• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump - No transgender individuals in the military

pgwenthold said:
What about our veterans? Look at all the costs they create, and most of them are completely unable to serve any more! The military should focus on kicking ass, and not pampering those who were stupid enough to get injured. Helping injured soldiers who are unable to return to service is a waste and is not helping us win.
Click to expand...

At least we are finally treating those Quisling translators who supported a foreign invasion into their own country right and refusing to let them in.
 
Perhaps the US military is not the best place to work out your gender issues.
 
Wolrab said:
Perhaps the US military is not the best place to work out your gender issues.
Click to expand...

Why would you think a trans person has gender issues?

I think we need to keep out all religious people as they need to work through their religious issues first.
 
Wolrab said:
Perhaps the US military is not the best place to work out your gender issues.
Click to expand...

The only relevant question to me is: To what degree does allowing/disallowing transgender individuals to serve promote or detract from effectiveness?

The military doesn't exist primarily to demonstrate fairness. In fact it discriminates against lots of different kinds of people who don't fit a particular profile. Overweight people, those with a history of mental illness, the disabled, those above/below certain ages, etc. are not able to join for obvious reasons, because they would in large part reduce effectiveness in a number of ways we could go into.

To what degree should the military alter its standard operating procedures to accommodate a relative few individuals at the expense of its efficiency and effectiveness of the organization as a whole?
I support transgender rights. I dont view joining the military as a right. I do believe that a transgender person could carry a weapon and do the job of a soldier roughly as well as anyone else. But to what extent would their presence be a disruption to current protocols and culture would be the primary question. Not fairness.
 
What does it matter what gender/identity the one sitting behind the screen commanding your drones has?
Or driving the tank?
Or pulling the trigger?
Does a gun respond differently?
 
Stacko said:
It's straight out of the Karl Rove play book.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1331&pictureid=11330[/qimg]

Opposing trans rights is the new opposing homosexual rights.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right. Given how completely unconcerned Trump seemed to be about transgender issues during the campaign, I can't imagine that this is motivated by any sort of sincere conviction (as it would be with someone like Pence). Also imagine that this mostly scores points with people who are already firmly Republican voters, so I should think that the political benefit is likely to be small.
 
Maybe they will/do disrupt the protocols and culture. You know what? The protocols and culture will get over it. They'll change. If they exclude individuals who are willing and fit to serve, they damn well need to be disrupted.
 
Pterodactyl said:
The only relevant question to me is: To what degree does allowing/disallowing transgender individuals to serve promote or detract from effectiveness?

The military doesn't exist primarily to demonstrate fairness. In fact it discriminates against lots of different kinds of people who don't fit a particular profile. Overweight people, those with a history of mental illness, the disabled, those above/below certain ages, etc. are not able to join for obvious reasons, because they would in large part reduce effectiveness in a number of ways we could go into.
Click to expand...

Or those with PTSD. They are no longer fit to serve and need to be driven out. Dishonorable discharges for all of them.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Or those with PTSD. They are no longer fit to serve and need to be driven out. Dishonorable discharges for all of them.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole aside, people who are no longer fit to serve due to any kind of injury, physical, mental, etc. should no longer be allowed to serve. People suffering from PTSD may or may not qualify (I dont know the particulars) , but medical discharges are quite common.
 
Lobbing raw red meat to his uber Christian followers.

"Don't need no confused wanna-be-girl-fag in my army!" (I'm tempted to add, "The South shall rise again!)
 
Pterodactyl said:
The only relevant question to me is: To what degree does allowing/disallowing transgender individuals to serve promote or detract from effectiveness?

The military doesn't exist primarily to demonstrate fairness. In fact it discriminates against lots of different kinds of people who don't fit a particular profile. Overweight people, those with a history of mental illness, the disabled, those above/below certain ages, etc. are not able to join for obvious reasons, because they would in large part reduce effectiveness in a number of ways we could go into.

To what degree should the military alter its standard operating procedures to accommodate a relative few individuals at the expense of its efficiency and effectiveness of the organization as a whole?
I support transgender rights. I dont view joining the military as a right. I do believe that a transgender person could carry a weapon and do the job of a soldier roughly as well as anyone else. But to what extent would their presence be a disruption to current protocols and culture would be the primary question. Not fairness.
Click to expand...

In what way would a transgender individual reduce the military effectiveness of a unit?

Are they inherently less fit then cisgender persons?

If the answer is "No" then the protocol needs to be changed - the same way that those protocols were changed when the military was integrated.
 
Pterodactyl said:
The only relevant question to me is: To what degree does allowing/disallowing transgender individuals to serve promote or detract from effectiveness?
Click to expand...

Where do you think you are? This is the politics forum. You're not allowed to be sensible about the issue. You need to have an ideologically rigid response.
 
Is there (or is there likely to be) any indication of which 'Generals and Military experts' he consulted in coming to this enlightened decision?

Are they willing to step up and defend it?
 
Worm said:
Is there (or is there likely to be) any indication of which 'Generals and Military experts' he consulted in coming to this enlightened decision?

Are they willing to step up and defend it?
Click to expand...

Well, the Secretary of Defense is currently on vacation and anything like this should have gone through him. I think everybody can figure it out based on that.
 
Ziggurat said:
Where do you think you are? This is the politics forum. You're not allowed to be sensible about the issue. You need to have an ideologically rigid response.
Click to expand...

And yet you got a valid answer between yours and the question post : all category cited have a physical or mental concern why they are not able to handle combat situation. There is at least no such concern physically from TG people. I am not aware of any study showing such concern do exists for the mental side.

So the ground to refuse them seem not to be combat fitness.
 
Pterodactyl said:
To what degree should the military alter its standard operating procedures to accommodate a relative few individuals at the expense of its efficiency and effectiveness of the organization as a whole?
I support transgender rights. I dont view joining the military as a right. I do believe that a transgender person could carry a weapon and do the job of a soldier roughly as well as anyone else. But to what extent would their presence be a disruption to current protocols and culture would be the primary question. Not fairness.
Click to expand...

Good questions. But wouldn't it be better if they got an answer to those questions before they ban an entire class of people on basis of predjudice alone?

I don't think it's appropriate to just declare a group of people unfit and ban them if you can't or won't back up your assertions.
 
Border Reiver said:
In what way would a transgender individual reduce the military effectiveness of a unit?

Are they inherently less fit then cisgender persons?

If the answer is "No" then the protocol needs to be changed - the same way that those protocols were changed when the military was integrated.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of this depends on a lot of factors that we really dont have sufficient information to go on, and that the military is probably not the right place to carry out the experiment. For one thing, when we say "transgender' we're talking about quite a broad range of individuals, aren't we? Those on hormone treatments, those who have had operations, those who haven't but identify as if they have, those who quit along the transition somewhere in between. Females with male genitalia, males with female genitalia. You've got people showering together, packed in shelters together.... I dont see where such inclusion would actually help anything. A significant portion of our society can't even agree on restroom usage and we're going quite a step further here.

For one thing, unit cohesion is a primary driver of effectiveness. I can certainly imagine ways in which allowing a transgender person in an otherwise constructed unit might disrupt cohesiveness.

Of course you can force people by military law to just ignore such differences on a professional level, but I imagine what you're going to end up with is just a million different lawsuits and busted morale with lessened effectiveness in the interim. Who thinks we spend too little on the military now? Who thinks this will result in us spending less? Maybe someday it would all shake out fine.

I'd be open to looking at the success/failures of allowing service of transgender individual in the militaries of other countries and the relative effectiveness in combat. How haver such individuals faired in similar fields, policing, etc.
How about sports teams? How have transgendered individuals managed to do as professional athletes?
 
Pterodactyl said:
Hyperbole aside, people who are no longer fit to serve due to any kind of injury, physical, mental, etc. should no longer be allowed to serve. People suffering from PTSD may or may not qualify (I dont know the particulars) , but medical discharges are quite common.
Click to expand...

What hyperbole, that is why the psychiatrists were making sure they got dishonorable discharges instead of help. That is the army way.

Weakness like this should be punished and that was policy for exactly those reasons.

http://www.npr.org/2006/12/04/6576505/soldiers-say-army-ignores-punishes-mental-anguish

"Almost all of the soldiers said that their worst problem is that their supervisors and friends turned them into pariahs when they learned that they were having an emotional crisis. Supervisors said it's true: They are giving some soldiers with problems a hard time, because they don't belong in the Army.

Jennings called a supervisor at Ft. Carson to say that he had almost killed himself, so he was going to skip formation to check into a psychiatric ward. The Defense Department's clinical guidelines say that when a soldier has been planning suicide, one of the main ways to help is to put him in the hospital. Instead, officers sent a team of soldiers to his house to put him in jail, saying that Jennings was AWOL for missing work."


Weakness like PTSD needs to be punished.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom