"Donald Trump Says Transgender People Won’t Be Allowed To Serve In Military"

[Father Heathen]

I have only one thing to say.
The military should not be used as a petri dish for social engineering.

A modern military needs to be kept up to date with the society that it purportedly serves and protects.
Unless you prefer a white male only military that issues flintlock muskets to conscripts and has them slowly march out in line formation onto the battlefield.

 

[Quintessence]

It's not protecting anything, it's about functional military organizations. Your needs are irrelevant, you died and became a marine, airman, or soldier. You don't get to dress how you want, you do as you are told just like every other trooper.

I fail to see how someone identifying with a sex other than what they were born with - whether they have undergone transition surgery or not - is at all relevant to the military's ability to function. All it's doing is excluding people who want to serve and making the lives of trans folk currently in the military more problematic than it needs to be.

I also don't see what any of this has to do with dress.

 

[Father Heathen]

The fact that it is a fetish is largely irrelevant, it's just the example of how silly it is to expect the military to tolerate or put up with these things.

The two aren't remotely comparable, so what do you mean by "these things"?

Again, I believe in life and liberty and all that - I just think the military has a job to protect the country and the world, and not become social justice warrior tolerance school.

If they're perfectly capable of serving, then there is no rational reason that it should even be an issue. If other soldiers are bothered by it, they need to toughen up and get over it. If they're too insecure and emotionally weak to handle working with LGBT soldiers, how can they handle the pressure of an actual combat situation?

I find it not only to be wasted effort, but wasted money.

Compared to how much money is already wasted on and by the military, this isn't even a drop in the bucket.

 

[Mindmaster]

I fail to see how someone identifying with a sex other than what they were born with - whether they have undergone transition surgery or not - is at all relevant to the military's ability to function. All it's doing is excluding people who want to serve and making the lives of trans folk currently in the military more problematic than it needs to be.

I also don't see what any of this has to do with dress.

So, if I feel like a woman today I am a transgender? Again, I am perplexed.

I see no justification in causing trans people any problems, I just think that the military environment _causes_ them problems and they have ENOUGH of them already. I just don't see any value to seeking that occupation in that sense when it is trouble. People are different, it's OK, but our differences affect our possible careers in life. Why is it difficult to figure out? This isn't discrimination, this is a military command deciding it has ENOUGH freaking problems.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I have only one thing to say.
The military should not be used as a petri dish for social engineering.

Exactly. They are there for one thing. Killing any person designated as an enemy of the Union.

Transgender or not, everyone is "Green" or "Tan".

All this SJW bull**** stays in civilian life. The military is in their right to bar anyone they deem unfit or incompatible.

That said, I would love to see a transgender battalion invade the Middle East, or better, invade North Korea with extreme prejudice.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I could understand the decision if transsexuals posed unnecessary costs but i am curious what these medical costs would be. I presume that nobody is going in wearing trousers and leaving with a skirt

 

[Skwim]

From the linked site: Donald Trump Says Transgender People Won't Be Allowed To Serve In Military

"It’s not clear why Trump decided to announce such a significant policy change via Twitter or when it would take effect."
​

My guess is that he's trying to appeal to his 36% core supporters. Obviously not the brightest bunch of people:
The Uneducated, Middle age, Low income, Whites.

.​

 

[Quintessence]

I could understand the decision if transsexuals posed unnecessary costs but i am curious what these medical costs would be. I presume that nobody is going in wearing trousers and leaving with a skirt

I'm curious about this as well. I find it very hard to believe that the costs incurred by not discriminating against a group of citizens based on what is supposed to be a protected legal classification is at all significant. Especially when compared to the costs or providing mental health resources for traumatized veterans, or dealing with the illnesses cultivated by the smoking/drinking culture that I've heard pervades in the military.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

From the linked site: Donald Trump Says Transgender People Won't Be Allowed To Serve In Military

"It’s not clear why Trump decided to announce such a significant policy change via Twitter or when it would take effect."
​

My guess is that he's trying to appeal to his 36% core supporters. Obviously not the brightest bunch of people:
The Uneducated, Middle age, Low income, Whites.

.​

"My guess is that he's trying to appeal to his 36% core supporters."

I am sure that is exactly what he is doing. Trump is a big fan of using a George Wallace style of politics, which is selling hate.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

The Republicans used the same gay bashing platform to rally votes. This the same BS just a different day and another minority group under-fire. As soon as it becomes too politically risky to so openly bash one minority group they move on to the next. However, this just may be Trump blowing smoke, we'll have to see if anything actually comes of this.

 

[columbus]

I can't be arsed to read the article. So I may be missing something. But I gotta ask. "Why is Trump making announcements about this hot button issue?. Why not wait for the military experts make decisions, then announce decisions?"
It looks mostly like pandering to me.
Tom

 

[BSM1]

Now you're talking about physical impairments that would prevent someone from performing a soldier's duty normally. What does that have to do with LGBT soldiers who are perfectly capable of performing their duties?

By transgender I assume we are talking about those who are in a transgendered stage of some sort. This means there are more treatments and/or operations required. If this is done in the military this will take that particular person out of service for whatever time period. This would weaken the readiness of this person's unit, not to mention the cost to the taxpayer. If the person has completed the change before entering the military then this is a moot point. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[BSM1]

The Republicans used the same gay bashing platform to rally votes. This the same BS just a different day and another minority group under-fire. As soon as it becomes too politically risky to so openly bash one minority group they move on to the next. However, this just may be Trump blowing smoke, we'll have to see if anything actually comes of this.

Your ad hominem attacks show your true colors.

 

[Mindmaster]

Exactly. They are there for one thing. Killing any person designated as an enemy of the Union.

Transgender or not, everyone is "Green" or "Tan".

All this SJW bull**** stays in civilian life. The military is in their right to bar anyone they deem unfit or incompatible.

That said, I would love to see a transgender battalion invade the Middle East, or better, invade North Korea with extreme prejudice.

If the Military can exclude people based on criminal past, ties to foreign enemies, weight, physical fitness, height, mental capability, mental health, drug history, for having flat feet AND (during a separate era) for having high arches... They can exclude transgenders. There are many ways to serve. Nothing is stopping Transgendered soldiers and military minds from forming a private mercenary company and making way more money while proving they are effective in war. If that's what they want to do...

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Your ad hominem attacks show your true colors.

You shouldn't use words that you don't understand.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

If the Military can exclude people based on criminal past, ties to foreign enemies, weight, physical fitness, height, mental capability, mental health, drug history, for having flat feet AND (during a separate era) for having high arches... They can exclude transgenders. There are many ways to serve. Nothing is stopping Transgendered soldiers and military minds from forming a private mercenary company and making way more money while proving they are effective in war. If that's what they want to do...

So what you are saying is you equate being transgender with being a criminal, having ties to foreign enemies, having health issues, being crazy, having a drug problem and have feet problems?

Nothing you listed is exclusively associated with being transgender. They should have the same opportunity to be subjected to your list as everyone else. I mean do you have a real reason they should be barred from the military, or just this list of non-related issues?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Also why are some of you using the suffix -ed on the word transgender? You do realize that suffix is used for forming the past tense of weak verbs? It makes no sense to use it that way. And why use caps on the word? It is not a proper noun. Although I will admit the Transgendered Solider does sound like a bad *** and not someone I would mess with.

 

[VioletVortex]

That has no basis in logic. What sort of distraction could they cause anyways? It seems as though Trump is trying to model our government after the Suadi Arabian one.

 

[VioletVortex]

If the Military can exclude people based on criminal past, ties to foreign enemies, weight, physical fitness, height, mental capability, mental health, drug history, for having flat feet AND (during a separate era) for having high arches... They can exclude transgenders. There are many ways to serve. Nothing is stopping Transgendered soldiers and military minds from forming a private mercenary company and making way more money while proving they are effective in war. If that's what they want to do...

So I should compile an "Army of the Short".

I don't think there should be physical restrictions for joining the military. However, if one is unable to perform their duties due to a physical deficit, they should be removed from the military, or at least demoted depending on the nature of their deficiency. One outstanding instance where the military should discriminate in admissions based on physical criteria, could be the prohibition of those under 5'4 from becoming air force pilots as the safety restraints in the pilot's seat are too large. That does make sense.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Mindmaster is raising some very good points about all this without being discriminatory. Military Service is not like civilian life. You actually lose a few rights, such as areas of freedom of speech and expression. Remember the Navy soldier who did some manner of protest against the flag and anthem, in uniform? Yeah, big no-no. It's one thing for a civilian to do that - and is completely protected - but it is absolutely against regulations (e.g. forbidden) for a soldier or officer of the Armed Forces to protest in such a manner. She could have even gone to a rally on her own time and in her own clothing - but not in uniform or in formation.

The issue is being reviewed. If it's found (like homosexuals serving in the military) to have no adverse effect on the tactical effectiveness of the military as a combat unit, then there's no issue.

But I will say this. I work with a transperson undergoing hormones. They haven't even gone under the knife yet, but it's already causing problems at work that aren't related to social stigma and bias. You're changing your body. There are bound to be some side effects, and those are bound to affect those that you're working with. In a combat situation, that's not the time for problems - either psychological or physical - to surface.