trump just announced his intent to ban transgender from the military

Bud Plug said:

Trump didn't name names. However, he did confirm that he consulted the military. From his statement:

“After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military."​

I guess you just think that he's lying (your standard position).

Click to expand...

Not lying, but incapable of expressing himself in even a single sentence that is clear, concise and grammatical. Never mind whether a Tweet is an Executive Order, or surprise twittering is how the Commander-in-chief now leads the armed forces of the United States of America.

Bud Plug said:

He didn't say that. One of the reasons he gave included Comey's handling of the HRC investigation. However, he didn't detail all the ways in which he thought that handling was deficient. He noted that he didn't see why Democrats were so up in arms, considering their position that Comey had improperly smeared HRC by his press conference. One thing I will agree with, Trump is too playful with the press for his own good. He says things in a way which seem calculated to push their buttons and cause unnecessary controversy for his staff to have to mop up. Notwithstanding that observation, his trollishness doesn't alter reality. His reasons encompassed criticism of how Comey handled the HRC presser, but were certainly never limited to those criticisms.



Tiresome. Trump clarified that by the word "wiretapping" he was referring to any form of covert monitoring. Lo and behold, it then emerged that Trump campaign members had been unlawfully unmasked. We're not at the bottom of that well yet. Lynch and Rice are yet to testify before congress.



Is the audit over yet? He only agreed to disclose them once the audit was complete. I guess this one can't be proven to be a lie until then. You shot your bolt too early.

I understand you think everything Trump says is a lie. Human nature being what it is, probably some of it is. Your problem is that your analysis DEPENDS on everything being a lie. One, that's not likely to be the case. Two, we're nowhere near the final word on a number of these issues.

Click to expand...

We know what he has stated, what he has had to walk back, backtrack on and basically coverup with a raft of 'excuses' that were his original LIES.

Can you undo LIES?

I think Trump's dementia afflicts him most first thing in the morning. It seems he is pretty delerious around 6am many mornings, and sends out these crazy tweets that his staff then spend the rest of the day trying to make sense of. Maybe he shouldn't be allowed near a computer until noon, or unless supervised.

Anbarandy said:

We know what he has stated, what he has had to walk back, backtrack on and basically coverup with a raft of 'excuses' that were his original LIES.

Can you undo LIES?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't put all your eggs in this basket, because there is no "we". I agree that he's given his opponents (including the press) ammunition that he needn't have, and then probably spent too much time untying all the twisted knots they disingenuously created (usually over issues with no real political legs). However, this is all about his obnoxious style. So far, no proof that he actually, incontrovertibly, lied about anything of consequence. Truth is, he hasn't advanced his agenda forward very far at this point, but he hasn't screwed anything up very badly either.

And he's been a refreshing change from politicians who run scared from the press and consequently do whatever their establishment masters demand they do.

Bud Plug said:

I'm neither sure that they weren't, nor what exactly they may claim to be unaware of, nor why they weren't informed of a pending announcement (if they weren't), but I don't really care in any event. This was not a controversial policy in military circles, and not difficult to implement.

Click to expand...

It sure puts to lie Donald's claim of working with the military on this. Quite simply it is a stunt for his conservative followers.

Bud Plug said:

Y...If you were watching the WH press conference today, you'd know how to properly interpret these statements...

Click to expand...

Exactly the problem. Trump doesn't bother consulting staff, lawyers, or the military but rather just spews what is on his mind.

basketcase said:

So maybe Donald should ban soldiers who can't get hard.

Click to expand...

If it causes depression that can't be easily treated and affects their ability to soldier then yes, an honorable discharge could be considered.

This isn't a "job". It's too important and, like other emergency services has special requirements and standards that need to be maintained.

basketcase said:

As I said before...

Click to expand...

Slippery slope. I can easily see activists demanding medical for it if they allow open service. And I'm not even sure there is civilian medical insurance that will cover it. As the military doesn't pay that well I doubt they could afford it either.

While I'm sympathetic this isn't just about their "sexuality" as in who they have a relationship with as was gay rights and ability to serve. That was pure prejudice and needs to be stamped out.

This is about very real ability to serve if they chose to transition. Honestly if they chose to stay as their gender, serve honorably, then leave and transition I don't see an issue. But chowing to transition while serving is just way too much of a disruption to military life imo. For the reasons I've sited.

Standards need to be kept. Someone transitioning would not be able to meet those standards.

Bud Plug said:

Trump didn't name names. However, he did confirm that he consulted the military. From his statement:

“After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military."​

I guess you just think that he's lying (your standard position).

Click to expand...

Is that the same guy who told him that the unemployment rate was 40% or the guy who told him about the 3M illegal voters or any of the many other people who have advised him of other idiotic things. He is constantly referring to prole telling him things without identifying them because they do not exist.

Kathleen said:

Sure there is, and that in itself is an issue. Is the person being 'honest', and not trying to avoid active duty, are they conflicted for having to keep things suppressed?

You're either a woman or man. Just because you wear silk panties, and 'identify' as a woman, does not give you the right to share a woman's barracks. Different story if someone has had a full sex change prior to enlisting.

Can a man in drag have a period, or baby? Of course not. Gender identity isn't a hard thing if you just look between the legs, it would take away many debates.

Monty Python - "Loretta"

Click to expand...

I think I'm confused here.

"Sure there is, and that in itself is an issue. Is the person being 'honest', and not trying to avoid active duty, are they conflicted for having to keep things suppressed?"

There's a pretty strong history of violence against trans people in the US, and the fact that this is even an issue tells us the US military isn't altogether trans-positive. This seems like enough to force a trans person who wants to serve into the closet and keep those serving as non-transitioning or closeted trans people in the closet.

Serving is a choice. Being trans isn't. Being trans, or gay, or a woman, isn't conflicting if the institution you're being honest with is one that supports your particular form of humanity.

"You're either a woman or man."

I think what you're getting at is that sex is a binary concept. You either "are" or you "are not."

Contemporary medical knowledge tells us otherwise:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363.php

...Gender identity and sexuality as nonbinary are two concepts very much put to bed as far as debate goes... but I don't think this is what you were going for...

And then you said this:

"Just because you wear silk panties, and 'identify' as a woman, does not give you the right to share a woman's barracks. Different story if someone has had a full sex change prior to enlisting."

In today's US military, there are mixed gender units. It would seem a bit silly for me to say a sentence that ends with 'does not give a woman the right to share a man's barrack.' But maybe that's just me...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat#United_States

To me, it seems like we're well past asking whether overies or testicles should preclude you from service in a particular unit.

Maybe trans barracks is the answer to your concerns?

I mean, personally, I'm all about integrated armed forces units... be it race, sexuality or sex. [insert bad performance reviews for integrated units here].

I'm not a woman, but I'd be surprised if any of the women I know would feel more unsafe in a barrack with a trans man than with a cis man.

Key word: unsafe.

Level of comfort doesn't seem like something you need to ask (for the sake of argument) an infantry unit.

===

But maybe I'm missing your point. Could you be suggesting that a big part of the problem here are all the trans men and women who are pretending to be trans?

basketcase said:

I know it's only from "fake news" but it seems the Joint Chiefs were unaware

Click to expand...

That is what I have now heard as well. It is not that it hasn't been discussed, but the change in the regulations was apparently out of the blue.

danmand said:

Good for you, because I don't. . . .

Click to expand...

So look it all up yourself. If you want to believe what I posted was false, please bother to take the time to research it.

FACT: There was a ban on transgenders in the Military up until last year.

Butler1000 said:

Slippery slope. I can easily see activists demanding medical for it if they allow open service. And I'm not even sure there is civilian medical insurance that will cover it. As the military doesn't pay that well I doubt they could afford it either.

While I'm sympathetic this isn't just about their "sexuality" as in who they have a relationship with as was gay rights and ability to serve. That was pure prejudice and needs to be stamped out.

This is about very real ability to serve if they chose to transition. Honestly if they chose to stay as their gender, serve honorably, then leave and transition I don't see an issue. But chowing to transition while serving is just way too much of a disruption to military life imo. For the reasons I've sited.

Standards need to be kept. Someone transitioning would not be able to meet those standards.

Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between banning tg ppl and refusing to pay for their trans surgery.

Huge.

Lots of employer health plans dont cover gender reassignment surgery and yet those employers hire trans employees. In fact I'd say that was true for most employers. Heck many plans don't even cover fertility treatments.

So why would the military be different?

fuji said:

There is a huge difference between banning tg ppl and refusing to pay for their trans surgery.

Huge.

Lots of employer health plans dont cover gender reassignment surgery and yet those employers hire trans employees. In fact I'd say that was true for most employers. Heck many plans don't even cover fertility treatments.

So why would the military be different?

Click to expand...

I agree. My question now is a matter of how this works. I'm assuming a gay person doesn't HAVE to discuss their sexuality. It quite frankly has no relevance to their ability to do the job.

And so a transgender can join, serve, and be honorably discharged. The key to this though is that the Transgendered person also not allow their condition to affect job performance. Just do your job.

I don't feel the need to announce by heterosexuality. The gay guys and girls I work with don't either.

My thoughts are is allow them to serve so long as they can serve, but the minute they choose to transition, start treaments and start living as the other gender they would have to transition with an honorable discharge(a new category not like a "section 8" without stigma) to civilian life.

That I'm betting is the compromise that will settle this with all but the most vehement opponents and advocates alike.

behemoth_dick said:

I'm with Trump on this. I'm not paying for dick removals for f*****s

We should also stop providing those to prisoners, fucking dumb!

Click to expand...

Maybe they don't want to pay for sex re-assignment surgery...fine, but did they have to fire all transgendered military service personnel? Even the ones who have fully transitioned? No. That's just Trump being an asshole.

Butler1000 said:

Slippery slope.....

Click to expand...

Not at all.

And 'the ability to serve' concern is pure bullshit. It is only a disruption for the ignorant homophones they serve with. Might actually do good for the haters to realize the soldier they have been serving with are complete competent and good people even though they are trans. And this is the exact same argument that some used when women joined the forces and when don't ask/don't tell was repealed.

And a couple trans vets on the Daily Show made a great point. The armed forced are overwhelmingly support staff, not combat troops. Even if hormone therapy diminished combat readiness,it's not like it's really a problem to have a supply sargent or driver that is on a different hormone.

And nice justification for boner pills which cost way more than any trans stuff.

Bud Plug said:

But we're still in 2017 right? So the 2017 DSM-5 is what we're going by? In that one, gender dysphoria is a disorder. If we're going by your own personal DSM, I'm not sure where this conversation can go.

Click to expand...

p.s. You should really look at the details. DSM-5 and the American Psychiatric Assosciation says "It is important
to note that gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria
is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition."

https://www.psychiatry.org/File Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM-5-Gender-Dysphoria.pdf

Seems it's depression and related issues are considered a psychiatric disorder, not feeling they are the wrong gender.

Butler1000 said:

I agree. My question now is a matter of how this works. I'm assuming a gay person doesn't HAVE to discuss their sexuality. It quite frankly has no relevance to their ability to do the job. ...

Click to expand...

According to open service, a soldier is free to speak of their sexuality as much as they want. It hasn't led to a decrease in military effectiveness.

basketcase said:

Not at all.

And 'the ability to serve' concern is pure bullshit. It is only a disruption for the ignorant homophones they serve with. Might actually do good for the haters to realize the soldier they have been serving with are complete competent and good people even though they are trans. And this is the exact same argument that some used when women joined the forces and when don't ask/don't tell was repealed.

And a couple trans vets on the Daily Show made a great point. The armed forced are overwhelmingly support staff, not combat troops. Even if hormone therapy diminished combat readiness,it's not like it's really a problem to have a supply sargent or driver that is on a different hormone.

And nice justification for boner pills which cost way more than any trans stuff.

Click to expand...

I'm specifically talking about ability to serve if in transition. And no I don't think it's a good idea. Before isn't an issue. After depends I suppose in how well things went and ongoing issues.

Continuing to need hormone treatments won't work in the field will they?