Military Trans ban

[jp1]

Perhaps someone can re-explain to me why anyone in the LGBT community (other than maybe selfish well off older GWM's) should support republicans. From my perspective as a member of that community it's obvious that the Democrats need to continue the "identity politics" that people on the right scorn because the reality is that the republicans are still actively trying to harm those of us with various non-majority identities.

[bae]

What, you don't think it's Presidential to pick a small, vulnerable community and offer them up as red meat to motivate your supporters?

I liked the Gov. of Washington's response.

http://cdn.pinknews.co.uk/images/2015/01/Holocaust-1.jpg

[freshstart]

Caitlyn Jenner, a Republican, who really did little to help other trans people and supported Trump, put out a statement that she feels betrayed or some such. What exactly did she expect? What Trump did today truly sickens me.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Suffice it to say that my husband and I are truly sickened by this. This truly shows the caliber of man who leads (?) this country. Rob

PS Came back to add: To JP1 - I can't think of a single reason to support Republicans. Not a single one.

[iris lilies]

I am indifferent as to whether trans people are accepted into the Armed Services, but I would look to the Generals and honor theor opinion. If the President did offer this up as a token of conservatism, that is disgusting for a couple of reasons.

That Navy Seal guy now girl is fascinating to me, I love her. Caitlyn Kenner, not so much.

[Williamsmith]

I dont get it. I mean, who's to say somebody in Trump's cabinet isn't transgender. Do they check? Who checks?

Remember blacks were at one time not welcome in the military. Then they put them in the same unit together. Imagine....one day we could have the "Fighting Trannies" . Is there some reason the Marines can't teach a transgender person to kill?

What if the President was transgender? As Commander In Chief......would he have to resign?

There is no doubt in my mind there is more than one General in the Armed Forces that is hiding his dresses at this very moment.

[ToomuchStuff]

Part of me wonders if this is some sort of backlash due to Bradley/Chelsea Manning and being pardoned.
But that is what politics do, paint with a broad brush and say we know how to fix your problems, whether gun control, the military, immigration, etc. etc. etc.
But broad brush painting doesn't stop there, whether your lumping trans people, or a political party, people will do it.

[Rogar]

I get the impression that Trump's great America is a retrogression back to all the prejudices and technologies of the mid-century post WWII fossil fuel era. I was curious about a couple of things. What are the medical expenses required for transgender people and why is this paid for by the government. I could be wrong, but I don't think most civilian medical insurance would cover gender reassignment procedures. Whatever the answer, Trump's statement about medical expenses is just a ploy. One of the news briefs said that the military spends more on Viagra than transgender medical expenses. Why is the military paying for Viagra?

[Zoe Girl]

It is not unexpected in many ways, but also I was surprised picked this. All of this is a natural progression of what he has been doing. I do recall him saying he was going to support and protect the LGBTQ community, I didn't believe him. It doesn't seem like he has a very united republican base however.

The trans people I know have been able to get medical care through regular insurance, and it was not extreme. I think the military handles all the medical costs of their service people, including Viagra! But anyone in the military has to pass basic training and be in very good shape so most of the medical costs would seem to be from actual combat.

[LDAHL]

Contrary to what the President tweeted, he doesn't seem to have consulted much with the military or the GOP leadership before issuing his diktat. I read he gave the SecDef one day's notice. The military has a fairly harsh and singular purpose that doesn't mesh well with many forms of human frailty, from flat feet to mental disorder. I would certainly say that effectiveness should outweigh fairness to a pretty ruthless degree, given the stakes. But I haven't heard the military leadership claiming that trans status members were compromising the mission. This smacks to me of being yet another one of those ridiculous culture war skirmishes rather than an issue of practical military necessity.

[nswef]

I feel this is from Bannon, pulling his puppet to the kind of world he wants. Also deflection and distraction from the failures of this person not even trying to be a leader. I don't think he is smart enough to think of these ploys himself.

[JaneV2.0]

We're living in those "interesting times" they warned us about.

Between "his generals" and the courts, I expect this royal proclamation to go the way of most of his other edicts.

[gimmethesimplelife]

I personally am worried that Trump and his Administration are going to go after same-sex marriages that have taken place since the law changed to allow such. I know that he has publicly stated that same sex marriage is "settled law" but I don't trust him, not one bit. There's another practical reason I'm down that Hillary didn't win - lack of faith that my marriage will be legally valid and recognized at some point during however long Trump is in office.

For the many straight folks here - how would you feel about this Administration if you felt your opposite sex marriage was at risk of being nulled and voided due to nothing you have ever done other than your romantic attraction to the opposite sex? If you could put yourself in the shoes of those who are same-sex attracted for 30 seconds and contemplate how awful it is to feel your marriage is at risk of being nulled and voided by this administration.....maybe you can understand why there are those vehemently against Trump. Though to be fair, this is just but one reason. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

We're living in those "interesting times" they warned us about.

Between "his generals" and the courts, I expect this royal proclamation to go the way of most of his other edicts.Jane, "interesting" I agree with in the sense of the word interesting being a euphemism (sp?) for fear based. Rob

[Williamsmith]

We're living in those "interesting times" they warned us about.

Between "his generals" and the courts, I expect this royal proclamation to go the way of most of his other edicts.

I feel for the people stuck in the "meantime." I think you are right, that eventually after all the money is spent on litigation, this will go the way of the dodo bird. But what does that do for those in the military right now who received the signal that they are no longer welcome and perhaps the career they invested in is now at risk? If my child were transgender, in the armed forces and performing his/her duties admirably......I'd be irritated greatly.

[Williamsmith]

I personally am worried that Trump and his Administration are going to go after same-sex marriages that have taken place since the law changed to allow such. I know that he has publicly stated that same sex marriage is "settled law" but I don't trust him, not one bit. There's another practical reason I'm down that Hillary didn't win - lack of faith that my marriage will be legally valid and recognized at some point during however long Trump is in office. For the many straight folks here - how would you feel about this Administration if you felt your opposite sex marriage was at risk of being nulled and voided due to nothing you have ever done other than your romantic attraction to the opposite sex? If you could put yourself in the shoes of those who are same-sex attracted for 30 seconds and contemplate how awful it is to feel your marriage is at risk of being nulled and voided by this administration.....maybe you can understand why there are those vehemently against Trump. Rob

Rob, my marriage is as solid as one could expect after years of me being absent arguably during the most important times for my family but the government's recognition of my marriage is vaguely important to me. In fact, I don't know what the government's right to that recognition ever was. I would have voluntarily lived with my best friend who happens to be female.....papers or not. I truly don't know the financial implications but emotionally.....they can't null and void anything.

[Lainey]

. ....

Between "his generals" and the courts, I expect this royal proclamation to go the way of most of his other edicts.

It used to be that the recourse against these outrageous actions was a) news media coverage of the backlash and b) legal redress in the courts.

Unfortunately I see the state courts, appeals courts and the Supreme Court becoming packed with more rightwing judges. So I am not so sure that redress is assured now.

On a somewhat related note, I attended a debate last night for the 2 candidates for our local city council district. One happened to be a married gay man with children, the other is a married heterosexual man with children. At the beginning of the event the gay man introduced his husband and the audience applauded. Likewise when the hetero candidate introduced his wife. Basically equal polite applause both times.
It wasn't any big deal, it just was. What's of note is that this is a district that typically votes Republican (although their slight majority is slipping every year).

Bottom line: Trump has way over-estimated the previously fervent anti-gay agenda of his mainstream supporters. It's 2017, not 1987.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Rob, my marriage is as solid as one could expect after years of me being absent arguably during the most important times for my family but the government's recognition of my marriage is vaguely important to me. In fact, I don't know what the government's right to that recognition ever was. I would have voluntarily lived with my best friend who happens to be female.....papers or not. I truly don't know the financial implications but emotionally.....they can't null and void anything.Let's put it this way.....when I was very sick late last year with my liver infection and checked into the hospital, I was very very very happy I was married - there is no way the hospital could block my husband from visiting me - there is no way they could change my designation of him as the person to call were he not there and my condition went downhill out of nowhere. There are a myriad of legal benefits that straight (and now gay, too, I'll give you that) married couples enjoy.....I'm very fiercely protective of these rights and will be as long as I remain in the US. Rob

[Alan]

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?

[gimmethesimplelife]

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 see this as very different. I don't know the reasons for the weight gain, true, but my take is that weight gain is easier to tackle than expecting denial about something inherent to someone's psychological makeup such as which gender seems the best "fit". Now I say this perfectly fine in my role as a gay man with no wish to become female or adopt female dress or mannerisms or at the risk of sounding sexist (?), female behaviors, at least least behaviors viewed by society as being "female". 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.

We'll see. Maybe Canada will be open to taking some of them - who knows? Canada just make a very public middle finger salute to Trump by telling the world that Canada welcomes transgenders in it's military - if things get nasty enough here, perhaps Canada may make a point of accepting US victims of Trump and offering then passports, new citizenship, and a new life with socialized medicine as part of the deal? I don't see this as being far fetched at all, especially if NAFTA gets renegotiated and Canada doesn't care for the results or if Trump is disrespectful to or abusive towards Canada. We'll see how this plays out, of course.....but at any rate I'm hoping for huge lawsuit settlements for transgendered victims of Trump's latest brilliant decision (snark intended on the last few words, yes). Rob

[Alan]

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.

[jp1]

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.

[gimmethesimplelife]

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

[gimmethesimplelife]

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

[LDAHL]

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.

[Alan]

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.

[gimmethesimplelife]

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

[LDAHL]

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.

[Alan]

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.

[Alan]

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.

[Williamsmith]

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.

[gimmethesimplelife]

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

[Teacher Terry]

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.

[Alan]

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?

[LDAHL]

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.

[gimmethesimplelife]

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

[jp1]

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.

[bae]

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.

[iris lilies]

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. :)

[ToomuchStuff]

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.



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.


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.


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.

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.


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?

[bae]

If one were to analyze the realities of the situation, instead of simply picking a side in the culture war and digging in, it would seem useful to look into what "transgender" really is.

"Transgender" isn't a single thing. It's not a checklist of surgeries, hormones, therapy, training, and wardrobe. It's a spectrum, and it's pretty specific to an individual. I know transgender folks who have no interest in having any surgery, they are "done" with their transition without much more than hormone treatments and a name change. I imagine their monthly maintenance costs are pretty trivial. I know some who've gone much further than that, which is a bigger deal.

[bae]

Your conflicting yourself. Which groups allow those in wheelchairs?

Read my words again.

[ToomuchStuff]

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...).



Which set of standards, are not set up to exclude those in wheelchairs?
I imagine some of the logistical people could be in wheelchairs, if they didn't have to transport any of the command posts to a danger zone, where a quick retreat may be required.

[bae]

Which set of standards, are not set up to exclude those in wheelchairs?
I imagine some of the logistical people could be in wheelchairs, if they didn't have to transport any of the command posts to a danger zone, where a quick retreat may be required.

My words were quite specific: "disabled in some way". I did *not* say "in wheelchairs". I did not suggest that our performance/fitness/agility standards were set up to include/exclude people "in wheelchairs".

The captain of my division has a disability - his shoulder is permanently borked up (from an injury he received from his law enforcement job). He is no longer able to pass the interior structural firefighting performance standards. There are several other positions he can pass the standards for just fine. There are several other people with disabilities in the department. None of them are in wheelchairs.

There's an officer in the adjacent division who is on medications that prevent him from going interior. (The heat stress of firefighting, due mostly to the exertion required in the heavy and hot gear, not the heat of the fire itself, cause certain common medications for relatively common conditions to be unacceptable, because your body can't handle the stress properly.)

We have a technical rescue specialist who is 7 months pregnant at the moment. She won't be going down any cliffs on ropes this month...

Disability covers a wide range of issues.

[ToomuchStuff]

Exactly.
Standards are discriminatory by definition. How much money would you be willing for your organizations to spend to determine if/where someone fits in your organization?
What amount should be spent on political distractions of letting them in or kicking them out, verses being ready to do the job?

[bae]

Exactly.
Standards are discriminatory by definition. How much money would you be willing for your organizations to spend to determine if/where someone fits in your organization?
What amount should be spent on political distractions of letting them in or kicking them out, verses being ready to do the job?

Standards should simply address the ability to do the job. I don't care *who* is doing the job, what their religious beliefs are, their race, their gender, their sexual preferences, their political affiliation, or what they like for breakfast. As long as they can do the job.

As to budget questions - enough to make sure the standards properly judge who can do the job. One of our standards requires dragging the I.A.F.F. "Rescue Randy" Manikan through a course, while not blowing out your heart or exceeding other biometric standards. Randy weighs 235 pounds naked, and is dressed in full firefighting gear, which adds 50 pounds or so. 80 pounds if you are dumb enough not to strip him of the tools before you move him, but some people aren't that clever the first time. If you can get Randy through the course, I'll go into a burning building with you. If you can't, well, you get to make the coffee.

[LDAHL]

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.

I totally agree with that. Absent physical or mental disqualifications, everybody should have the right to compete for a chance to serve their country. Paradoxically, that service includes the necessity of temporarily curtailing your own access to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Plus the food isn't all that great.

[jp1]

Plus the food isn't all that great.

I was a picky eater as a kid. My frustrated dad would always comment "when I was in the army you could tell how long someone had been in by how they handled the food. The newbies would throw the whole meal away when they saw the bugs. The mid-termers would just scrape the bugs aside and keep eating. The long-termers would scrape the bugs back in as they tried to run away because they were hungry and wanted to eat everything they could." Hopefully the food is at least a little better now.

[LDAHL]

You know, I have often wonder how you guys proceed through life with those hanging appendages. It is just so--cluttered. :)

Actually, they can sometimes be useful in extinguishing small fires.

[flowerseverywhere]

I am offended because he is a two faced liar

I am https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/carlo-allegri-donald-trump-lgbt-flag-2016-presidential-election.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=3698

[Tammy]

Bae is making good sense with his real world examples.

[gimmethesimplelife]

I am offended because he is a two faced liar

I am https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/carlo-allegri-donald-trump-lgbt-flag-2016-presidential-election.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=3698You and me both. I am very offended, too. Rob

[bae]

Hopefully you saw this as well, Rob:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/nyregion/justice-department-gays-workplace.html

The Justice Department has filed court papers arguing that a major federal civil rights law does not protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, taking a stand against a decision reached under President Barack Obama.

The department’s move to insert itself into a federal case in New York was an unusual example of top officials in Washington intervening in court in what is an important but essentially private dispute between a worker and his boss over gay rights issues.

“The sole question here is whether, as a matter of law, Title VII reaches sexual orientation discrimination,” the Justice Department said in a friend-of-the-court brief, citing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination in the workplace based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” “It does not, as has been settled for decades. Any efforts to amend Title VII’s scope should be directed to Congress rather than the courts.”