Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 53

Thread: Military Trans ban

  1. #21
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,135
    Quote Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife View Post
    Although I don't agree with kicking out someone 20 pounds over some weight guideline, to kick out someone expressing themselves for who they truly are - a very personal and vicious attack. Very much so. And I say this with no skin the game as I am not transgender and have honestly not known many transgenders that I was aware of in my life. It was a very low thing of Trump to do and I sincerely hope for huge eventual legal settlements for all victimized by this decision.
    That's a good social justice answer, but what about a military readiness answer?

    I don't know if you're aware, but currently you can't serve in the military if you have any medical conditions that require constant treatment or excessive accommodation. That's why people with asthma, diabetes, permanent STD's/STI's (like HIV), people with cancer or a recurring history of cancer and individuals with physical disabilities can't serve (except in very rare cases where a specific waiver is granted).

    Transgender individuals require hormone replacement therapy, they require psychiatric care during transition, and if they elect to get surgery it can take 2-4 years for them to recover to the point of being eligible to deploy. On top of that, after the surgery they are at a higher risk of infection for the rest of their life, which complicates any attempt at sending them to the field to train where hygiene isn't always able to be pristinely maintained. An overseas deployment also puts the individual at risk because they may not have steady access to their hormone replacement drugs, which leads to withdrawal and hormone imbalances as well as health problems. So, just like diabetics and cancer patients and individuals with physical or mental disabilities, it may not be feasible to accommodate every social justice agenda which comes down the pike.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  2. #22
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    Just for the sake of argument, there's a whole slew of physical and mental conditions which bar a person from military service. A friend of mine was discharged after 15 years of service for being 20 pounds overweight. How is this different?
    There are actually 18 other countries that have successfully integrated transgender people into their militaries. I can certainly see why the military might not want someone with bone spurs. Heck, it would be great if bone spurs also made one ineligible for the presidency. But being trans is neither a physical nor mental problem that makes one incapable of doing what's required of them as a member of the military. The thousands of current active duty trans people would seem to show that to be the case.

  3. #23
    Senior Member gimmethesimplelife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,873
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    There are actually 18 other countries that have successfully integrated transgender people into their militaries. I can certainly see why the military might not want someone with bone spurs. Heck, it would be great if bone spurs also made one ineligible for the presidency. But being trans is neither a physical nor mental problem that makes one incapable of doing what's required of them as a member of the military. The thousands of current active duty trans people would seem to show that to be the case.
    Thank You for your very well thought out and logical response! Rob

  4. #24
    Senior Member gimmethesimplelife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    That's a good social justice answer, but what about a military readiness answer?

    I don't know if you're aware, but currently you can't serve in the military if you have any medical conditions that require constant treatment or excessive accommodation. That's why people with asthma, diabetes, permanent STD's/STI's (like HIV), people with cancer or a recurring history of cancer and individuals with physical disabilities can't serve (except in very rare cases where a specific waiver is granted).

    Transgender individuals require hormone replacement therapy, they require psychiatric care during transition, and if they elect to get surgery it can take 2-4 years for them to recover to the point of being eligible to deploy. On top of that, after the surgery they are at a higher risk of infection for the rest of their life, which complicates any attempt at sending them to the field to train where hygiene isn't always able to be pristinely maintained. An overseas deployment also puts the individual at risk because they may not have steady access to their hormone replacement drugs, which leads to withdrawal and hormone imbalances as well as health problems. So, just like diabetics and cancer patients and individuals with physical or mental disabilities, it may not be feasible to accommodate every social justice agenda which comes down the pike.
    I disagree with your last sentence very much, Alan. Respecting that all individuals have something to contribute at some level is not a "social justice agenda". It's simply honoring basic human dignity and basic human rights. Trump of course gets an F in this regard, at least as far as transgender rights go. But you know me at this point, right? Let the lawsuits begin and the attorneys salivate! Rob

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,751
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    Just for the sake of argument, there's a whole slew of physical and mental conditions which bar a person from military service. A friend of mine was discharged after 15 years of service for being 20 pounds overweight. How is this different?
    I remember being weighed and submitting to a physical test once a year, with washouts being consigned to something popularly (if not tactfully) known as the "fat boy program" that gave you a certain period to get back into shape on pain of an involuntary discharge.

    There are any number of standards that are legitimate to impose, but I think that should be on an individual basis. Certain physical standards may mean many or most women may be disqualified from certain combat specialties, but that doesn't mean all should be. By the same token, standards shouldn't be compromised for social justice purposes, otherwise people are going to get killed who don't need to be.

    I don't see disqualifying candidates as a group. You shouldn't rule out trans members as a group because they suffer from a greater incidence of depression or suicide. You need to vet them individually for their fitness for a given function. Just because Bradley Manning turned out to be tragically unfit doesn't mean all trans people are. I think the military should be absolutely pitiless in evaluating its people, but absolutely blind to group identity.

  6. #26
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,135
    Quote Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife View Post
    I disagree with your last sentence very much, Alan. Respecting that all individuals have something to contribute at some level is not a "social justice agenda". It's simply honoring basic human dignity and basic human rights.
    I'm not aware that anyone has a right to serve in the military, and I'm not sure that the mission of the armed forces would benefit from making it so.

    But you know me at this point, right? Let the lawsuits begin and the attorneys salivate!
    Of course.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  7. #27
    Senior Member gimmethesimplelife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    I'm not aware that anyone has a right to serve in the military, and I'm not sure that the mission of the armed forces would benefit from making it so.


    Of course.
    LOL Well, at least you get my last sentence here LOL. Rob

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,751
    Quote Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife View Post
    I It's simply honoring basic human dignity and basic human rights.
    Maybe it's different now from when I served, but I don't remember honoring my basic human dignity being very high on the list of priorities. I'm also pretty sure the UCMJ took a fairly narrow view on what my basic human rights were.

  9. #29
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,135
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    I remember being weighed and submitting to a physical test once a year, with washouts being consigned to something popularly (if not tactfully) known as the "fat boy program" that gave you a certain period to get back into shape on pain of an involuntary discharge.
    Yep, that's the one that got my friend.

    There are any number of standards that are legitimate to impose, but I think that should be on an individual basis. Certain physical standards may mean many or most women may be disqualified from certain combat specialties, but that doesn't mean all should be. By the same token, standards shouldn't be compromised for social justice purposes, otherwise people are going to get killed who don't need to be.

    I don't see disqualifying candidates as a group. You shouldn't rule out trans members as a group because they suffer from a greater incidence of depression or suicide. You need to vet them individually for their fitness for a given function. Just because Bradley Manning turned out to be tragically unfit doesn't mean all trans people are. I think the military should be absolutely pitiless in evaluating its people, but absolutely blind to group identity.
    I agree, for all the reasons stated. Thanks for providing the one logical and reasonable response.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  10. #30
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,135
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    Maybe it's different now from when I served, but I don't remember honoring my basic human dignity being very high on the list of priorities.
    LOL, when I served, it didn't even make the list.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •