainty. I can only imagine that permission would need to be sought, and medical leave would not be allowed but personal leave should be.
 

Restitution

New Member
But, then all accidents are actually elective, right? If a service member is injured in a car crash while on leave, it was their choice to be on leave and to be in a car, so all repair is elective, right? If you fall down a ladder on a ship, it was your choice to take that ladder so your injuries were cause by your choice so any repairs to your body would be elective medical coverage?

If the service member has a signed approval from their chain of command to father/mother a child then YES... it is covered. Because, all of the examples you provided either need prior approval OR can happen in direct relation to performing their assigned task(s) :shrug:
 
Top