No Trans In The Military Says Trump

[Amarok]

"The military should care for its service members, fact. But the job of the military is not to make everyone feel comfortable and happy, it's to go to dangerous places on earth and kick ass. The military does and should reasonably accommodate people based on their needs. Repealing don't ask don't tell was a win and 100% sound. However, accommodating transgenders falls into the unreasonable category. Hormone treatment, surgery etc on tax payers dollars while soldiers, airmen and marines are going to war with broken equipment and coming back in body bags is what is shameful. Taking someone out of a few deployment cycles for hormone treatment while the other guy or gal is on their 4th deployment and fixing a broken marriage is what is shameful. This is not to demean transgender people, is it demeaning to not allowed handicapped people to serve? Of course not."

False dichotomy it argues we have to choose one or the other . As for the marriage comment false equivocation

"As stated elsewhere, not all transgender people undergo hormones therapy. If this is such a massive concern (curious if there are any documented cases of readiness suffering here), then make the treatment a disqualifier. But simply banning transgendered folks from serving isn't much more than bullying."

There is zero evidence of readiness suffering . It's just as silly as the whole gays will be black mailed argument.

- "I think it's more about the needs of the military, it is designed to meet the needs of war. You have one applicant that can ship and meet the needs very easliy and one that will comes with alot of added bs. In the state of the military today this doesn't not even make the top 10 of things that need to worried about. Glad it got put on hold we can readdress this later when the miltary has time to change to meet the needs of every person. I am sure then we can stop thinking of the military as serving our country and just demand they alter to fit our needs. Doesn't really make a effective military though"

Once again false dichotomy

- "Also they need to be deployable that is pretty much the #1 thing of importance."

Fallacy of composition not to mention straight up simplistic

- "Everybody seems focused on the costs and such. What about the issue when 20 of us women are in a communal shower and in walks a swinging dick and the rest have to suppress their own discomfort and they can't lodge a formal protest because nobody wants to be labelled a "trans-phobe.""

Get over it . I have to look at ugly old man dicks in communal showers and worst I don't here whining  . It's nothing you likely have not seen before nor is it going to leap out and bit you.

- "Caring for them doesn't mean providing years of treatments and medical procedures to provide them with a medically non-necessary transition. There is nothing wrong with being transgender. But there is also nothing wrong with the military, a group of individuals with one singular purpose, to say they don't want to deal with it."

So does the purpose include Viagra and prayer guns sights . halal and kosher food. parades and posing for photo ops etc etc etc

- "Haha well that sort of backs me up! There are people who have been denied entry into the military for far less debilitating conditions than "gender dysphoria"... I guess you're one of the lucky ones for whom DoD could spare $20 for shoe inserts to treat your condition "

Prove it's debilitating condition . And once again false  dichotomy

- "Trump hasn't announced what will happen with transgenders already in the military... He's just saying we won't accept any in the future. Kind of like how we already don't accept people with asthma, flat feet, and all manner of debilitating, expensive-to-treat conditions."

Prove it's debilitating condition. And transgender is not a disability like flat feet or asthma these people are idiots.

---

The most comprehensive study on Trans on combat readiness was done in Canada before Trans were permitted to serve .It found no serious effects on combat readiness . So this disability argument is bullocks .