Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 53

Thread: Military Trans ban

  1. #31
    Senior Member Williamsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Penns Woods
    Posts
    2,041
    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.

    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 think LDAHL has nailed it. This is a clear and concise summary of how the military ought to recruit, train and evaluate membership. The tip of the sword is certainly fit people who need to blow things up and kill people but there are plenty of support staff whose weight, height, sexual orientation, need for ancillary medical supplies or geekiness does not hinder their performance. To take an axe to a small percentage of people on a purely arbitrary and an unsettled scientific approach influenced greatly by pseudo religious fear mongering is pretty abhorrent treatment of people who are currently serving with distinction.

    On the bright side, if the military ever does become draft reliant.....we'll, there is now a huge loophole to utilize in order to avoid being made into cannon fodder.

  2. #32
    Senior Member gimmethesimplelife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,872
    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. I'm also pretty sure the UCMJ took a fairly narrow view on what my basic human rights were.
    My take then is, is this a culture worth your time and effort and energy? I can understand that the military can be a ticket out for lower income individuals willing to tolerate the abuse for the eventual payday of financial help with school - other than in that scenario, I can't really see the US military (I single out the US military as other than Austria, I am not very familiar with the military in other countries other than knowing where gays, lesbians, and transgendered can serve openly) as being worth time or effort. To me it's a culture, very much like that of US police overall or the US CBP overall, very much in need of an overhaul. It's coming, too, is my belief. Not under Trump - I very seriously doubt it under Trump - but down the road, yes. Rob

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    3,209
    8.4 million a year is what it costs the military for surgeries. Many military people either do not have the surgery or pay for it themselves. The military pays 20 million/year for viagra for service members. I find the whole thing totally disgusting.

  4. #34
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,072
    Quote Originally Posted by Teacher Terry View Post
    8.4 million a year is what it costs the military for surgeries. Many military people either do not have the surgery or pay for it themselves. The military pays 20 million/year for viagra for service members. I find the whole thing totally disgusting.
    What is the underlying medical condition resulting in the use of Viagra, and what is the underlying medical condition resulting in the desire for sex change surgery?
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,674
    Quote Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife View Post
    My take then is, is this a culture worth your time and effort and energy? I can understand that the military can be a ticket out for lower income individuals willing to tolerate the abuse for the eventual payday of financial help with school - other than in that scenario, I can't really see the US military (I single out the US military as other than Austria, I am not very familiar with the military in other countries other than knowing where gays, lesbians, and transgendered can serve openly) as being worth time or effort. To me it's a culture, very much like that of US police overall or the US CBP overall, very much in need of an overhaul. It's coming, too, is my belief. Not under Trump - I very seriously doubt it under Trump - but down the road, yes. Rob
    It was completely worth my time and effort. In many ways, I think of my service as my finest hour. To understand that, you can't view it as just another employee-employer relationship. You have to think of it as serving a purpose larger than yourself. You have to learn to function in an environment where excuses aren't tolerated and where performance is everything. In return, you get a certain level of pride and self-knowledge that most professions can't offer. You also get to associate with some really great people.

    As an economic proposition, it's not that great a deal. But if you think the American Experiment (along with a good bit of Western Civilization that rightly or wrongly depends on us) is worth defending, you get a huge life meaning payout.

  6. #36
    Senior Member gimmethesimplelife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,872
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    It was completely worth my time and effort. In many ways, I think of my service as my finest hour. To understand that, you can't view it as just another employee-employer relationship. You have to think of it as serving a purpose larger than yourself. You have to learn to function in an environment where excuses aren't tolerated and where performance is everything. In return, you get a certain level of pride and self-knowledge that most professions can't offer. You also get to associate with some really great people.
    Although I don't entirely understand your post here, I do respect it and I'd like to state that here and now. It's great if you can enter the military and stay in it and maintain throughout your experience that you were part of something greater than yourself....I get this, yes. You mention seeing the military as beyond an employer/employee relationship and this is something I'd never be able to do as I've never had the calling, honestly, and because when I was of age to be accepted in the military, I would not have been accepted due to reasons of sexual orientation. Such rejection is going to make me view the whole issue in very cold blooded practical terms and I'm incapable of budging a fraction of a centimeter on this issue due to the expectation that I was not good enough at the time to join up due to being gay. Nope. Not changing my take at this late date though I do appreciate that Trump has yet to ban gays and lesbians (yet) as he did yesterday with transgendered individuals.

    I do understand the wish or the appreciation of being something greater than yourself, however. I see spirituality this way and I see protesting this way....so I can understand your take on one level even though I don't see the military the same way you do. Rob

  7. #37
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,283
    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. I'm also pretty sure the UCMJ took a fairly narrow view on what my basic human rights were.
    I think in this case honoring one's basic humanity simply means not precluding one from serving their country solely because one is trans and has no other disqualifying reason.

  8. #38
    Senior Member bae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Offshore
    Posts
    6,597
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    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.
    Exactly.

    I serve in the fire service. With men, women, heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals. And two folks (that I know of) who are transgendered. Young people. Older people. People who are perfectly fit. And people who are disabled in some way.

    We *all* have to meet the performance and fitness standards. As far as I can tell, the standards haven't been compromised in order to allow participation by people who can't do the job.

    We also have several different levels of standards, for different positions. The standards for interior structural firefighting work are different than those for logistical/command support for wildland firefighting. The standards for EMT are different than the standards for interior. The standards for technical rescue are different. The standards for marine rescue are different.

    The standards we use are also not set to deliberately exclude any group. For instance, they do not require male genitalia in order to fight fires. (Actually, I think it would be quite handy to not have any external genitalia for this work, as protruding parts tend to get injured or entangled...).

    Trump's action doesn't seem to me to be based on standards.

  9. #39
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    10,819
    Quote Originally Posted by bae View Post
    Exactly.

    I serve in the fire service. With men, women, heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals. And two folks (that I know of) who are transgendered. Young people. Older people. People who are perfectly fit. And people who are disabled in some way.

    We *all* have to meet the performance and fitness standards. As far as I can tell, the standards haven't been compromised in order to allow participation by people who can't do the job.

    We also have several different levels of standards, for different positions. The standards for interior structural firefighting work are different than those for logistical/command support for wildland firefighting. The standards for EMT are different than the standards for interior. The standards for technical rescue are different. The standards for marine rescue are different.

    The standards we use are also not set to deliberately exclude any group. For instance, they do not require male genitalia in order to fight fires. (Actually, I think it would be quite handy to not have any external genitalia for this work, as protruding parts tend to get injured or entangled...).

    Trump's action doesn't seem to me to be based on standards.
    You know, I have often wonder how you guys proceed through life with those hanging appendages. It is just so--cluttered.

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,024
    Quote Originally Posted by Williamsmith View Post
    In fact, I don't know what the government's right to that recognition ever was.
    Then polygamy should be legal.
    I was against the marriage thing for one specific reason. My belief based on experiences is if your basis for marriage is religious, then a judge shouldn't be able to divorce you. I thought legal based "marriages" should be called something different then religious based ones, and believed the term civil union, should be more accurately used on gay or straight legal joinings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Girl View Post
    The trans people I know have been able to get medical care through regular insurance, and it was not extreme.
    Trans G or Trans V?
    Define medical care? Were the actual surgeries to complete the act, covered, or was it just general health care after the fact? We had a LEO here who was trying to sue his department for conversion after his wife left him for another man.
    If the insurance is good enough to cover "electives" that most would consider that and it is reasonable, find out who it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    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.
    That is lumping a whole group together, that may or may not include some with mental issues due to still figuring out who/what they are.

    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.
    It is as when you sign up to the military, you give up your basic bill of rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by Williamsmith View Post
    I think LDAHL has nailed it. This is a clear and concise summary of how the military ought to recruit, train and evaluate membership. The tip of the sword is certainly fit people who need to blow things up and kill people but there are plenty of support staff whose weight, height, sexual orientation, need for ancillary medical supplies or geekiness does not hinder their performance. To take an axe to a small percentage of people on a purely arbitrary and an unsettled scientific approach influenced greatly by pseudo religious fear mongering is pretty abhorrent treatment of people who are currently serving with distinction.

    On the bright side, if the military ever does become draft reliant.....we'll, there is now a huge loophole to utilize in order to avoid being made into cannon fodder.
    When your in, your cannon fodder. There were many people serving behind the lines, as civilians, during the second great war to end all wars. Choosing to serve is one thing, being accepted is another whose standards you don't control.

    Quote Originally Posted by bae View Post
    Exactly.

    I serve in the fire service. With men, women, heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals. And two folks (that I know of) who are transgendered. Young people. Older people. People who are perfectly fit. And people who are disabled in some way.

    We *all* have to meet the performance and fitness standards. As far as I can tell, the standards haven't been compromised in order to allow participation by people who can't do the job.

    We also have several different levels of standards, for different positions. The standards for interior structural firefighting work are different than those for logistical/command support for wildland firefighting. The standards for EMT are different than the standards for interior. The standards for technical rescue are different. The standards for marine rescue are different.

    The standards we use are also not set to deliberately exclude any group. For instance, they do not require male genitalia in order to fight fires. (Actually, I think it would be quite handy to not have any external genitalia for this work, as protruding parts tend to get injured or entangled...).

    Trump's action doesn't seem to me to be based on standards.
    Your conflicting yourself. Which groups allow those in wheelchairs?

Posting Permissions

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