Politics Transgender in the military

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Last year, the Obama administration lifted the ban on allowing transgender troops to serve openly.

Under the policy set by then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter, transgender troops also receive coverage for any treatment deemed medically necessary by their doctors, including surgery and hormone therapy.

That step left a decision for Trump Secretary of Defense James Mattis to make a decision on whether to allow new transgender troops to enter the military.

It wasn't immediately clear what Trump's announcement would mean for the approximately 250 transgender people now serving openly in the U.S. military.



Trump’s decision is a huge blow the LGBT community, which was just coming off a win after the surprising defeat of an amendment to the annual defense policy bill that would have banned Pentagon funding from being used for transition-related medical care.


But under the policy Carter crafted, transgender recruits weren’t allowed to enlist pending the end of a one-year implementation period.

That was supposed to end July 1. But the night before the change was to go into effect, Defense Secretary James Mattis issued a six-month delay in the policy to study the issue more.

In a memo explaining the delay, Mattis insisted that his decision does not “change policies and procedures currently in effect.”

Mattis also promised during his confirmation hearing that he wouldn’t reverse his predecessor’s decisions unless a service chief brings him hard evidence the policy is having a negative effect.

LGBT advocates were worried immediately after the election that Trump would roll back the transgender policy, which he has the power to do unilaterally since it is not a law.

They breathed a sigh of relief after Mattis’ confirmation hearing, but have since been fighting on issues such as the enlistment policy and medical care.

Earlier this month, the House voted 209-214 against banning Pentagon funding from being used for transition-related care. Twenty-four Republicans joined with Democrats to defeat the amendment to the annual defense policy bill.

Mattis opposed the amendment, confirming he called its sponsor, Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), at least once on the issue.

But some Republicans hoped to have a second chance, filing several similar amendments to the spending bill coming to the House floor Wednesday.

The Rules Committee finalized Tuesday night which amendments will get a vote on the House floor. None of the transgender-related amendments made it in.

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...or-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-military
 
I saw this and it's disgraceful.

Either the people we hire for the military can kick enemy ass or not. That should be the criteria. Character does matter, too, but this isn't that kind of issue.
 
Trump is the one that made this decision. Instead he tries to deflect, making it seem like the generals made the decision.
 
and I'm proud to be an American, let's go back to Nineteen Fifty...where if you don't agree with me, I can hang you from a tree...

And I'll gladly stand up, next to you...as long as you're not LGBT....
 
crandc said:
But the gays love Trump, he will be the most pro gay president in history.
Click to expand...

At least the gays in the military debate seems to be over. What did that take, 20 years? Maybe we can settle the transgender debate in half that.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Click to expand...

Silly question--what "tremendous medical costs" is he talking about? If he's going to identify that as his reasoning, should he at least try to back up that claim somehow? Is he saying that by permitting transgenders, the US government would be responsible for all their gender conversion procedures, and they're just not willing to support those? Are there other medical issues that don't impact competence to serve but similarly disqualify people from military service? Do they permit diabetics to serve in the military? Smokers? People with HIV? Don't all of those come with "tremendous medical costs" as well?
 
Last edited:
PtldPlatypus said:
If he's going to identify that as his reasoning, should he at least try to back up that claim
Click to expand...
His playbook is throw emotional shit at the wall and see if any sticks...then backtrack if it doesn't...over and over and over.....Trump is not a fan of homework or research.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Silly question--what "tremendous medical costs" is he talking about? If he's going to identify that as his reasoning, should he at least try to back up that claim somehow? Is he saying that by permitting transgenders, the US government would be responsible for all their gender conversion procedures, and they're just not willing to support those? Are there other medical issues that don't impact competence to serve but similarly disqualify people from military service? Do they permit diabetics to serve in the military? Smokers? People with HIV? Don't all of those come with "tremendous medical costs" as well?
Click to expand...
Per our training, any medical procedures incurred if a sailor wishes gender reassignment (everything from counseling to full-blown medical procedures) are the responsibility of the government. During the transition time the sailor is required to maintain their gender of birth. Only their assigned medical representative can deem when the transition is complete. During the transition, personnel may be placed in a limited duty status if medically required.
As for other medical procedures, having sleep apnea is a deployment-disqualifying event (and subject to medical discharge) due to the "extreme costs" involved with being able to supply and maintain CPAP machines in a combat zone. Asthma is a similar condition whereby asthmatics are not permitted to enlist. Everything is subject to a waiver, of course, but they are not generally given.
Now, for already-Transgendered personnel who wish to enlist? No idea.
 
BrianFromWA said:
Per our training, any medical procedures incurred if a sailor wishes gender reassignment (everything from counseling to full-blown medical procedures) are the responsibility of the government. During the transition time the sailor is required to maintain their gender of birth. Only their assigned medical representative can deem when the transition is complete. During the transition, personnel may be placed in a limited duty status if medically required.
As for other medical procedures, having sleep apnea is a deployment-disqualifying event (and subject to medical discharge) due to the "extreme costs" involved with being able to supply and maintain CPAP machines in a combat zone. Asthma is a similar condition whereby asthmatics are not permitted to enlist. Everything is subject to a waiver, of course, but they are not generally given.
Now, for already-Transgendered personnel who wish to enlist? No idea.
Click to expand...
Good info--thank you.
 
Well this is interesting. Everyone on the board in support of taking Trans-gender people into the military.
The universal support certainly makes all of you sensitive people.

So at the risk of being less sensitive, let me ask why the US Military "Needs" to do this to create the best force on earth when recruitment goals are met without doing so?

Why would we Take Transgender people that want treatment into the military, while at the same time rejecting people that require too much dental work?

How does the presence of Transgender people improve the combat efficiency of any unit they are assigned too?

Can a Transgender person perform at a high level while under Transgender therapy? Or recovering from Surgery?

If you were sending a relief squad into Benghazi to extract the Ambassador and the Consulate personnel, would it be beneficial to have a Transgender in therapy in the squad?
Should the mission commander have to consider the possibilities of the above question?
 
MarAzul said:
Well this is interesting. Everyone on the board in support of taking Trans-gender people into the military.
The universal support certainly makes all of you sensitive people.

So at the risk of being less sensitive, let me ask why the US Military "Needs" to do this to create the best force on earth when recruitment goals are met without doing so?

Why would we Take Transgender people that want treatment into the military, while at the same time rejecting people that require too much dental work?

How does the presence of Transgender people improve the combat efficiency of any unit they are assigned too?

Can a Transgender person perform at a high level while under Transgender therapy? Or recovering from Surgery?

If you were sending a relief squad into Benghazi to extract the Ambassador and the Consulate personnel, would it be beneficial to have a Transgender in therapy in the squad?
Should the mission commander have to consider the possibilities of the above question?
Click to expand...

Wow, you have so little idea how peoples minds work, don't you?
 
If transgender people want to serve, let them.

I am curious though, what is the cost of the surgery/process for the government? And really, not just the cost, but how many people could possibly be requesting it? Even if the surgery was expensive, I can't imagine there's a huge line of people getting gender reassignment surgery in the military.

This just seems like an excuse to oppress these people.
 
Natebishop3 said:
I am curious though, what is the cost of the surgery/process for the government? And really, not just the cost, but how many people could possibly be requesting it? Even if the surgery was expensive, I can't imagine there's a huge line of people getting gender reassignment surgery in the military.
Click to expand...

SlyPokerDog said:
It wasn't immediately clear what Trump's announcement would mean for the approximately 250 transgender people now serving openly in the U.S. military.
Click to expand...
 
Yet another dog whistle to the many bigots among his base. Ramp up anti-minority policies to distract attention from everything else. Straight out of Putin's playbook.
 
MarAzul said:
How does the presence of Transgender people improve the combat efficiency of any unit they are assigned too?
Click to expand...

Maybe they're good at their jobs? :dunno:

I have spent plenty of time around people in the service to know that there are a really good number of complete dumbasses in the military. When I was in bootcamp, I had one guy that got in trouble because he stole ketchup packets from the mess. Ketchup packets. That same guy got busted because he bought a watch and a wallet on our first trip to the PX when we had a very specific shopping list. He was a dumbass.

Another guy failed the initial PT qual because he miscounted how many laps. That same guy got busted for sleeping in the nude. He was a dumbass.

When I was training Oregon National Guard that were getting ready to deploy to Iraq, I was going over simple room clearing techniques and most of the guys I saw would get you killed if you were counting on them to watch your back. They didn't check their corners. They would stop in the fatal funnel. Not trained up at all.

It shouldn't matter if someone is gay, straight, transgender, etc if they're good at their job. There are certainly a fair number of people who are totally shit at their jobs already in the military.
 
kingslayer said:
Click to expand...


Well this is interesting. Everyone on the board in support of taking limp boner people into the military.
The universal support certainly makes all of you sensitive people.

So at the risk of being less sensitive, let me ask why the US Military "Needs" to do this to create the best force on earth when recruitment goals are met without doing so?

Why would we Take limp boner people that want treatment into the military, while at the same time rejecting people that require too much dental work?

How does the presence of limp boner people improve the combat efficiency of any unit they are assigned too?

Can a limp boner person perform at a high level while under limp boner therapy? Or recovering from penile pump implants?

If you were sending a relief squad into Benghazi to extract the Ambassador and the Consulate personnel, would it be beneficial to have a limp boner person on Viagra in the squad?
Should the mission commander have to consider the possibilities of the above question?

- Marazul
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Silly question--what "tremendous medical costs" is he talking about? If he's going to identify that as his reasoning, should he at least try to back up that claim somehow? Is he saying that by permitting transgenders, the US government would be responsible for all their gender conversion procedures, and they're just not willing to support those? Are there other medical issues that don't impact competence to serve but similarly disqualify people from military service? Do they permit diabetics to serve in the military? Smokers? People with HIV? Don't all of those come with "tremendous medical costs" as well?
Click to expand...
He took an unsupported claim from an antigay group that transpeople would cost 1.35 billion. They have ignored requests to substantiate and estimates from very non-radical groups like RAND Corporation have said costs much lower.

And if he is focused on victory, what happened to his plan to defeat ISIS in 2 weeks?

Actually I think having HIV might disqualify from active service, not sure - but Trump did not just say active service, he said ANY role.

The military will now have to use resources to investigate and discharge currently serving transgender men and women. It is estimated there are thousands.

The notion that this is disruptive is the exact wording used when President Truman ordered the military desegregated, exactly what was said when women's roles were expanded, exactly what was said when "don't ask don't tell" was repealed. Actually there was very little disruption, often below civilian business due to military discipline - whatever you might THINK, in the military you ACT as commanded.

Trumps, of course, avoid military service. But never lose a chance to dishonor those who do serve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top