Trump bans Transgenders from serving in Military (1 Viewer)

Heathen Saint

#Sanders2020
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,336
Ratings
6,310
Location
SLC
Offline
Sticky Post
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," Trump tweeted.

"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. Thank you"




https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/26/trump-no-transgender-individuals-military/511858001/
 

Superfuzz

Displaced Cajun
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
1,646
Ratings
1,294
Location
Texas
Offline
Agreed.

Curious, and sorry if already addressed, but if a servicemember is unable to carry out the performance of duties for an extended period of time, what are current military policies for handling that? For instance, if a soldier misses time for any medical reason that extends for weeks or months, with a prognosis of returning fit for duty, is the down time added to the end of the current enlistment?
Folks get injured in the military mostly through accidents/training. It happens. Its one of the reason over time they've identified a lot of pre-existing conditions as prohibitive in of themselves or as signs of other possibly worse issues.

When someone is injured, they report to Sick Call for evaluation. Following treatment/therapy/recovery period there's an expectation they will return to full duty (PT, Deployments, etc) without limitation. Typically that's quantified by the ability to participate in PT. If the member cant do so after a set period of time they're separated/chaptered (may or not be negative). Sometimes the Dr's evaluation (during treatment as the member will not be able to return) forces what's called a Medical Board, where the member may be separated.

There is no time added to enlistment...its a set period. If returned to full duty, no problem (I had several injuries in my time, that's for sure).
 

Tapxe

Coalescing the vapors of human existence
Joined
Jul 19, 2001
Messages
20,894
Ratings
50,259
Location
Now
Online
In America we hate people who don't pull themselves up by the bootstraps, show loyalty, and aren't patriots. Just don't try and pull your weight for the nation if you are a homo or trans person. We don't need help from you people. And don't go trying to get a job teaching or serving tables or coming in contact with the public since we can't stand the sight of you. We can't trust you to work in our hospitals or bake our cakes or anything other than maybe a min wage job carrying our trash to the dump.

And keep your mouth shut about us complaining when you need gov't assistance all the time even though we've fought and died for your freedom to be different since you can't find a good job with all the conditions we've placed.

/sarcasm off
 
Moderator #131

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
12,106
Ratings
16,217
Offline
Lol, ok. Let me get this straight. You cant imagine an instance where a relatively small, close-knit community of volunteers...united in purpose...might have a similar feeling about a new social construct being forced on them? Your first inclination is its a lie? IMO, that says way more about you than it does about me.
I didn't say it's a lie, I think the proper way to look at it would be an assumption that "literally" everyone agrees with you was BS. And it was, because you later brought up your buddy that disagrees. :ezbill:

People are often hesitant to disagree with a friend or acquaintance just to save the hassle. It happens all the time.

I know the bigot term chafed you, but honestly how else would you describe barring people who volunteer to serve their country not based on their fitness to serve, but based on their sexual identity?

You say they were barred before last October, but that is clearly not true when we have seen many stories of people revealing themselves after their service had ended. Even a Seal Team member.

To me, it's all about fitness to serve and they should be judged solely on that. There are already ways to deal with any physical or mental issues that might arise vis a vis fitness to serve.

And the dollar figures being quoted by some far right wing sources are pretty suspect. They have an interest in inflating the costs involved to further their agenda.

Your statement that "everyone knew who was gay" during dadt was a bit revealing about where your mind is too. There were folks that were able to keep it completely hidden, I'm positive of that. As well as folks that you were sure were gay who were completely heterosexual.
 

Superfuzz

Displaced Cajun
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
1,646
Ratings
1,294
Location
Texas
Offline
I didn't say it's a lie, I think the proper way to look at it would be an assumption that "literally" everyone agrees with you was BS. And it was, because you later brought up your buddy that disagrees. :ezbill:

People are often hesitant to disagree with a friend or acquaintance just to save the hassle. It happens all the time.

I know the bigot term chafed you, but honestly how else would you describe barring people who volunteer to serve their country not based on their fitness to serve, but based on their sexual identity?

You say they were barred before last October, but that is clearly not true when we have seen many stories of people revealing themselves after their service had ended. Even a Seal Team member.

To me, it's all about fitness to serve and they should be judged solely on that. There are already ways to deal with any physical or mental issues that might arise vis a vis fitness to serve.

And the dollar figures being quoted by some far right wing sources are pretty suspect. They have an interest in inflating the costs involved to further their agenda.

Your statement that "everyone knew who was gay" during dadt was a bit revealing about where your mind is too. There were folks that were able to keep it completely hidden, I'm positive of that. As well as folks that you were sure were gay who were completely heterosexual.
I don't just "say" they were barred before October, it's a fact. Similarly to LBG during DADT, Transgender service members served they just couldn't "come out". The difference was quite clear to me, but perhaps Im too close to the issue. Lack of clarity, my fault. Kristin Beck was Christopher Beck as a SEAL and literally makes my point for me.

Regarding the Gay folks I knew during the DADT era, a couple of these were friends/mostly acquaintances. Several were my personal subordinates, and all I cared about was can you do your freaking job. I don't believe whatsoever I knew every LBGT member in my vicinity (My CC on my last tour in Iraq '11...I found out after he got out.)...that's absurd. DADT, to a lot of people, was a joke as the rank/file just didn't care.

The "fitness" part is the question. IMO, their POV will be the fitness piece isn't physical beyond the meds/surgery/recovery/maintenance...its likely the psychological side. At least, I think that's how it'll likely shake out. They'll probably throw cost in there too. At the end of the day, POTUS doesn't really need a reason...its mostly political.
 
Moderator #134

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
12,106
Ratings
16,217
Offline
They used "psychological" reasons to make the argument that gay people shouldn't serve once upon a time.

I guess what strikes me is you seem to give gay people the benefit of the doubt when you say you don't care as long as they can do their job. I look at the trans issue in exactly the same way. As long as they can meet the mental and physical requirements for their duties, they should be allowed to serve.
 

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
20,523
Ratings
32,254
Location
Lebronto
Offline
Oye, I've always regarded your posts as insightful (on a myriad of topics...very much like SuperChuck, in that way), well thought out and of note/significant.
Thanks.
In this case, I feel you're projecting your individual biases onto me.
okay. What individual biases? And how I am projecting? You seem to take issue with me making conclusions about someone "I've never met" but feel fine talking about "biases" and "projection" for me. I'm cool with that, both ways if that's how it's done. But I think if you're going that route, you should be, too.

Now, allow me to elaborate on the Alex Jones thing.
I'm no fan of conservative Talk Radio/Alex Jones (that guy, and his peers, are sensory pollution). Associating someone you've never met (spoken to/exchanged ideas) with an extremist nutjob in order to make a point is ridiculous.
well, you associated me with superchuck500, so I guess we're even :hihi:

I am not making you an Alex Jones associate. I said that your use of that phrase, which I think is throw-away populist nonsense when used in this context in addition to being somewhat hypocritical when things you have written are similarly 'virtue signaling' nonsense.

I mean, there's a half-hour youtube video by Alex Jones entitled: "How Social Engineering is Destroying America" and a Google search of "'Alex Jones' and 'Social Engineering'" doesn't exactly return a result empty of links.

So, you can disavow him all you like - that's fine. I've no issue with that. But your rhetoric, particularly when there's no real discussion about how it is "social engineering" struck me just as vapidly inflammatory as when he uses it.

The "forced social engineering/experimentation" is literally how every single person I knew/served with expressed their feelings.
and that's fine. But that doesn't change the fact that I think it's not at all useful nor constructive nor particularly illuminating. Just because that's how you feel and that's how other people you talked to feel doesn't make it any more substantive or insightful. Lots of people believe things that are vacuous and discriminatory. Their belief doesn't somehow endow it with substance or validity, beyond the mere existence of the belief itself.

It was regarded as mandatory progressivism by the rank/file and leadership cadre.
and this illuminates what I wrote just above. You're entitled to your beliefs, but people have used the phrase "mandatory progressivism" to talk about letting gays and blacks and women serve. And drink water from the same fountain. And sit at the front of buses. And vote. And go to the same schools.

Maybe now you're seeing where my skepticism comes from.

People who threatened Ruby Bridges had their beliefs. Now, I'm not making the direct comparison, just to head that off at the proverbial pass. Rather, I'm using it to try and illustrate the point that the belief of people can be a real thing but can also be a thing that I don't think grants it validity or substance just by virtue of existing as a belief.

This isn't a popular point of view, I know...but it was reality.
I have no doubt that your description is an accurate recounting of your conversation last night. That it actually happened.

And I give you credit for sticking with this thread in a reasonably respectful way. I think it would be easier to take, however, if the contributions weren't peppered with sentiments that don't seem to be all that inviting to dialogue. They don't have to be, mind you. They are your thoughts and I know I've alienated plenty of people with my responses over the years.

And I've generally thought that was because it didn't really matter to me what their thoughts were and you're more than free to be able to dismiss mine accordingly.

But in the way of improving receptivity of the perspective, perhaps amending some of the things that crept up in the post I mentioned above as well as some of the things below might help.

It appears to me, there are a lot of folks in here with opinions on the subject (which is fine, its America...but with no skin in the game or experience). Once again, I'm reminded how different career military folks' perspectives are from our fellow citizens. Not better/worse...different.

I'm not a spokesman for any cause/agenda. I gave my .02 based on my experiences and relationships, while ACTUALLY serving in the military (its not theory/academic for me or my friends/peers). Take it for what its worth.
At face value, it seems you're cool with people taking part in the discussion and not holding your thoughts above others. Not better, not worse - just different. Separate but equal. But in the response to me as well as the one above, you seem to set a priority of your experience above others who have not served, emphasized by the CAPITALIZATION THAT YOU ACTUALLY served, in case any of us civilians had somehow forgotten.

If you think your thoughts supercede others, then say so. Just be straightforward about it. You keep mentioning this, but then downplay it - that you aren't playing superiority. But it keeps coming back in that manner.

but the listening to others pov without judgment is something I wish would become more common.
I don't find judgment inherently bad. We judge all the time. It's like someone claiming they are colorblind, racially, as if that's a good thing. Or an honest thing. You know when someone is black. And you've been judging in this thread (you did with my post above). You're judging the input of civilians as limited. You're judging the anecdotal limitations of others' stories.

I am hoping that your exchange with DavidM helps you see this a bit better - that was a positive exchange to have read and emblematic of the type of back and forth, generally, that's desirable.

We all judge. We can't help it. Acting like we don't is just ignorance - so I think it's helpful to acknowledge bias (something you specifically noted about me earlier... that's a judgment on your part. You're not immune)

a new social construct being forced on them? Your first inclination is its a lie? IMO, that says way more about you than it does about me.
Speaking of not judging others.... "that says way more about you than it does about me" is a judgment.

Not saying you're not fair in responding that way, but further proof that "I don't judge and wish others didn't either" isn't really the most forthright approach.

But another phrase "new social construct" is another throwaway phrase, in my opinion, when there is no context and no definition and no defense of it. It strikes me the same way "social engineering" does. It's meant to defame and delegitimize something that's more than merely a "social construct." The science and biology and psychology might not be settled, but it's more than a social construct.

You think just by using the phrase, you're saying something of substance, but I don't see anything behind it, really. It's another one of those populist, disposable phrases that are easily dismissible when used sans context.

I should also add that I generally respect your willingness to take the time to discuss this and the articulation of those thoughts.

Personally speaking, I could do with: more (possibly justifiable) honest acknowledgment about the superiority of your thoughts vs. mine/civilians; sincerity and even awareness of judgment, yours included; and, perhaps most importantly, fewer of these inflammatory and empty catchphrases that might be something substantial to you but have been robbed as such by people who use these phrases as 'virtue signals' of their own.

As you said earlier in the thread... just my 0.02.
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
24,563
Ratings
12,157
Age
50
Location
Yacolt, WA
Online
Is it racist to remind a mixed-race couple that there are those out there who'll give them a hard time about it?

Superfuzz seems to be taking that role. I haven't seen him promoting or espousing the view that TG people shouldn't serve. He's just a reporter relaying what the common attitude among servicepeople is.
 
Moderator #137

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
12,106
Ratings
16,217
Offline
I think he admits that he supports the POTUS' decision. But just going from memory, not going back to read the whole thread.
 
OP
OP
Heathen Saint

Heathen Saint

#Sanders2020
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,336
Ratings
6,310
Location
SLC
Offline
We just have a different point of view, I guess. In the end what we think about it means nada...POTUS decided DoD policy. The people will have their say, here soon enough. Even if PDJT is reelected, I fully expect this measure to be rescinded within months of the next inauguration. Society doesn't want this restriction, period.
It goes past what society wants..it seems to me that from the military perspective, there really is no reason beyond just the "they're different and it may not work out because I haven't been around them" card. I mean, think about it...Is there really something different, something inhuman and unable to be shaped by military standard, about transgender soldiers? If there is, the damning evidence is that nothing has been put forward yet.

Other transgender soldiers served with honor and dignity in the past, being some of the biggest bad a$$es out there. What the people you talked to think about whether it messes up the cohesion of a unit really pretty glaringly (to me) comes down to their own predisposed view of said people--not any actual empirical proof of being disruptive or not being able to implement well. I don't have to be on the inside to see that or to make a strong case for that point--the evidence for it is clearer than the evidence against.
 

Optimus Prime

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 18, 1998
Messages
5,567
Ratings
4,226
Online
That's tough.

I don't care what the DoD, or even active duty soldiers think about it. They aren't paid to think.

I'm sure white soldiers didn't like racial integration at first. Tough ****.
I've read through the responses regarding this comment

And I see both sides, I think the point is valid that there were points in time where if they were polled about blacks, women, gays in the military it would have been overwhelmingly against

And sometimes you have to against what the majority wants to be on the right side of history

I do also see how some would take offense to it - it could be read with shades of "dumb grunt" in the comment

But I didn't read or take it that way - but I'll admit it reminded me of this:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/E8bwfwJy4qE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

BuffaloSaint

Hall-of-Famer
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
4,598
Ratings
3,817
Age
40
Location
Savannah, GA
Offline
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
5,415
Ratings
6,134
Location
incognito
Offline
Yesterday, I was focused on the non-deployable factor as it is (to me) the most important. I also learned that some folks can deploy to certain locations limited by their job/skill where there are medical facilities (though obviously that's not their focus/specialty). This mitigates some of that concern. By and large, actual Combat Troops will not be able to enjoy this same coverage though (more austere environments).

Today, I covered what I learned from speaking to quite a few folks I still keep in touch with regarding this measure. Two are gay (1 single, the other married), the rest straight/married, most conservative/some dems, no significant racial majority amongst them. There was only one who dissented...his view was the common one...if they want to serve and meet guidelines, let them. The rest (11 folks) agreed with the policy though not necessarily the announcement. Anecdotal, sure...but actual serving military members in 3 services.

It appears to me, there are a lot of folks in here with opinions on the subject (which is fine, its America...but with no skin in the game or experience). Once again, I'm reminded how different career military folks' perspectives are from our fellow citizens. Not better/worse...different.

I'm not a spokesman for any cause/agenda. I gave my .02 based on my experiences and relationships, while ACTUALLY serving in the military (its not theory/academic for me or my friends/peers). Take it for what its worth.
Not all of the career military folks share your viewpoint and think like you. Consequently, you have no standing to presume to speak on behalf of all military folks to all non-military folks.

It's to be expected that most of the military folk you have kept in touch with share your viewpoint and think like you. It's the main reason we establish relationships and keep in touch with people, because they think like we do and share our viewpoints. That's what folks call having something in common.
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
25,058
Ratings
41,396
Location
70005
Offline


After President Trump’s surprise announcement Wednesday barring transgender people from serving “in any capacity“ in the military, one prominent transgender airman said he’s more determined than ever to continue serving in the Air Force.

“I would like to see them try to kick me out of my military,” Staff Sgt. Logan Ireland said in an interview with Air Force Times. “You are not going to deny me my right to serve my country when I am fully qualified and able and willing to give my life.”

Other transgender service members expressed the same determination to stay in uniform in interviews with Military Times.

“I will continue to report for duty in the uniform of the day until I am forced to receive my DD214” discharge papers, said Sgt. Jack Schuler a transgender man and Army reservist who is a chemical operations specialist. He previously served in the Marine Corps.

“I love serving this country and its people,” he said. ”I love being a part of this military family. My dream is to retire after a long career. I’m not going anywhere, anytime soon.”
Transgender airman:
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
25,058
Ratings
41,396
Location
70005
Offline
Mattis, according to the Times, had been quietly lobbying Republicans for months to defeat a GOP-led amendment to the 2017 spending bill that would prevent the military from spending money on transition surgery or hormone therapy for transgender service members. The report states that Mattis initially resisted the policy allowing transgender Americans to serve in the armed forces, but accepted that the policy was to remain in place.

His predecessor, former Obama Defense Secretary Ash Carter, ripped the Trump administration for reversing the policy.

&#8220;To choose service members on other grounds than military qualifications is social policy and has no place in our military,&#8221; Carter said in a statement. &#8220;There are already transgender individuals who are serving capably and honorably.

"This action would also send the wrong signal to a younger generation thinking about military service.&#8221;

Carter wasn't the only critic of Trump's announcement. Sen John McCain (R-Ariz.) joined several colleagues to criticize the policy, as well as the decision to announce it in tweets.

&#8220;There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train and deploy to leave the military &#8212; regardless of their gender identity,&#8221; McCain said Wednesday after the announcement.

He called Trump's announcement &#8220;yet another example of why major policy announcements should not be made via Twitter.&#8221;


Thousands of service members could be affected by Trump's new policy. A 2016 study found that anywhere from 2,000 to 11,000 active-duty service members identify as transgender. The study noted that not all of these service members will seek transition surgery or hormone therapy while part of the military.
When a guy known as Mad Dog is cool with trans people serving in the military, and he's also your Defense Secretary, maybe you should follow his lead. He might know a thing or two about serving in the military - but that would only be the case if Trump didn't "know more about the military than the generals do."

Betcha Trump prefers his heroes don't get captured again today. And, I'm sorry, but wouldn't something like this be pretty important to have the support of the Secy. of Defense before spouting off your announcement in 140 character blocks? To announce something so stupid and controversial without the support of the Secretary of Defense - and while he's sitting on a beach somewhere - is just another entry in the growing list of blunders that this presidency will come to be known for.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom