No Trans In The Military Says Trump

[Amarok]

No there clearly is Anti trans intent in this proclamation  . And no one brought up political correctness so I don't know why you even brought it up. Not everything pro trans is about political correctness .

[Catholic_Lady]

No there clearly is Anti trans intent in this proclamation  . And no one brought up political correctness so I don't know why you even brought it up. Not everything pro trans is about political correctness .

Ok then, good. All I'm saying is PC shouldn't be a factor. I said that as a general statement, I didn't accuse anyone in particular of it.

---

My apologies if this counts as "plagiarism" and needs to be deleted. The discussion below is copied and pasted from my facebook news feed, all coming from active duty members. Interesting to kinda see both sides coming from the military community. 

- "It's the job of the military to provide care for the men, women, or otherwise who suit up each day and defend the nation. Saying that we aren't going to do so any longer is shameful. I don't care if it's fixing bad vision with surgery or fixing gender dysmorphia with surgery. Sad!"

- "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."

"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."

- "is banning people with Asthma bullying? ..to be fair, I'd support transgenders in roles that do not deploy. Also serious question here: which set of PT standards would the person fall under?"

- "I would be all for bringing America's best and brightest into the service if they have asthma and we can correct it with surgery. We bring people in with terrible eyesight because we can remedy it with surgery..."

- "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."

- "Hey I have extremely flat feet and they're pouring millions into me and my training! But I get your point, just thought it was funny when I read the flat feet comment! My flat feet don't cost any extra money, I can still do everything those of you with arches can do, and it doesn't affect my job of flying planes."

- "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 "

- "Transgender is "debilitating" now. Interesting."

- "It is. You're non-deployable for like 18 months under current policy"

- "I'm pretty sure that's not what the policy says, the policy says that the medical professionals and your commander work together to tailor your transition plan. Not unlike for any other surgery or medical issue might make you non-deployable"

- "Except unlike current surgery or medical issues, this one is not required for a healthy, deployable soldier, sailor, Amn. It puts more work on the branch of service, than the person provides to the service. That is just simple cost benefit analysis."

- "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"
 
- "Being 'transgender' doesn't mean someone has baggage. If they require hormone therapy, etc., then decline to cover it--but banning them outright is pure politics."

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

- "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."

- "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.""

[Joods]

And people were trying to reassure me that Trump was an LGBT ally.

I told you so.

Not me. I knew better.

He was a piece of shit when he ran for office, continued to be a piece of shit after he got into office, and continues to be an even bigger piece of shit today. 

He truly is the shit stain on the underwear of humanity.

[mlmooney89]

My apologies if this counts as "plagiarism" and needs to be deleted. The discussion below is copied and pasted from my facebook news feed, all coming from active duty members. Interesting to kinda see both sides coming from the military community. 

- "It's the job of the military to provide care for the men, women, or otherwise who suit up each day and defend the nation. Saying that we aren't going to do so any longer is shameful. I don't care if it's fixing bad vision with surgery or fixing gender dysmorphia with surgery. Sad!"

- "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."

"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."

- "is banning people with Asthma bullying? ..to be fair, I'd support transgenders in roles that do not deploy. Also serious question here: which set of PT standards would the person fall under?"

- "I would be all for bringing America's best and brightest into the service if they have asthma and we can correct it with surgery. We bring people in with terrible eyesight because we can remedy it with surgery..."

- "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."

- "Hey I have extremely flat feet and they're pouring millions into me and my training! But I get your point, just thought it was funny when I read the flat feet comment! My flat feet don't cost any extra money, I can still do everything those of you with arches can do, and it doesn't affect my job of flying planes."

- "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 "

- "Transgender is "debilitating" now. Interesting."

- "It is. You're non-deployable for like 18 months under current policy"

- "I'm pretty sure that's not what the policy says, the policy says that the medical professionals and your commander work together to tailor your transition plan. Not unlike for any other surgery or medical issue might make you non-deployable"

- "Except unlike current surgery or medical issues, this one is not required for a healthy, deployable soldier, sailor, Amn. It puts more work on the branch of service, than the person provides to the service. That is just simple cost benefit analysis."

- "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"
 
- "Being 'transgender' doesn't mean someone has baggage. If they require hormone therapy, etc., then decline to cover it--but banning them outright is pure politics."

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

- "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."

- "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.""

Was each indent a new comment no matter who said it or only when a new person spoke? Some of it goes together but I can't tell who is agreeing to what.

[Catholic_Lady]

It's just a new comment. It came from a facebook post discussion on my news feed between several people. It's a bit confusing, my apologies. I didn't want to put their names on there.

[mlmooney89]

It's just a new comment. It came from a facebook post discussion on my news feed between several people. It's a bit confusing, my apologies. I didn't want to put their names on there.

lol maybe label them as person a, b, c, etc? I agree with someone on that comment post I think maybe someones... lol.

[Mermaid]

Fuck that guy. Seriously, fuck him.

[I_am_not_mafia]

When it comes to the military, the first priority should be getting the job done as smoothly as possible, period.

Remember that not everyone is on the front line. The US military has lots of office works behind desks

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...61226.html

Mr Trump's tweets – which were broad and said transgender people would be banned from serving in "any capacity" – suggested that he would seek to kick out people who are currently serving in any branch of the US military, and in any job. That would be a major break and could lead to thousands of transgender people being removed from their service.

And that's before we even get to the issue that there is no reason to think that someone who has fully transitioned is no different in their job capacity to someone who is cisgendered.

There are plenty of examples of transmen for example fitting into their units and being accepted by their fellow soldiers as men.

And it's not like the decision is universally agreed with by military generals

Retired generals ask Mattis not to reinstate ban on transgender troops

[Fake Messiah]

Ah, fuck everybody. Nobody should be allowed go to the army because any war today could be settled outside battlefield.
I mean I remember early 2001 watching some news beginning with broadcaster saying with very displeased face "21st century will be century of medicine" - my ass it would. Then 9/11 happened and you have the old mastodon - the army - avenging WTC 16 years later and for who knows how long. Or what? Are they fighting for something else? What exactly for? By amount of spending the money 21st century will be century of war.
I mean if we have so called 'infantile' nations (like Iraq) that need to be thought a lesson (or whatever) then who are the "grown ups" and what are their measures? Fighting ISIS while at the same time selling them weapons (like they showed in one VICE episode)?

[Foxaèr]

5 things that cost more than military transgender health care

Trump’s trips to Mar-a-Lago: Around $21 million (so far)
Forest camouflage for Afghan troops: $28 million
20 barely used transport planes for Afghanistan: $486 million
Drug war in Afghanistan, now the world leader in heroin production: $8 billion
Administrative waste: $125 billion

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/07/5-things...alth-care/