It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Ban On Transgender Individuals In The Military May Soon Be Lifted

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrappedPrincess

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: JadeStar

One thing I have to agree is that the military have a very high incident of suicides but we never get to know the basis or details for the mental problems leading to that.



Exactly.

And the first thing I thought of rightly or wrongly and despite what anyone here thinks of her and what she did, is the case of wikileaks's Chelsea Manning



I'd suggest that a histrionic scumbag traitor with mental issues is not the poster child you'd want.


It must be cold in hell, this is the second time I have agreed with you today


Ain't ATS great?

It just goes to show you that even people we might think we have nearly ANYTHING in common with we might someday agree with.
edit on 14-7-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: TrappedPrincess

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: JadeStar

One thing I have to agree is that the military have a very high incident of suicides but we never get to know the basis or details for the mental problems leading to that.



Exactly.

And the first thing I thought of rightly or wrongly and despite what anyone here thinks of her and what she did, is the case of wikileaks's Chelsea Manning



I'd suggest that a histrionic scumbag traitor with mental issues is not the poster child you'd want.


Oh i'm not saying she is a poster child. I am saying she is a cautionary tale of what someone who is not comfortable with the gender they present as might do if they were forced to live as that gender in the military.


Then I'm an example of the opposite.


That's a very good point Princess.

I guess the question is which is more likely you or Chelsea?

As a scientist I don't want to guess. I want data.

To blindly experiment could cost someone their life.


Ok so you have myself, you have Kristin Beck, you have the aforementioned Sgt Ortega and I have met others personally and yet I only know of one Chelsea Manning who even if meaning well broke OPSEC and you don't violate OPSEC.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: JadeStar

Don't mind NavyDoc, his views are outdated and he will soon be retired, as with many other closed minded high ranking military officers who want the military to be the good 'ol boys club with no queers allowed.

This is an amazing step the US military is taking here, and the right one in my opinion. A lot has changed with society over the past 30 years, and this new policy for the military reflects how society has changed.

As for the SRS option, there are only a handful of surgeons around the world that do satisfactory work down there, so this needs to be considered, my guess is transitioning military members will be able to choose the surgeon and possibly pay out of pocket like everyone else does. The cost of hormone therapy is negligible, about the same as birth control.



I don't recall making any personally negative comments about you.


Secondly, I haven't made any judgments here at all, simply pointing out the realistic issues with such a thing in the frame of the service, what the service is about, and what the duties are. I know that some people get offended if someone is not in 100% agreement with their agenda, but there are a lot of logical considerations when it comes to military service that civilians with an agenda cannot grasp.

The military is supposed to kill people and break things in defense of the United States and it's interests, not be a social justice playground.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Kojiro

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: marg6043
Well so far all the cases of transgender service men and women has been kept quiet and they have served well without any incidents of medical problems meaning psychologically, now lets note that the military never provided this individuals with any services during their transition and the transition was done after service in the military.


Because of the part which you bolded we might never know of those who suicided or whose gender dysphoria impacted their performance.


This is what I'm wondering about myself. How many of these problems could have prevented? We'll never know, because in one of those demographics, every single person is dead.


And this is why I so vehemently opposed TrappedPrincess's assertion that since she was ok joining the Marines and got through it ok that we should use her example as the best practice for dealing with transgender people joining the armed services.

Think about it for a moment. People who by their own admission are not happy and in many cases depressed in the gender they are presenting or transitioning from would be joining a service to serve in the gender they are most unhappy with. Add to this that the military which has traditionally had very clear gender distinctions and only fairly recently has integrated women fully in its branches might give such person control of a deadly weapon.

That doesn't sound like a good idea to me. I'm all for transgender people being able to serve but not under duress.



There are a lot of people who are unhappy when they are in the service. What do they do? They get out. It's not for everyone and it's an all volunteer service last I checked.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: TrappedPrincess

And then we have a bunch of suicides and the like where we have no idea what their problem was. Were some transgender? Who knows? It's not a risk I'd personally like to see made.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: marg6043
The article on the SGT is more than we think, he was pulled to the pentagon after his coming forward with the huffington about transgenders in the military.

Article,


In April, Ortega — who served three combat tours, two as a woman and one as a man — was the subject of a Washington Post story by Juliet Eilperin about the purgatory transgender service members had been consigned to. Since 2011, gays have been allowed to serve in the military. But what about others with gender identifications that might not be recognizable to, say, Generals George Patton and Dwight D. Eisenhower?

Just three months after he was profiled by The Post, however, Ortega found himself pulled on to a panel in a meeting at the Pentagon about how policies on transgender individuals in the military should change. This was a historic shift arguably more complex than the integration of the military in the 1940s. With an estimated 15,500 transgender personnel in uniform, there were a lot of questions to answer — and a lot that remain unanswered. Could a service member enlist as one gender, then change to another? How will transgender service members be housed? What about other accommodations, like bathroom facilities?


www.washingtonpost.com...

Since then, Ortega has become something of a poster child for the issue of transgender people in the military.

Also he is still recruited as a female in the military that has not changed yet.

Now I thought that enhancing drugs was no allowed in the military that kind of makes me thing like hummm. Perhaps hormonal treatment is different?



Hormonal treatment is different.

Basically for people like him taking testosterone they go through a male puberty where the fat distribution changes, they build muscle mass, their voice deepens, they grow facial hair, chest hair, etc.

It's not so much enhancing their performance as helping them transition to the male gender. Will he be stronger than before? Most likely yes but only within the context of the gender they are transitioning to. So their upper body strength would grown into the male range.

They're not gaining anything superhuman they'd just be becoming like other males.


And still not authorized at present in the DOD.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrappedPrincess

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: TrappedPrincess

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: JadeStar

One thing I have to agree is that the military have a very high incident of suicides but we never get to know the basis or details for the mental problems leading to that.



Exactly.

And the first thing I thought of rightly or wrongly and despite what anyone here thinks of her and what she did, is the case of wikileaks's Chelsea Manning



I'd suggest that a histrionic scumbag traitor with mental issues is not the poster child you'd want.


Oh i'm not saying she is a poster child. I am saying she is a cautionary tale of what someone who is not comfortable with the gender they present as might do if they were forced to live as that gender in the military.


Then I'm an example of the opposite.


That's a very good point Princess.

I guess the question is which is more likely you or Chelsea?

As a scientist I don't want to guess. I want data.

To blindly experiment could cost someone their life.


Ok so you have myself, you have Kristin Beck, you have the aforementioned Sgt Ortega and I have met others personally and yet I only know of one Chelsea Manning who even if meaning well broke OPSEC and you don't violate OPSEC.


Ok but what of some of the suicides? What if instead of breaking OPSEC they just break themselves? We'd have no way of knowing. Chelsea would be the outlier here. She admitted to considering suicide so there is reason to believe that.
edit on 14-7-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: marg6043
The article on the SGT is more than we think, he was pulled to the pentagon after his coming forward with the huffington about transgenders in the military.

Article,


In April, Ortega — who served three combat tours, two as a woman and one as a man — was the subject of a Washington Post story by Juliet Eilperin about the purgatory transgender service members had been consigned to. Since 2011, gays have been allowed to serve in the military. But what about others with gender identifications that might not be recognizable to, say, Generals George Patton and Dwight D. Eisenhower?

Just three months after he was profiled by The Post, however, Ortega found himself pulled on to a panel in a meeting at the Pentagon about how policies on transgender individuals in the military should change. This was a historic shift arguably more complex than the integration of the military in the 1940s. With an estimated 15,500 transgender personnel in uniform, there were a lot of questions to answer — and a lot that remain unanswered. Could a service member enlist as one gender, then change to another? How will transgender service members be housed? What about other accommodations, like bathroom facilities?


www.washingtonpost.com...

Since then, Ortega has become something of a poster child for the issue of transgender people in the military.

Also he is still recruited as a female in the military that has not changed yet.

Now I thought that enhancing drugs was no allowed in the military that kind of makes me thing like hummm. Perhaps hormonal treatment is different?



Hormonal treatment is different.

Basically for people like him taking testosterone they go through a male puberty where the fat distribution changes, they build muscle mass, their voice deepens, they grow facial hair, chest hair, etc.

It's not so much enhancing their performance as helping them transition to the male gender. Will he be stronger than before? Most likely yes but only within the context of the gender they are transitioning to. So their upper body strength would grown into the male range.

They're not gaining anything superhuman they'd just be becoming like other males.


And still not authorized at present in the DOD.


But that might change... just saying...



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kojiro
a reply to: NavyDoc

So you're just looking for free license to be a jerk? Um... no. Not going to fly. These are internal issues and the transgendered community has been trying to deal and sort them through for some time. I've seen emotions run high, but one thing they eventually remember is that they're all in it together. That is not allowance for someone like you to just trod freely over them all.


That's nonsense. I did not say that at all.


What I was pointing out that it is rather hypocritical to get upset about other people's sensitivities and prejudices when you have them yourself. You can't be upset if someone says "I don't want to shower with a transgender" when you, yourself say, "I don't want to shower with a transgender."



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrappedPrincess

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: JadeStar

One thing I have to agree is that the military have a very high incident of suicides but we never get to know the basis or details for the mental problems leading to that.



Exactly.

And the first thing I thought of rightly or wrongly and despite what anyone here thinks of her and what she did, is the case of wikileaks's Chelsea Manning



I'd suggest that a histrionic scumbag traitor with mental issues is not the poster child you'd want.


It must be cold in hell, this is the second time I have agreed with you today


I got your back, Devildog.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The military is supposed to kill people and break things in defense of the United States and it's interests, not be a social justice playground.


Still have to have people to do that... It's an all volunteer military so social issues don't end when someone puts on the uniform.

All we're discussing is how best to accommodate the diversity of those who might join.
edit on 14-7-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: TrappedPrincess

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: TrappedPrincess

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: JadeStar

One thing I have to agree is that the military have a very high incident of suicides but we never get to know the basis or details for the mental problems leading to that.



Exactly.

And the first thing I thought of rightly or wrongly and despite what anyone here thinks of her and what she did, is the case of wikileaks's Chelsea Manning



I'd suggest that a histrionic scumbag traitor with mental issues is not the poster child you'd want.


Oh i'm not saying she is a poster child. I am saying she is a cautionary tale of what someone who is not comfortable with the gender they present as might do if they were forced to live as that gender in the military.


Then I'm an example of the opposite.


That's a very good point Princess.

I guess the question is which is more likely you or Chelsea?

As a scientist I don't want to guess. I want data.

To blindly experiment could cost someone their life.


Ok so you have myself, you have Kristin Beck, you have the aforementioned Sgt Ortega and I have met others personally and yet I only know of one Chelsea Manning who even if meaning well broke OPSEC and you don't violate OPSEC.


Ok but what of some of the suicides? What if instead of breaking OPSEC they just break themselves? We'd have no way of knowing. Chelsea would be the outlier here. She admitted to considering suicide so there is reason to believe that.


But we have NO EVIDENCE to support that those suicides were related to Trans issues. So therefore no reason to screw perfectly good candidates. Your making my point showing that Chelsea Manning is just a weak person and weak people do not belong in the military and not all Trans people are weakling cowards.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

Given the military provides a decent income, paying for the surgery out of pocket is an option. I would like to see the some sort of help for the cost of the surgery or even an interest free loan, however I have many re-enlistment bonuses that would cover the cost of surgery and then some.

Perhaps 10 years from now, after all the kinks get ironed out we can hope the military can provide for surgery costs, in the short term I just do not think that is going to be an option immediately.

edit on 14-7-2015 by jrod because: a



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Kojiro
a reply to: NavyDoc

So you're just looking for free license to be a jerk? Um... no. Not going to fly. These are internal issues and the transgendered community has been trying to deal and sort them through for some time. I've seen emotions run high, but one thing they eventually remember is that they're all in it together. That is not allowance for someone like you to just trod freely over them all.


That's nonsense. I did not say that at all.


What I was pointing out that it is rather hypocritical to get upset about other people's sensitivities and prejudices when you have them yourself. You can't be upset if someone says "I don't want to shower with a transgender" when you, yourself say, "I don't want to shower with a transgender."



Were vibing today buddy... oh and I love Seamen btw



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

It might be hypocritical, but it does happen within the transgendered community. There are a lot of different comfort levels that I've seen. I once witnessed an argument on whether transmen could use the word "tranny" like some transwomen do. These are internal problems and the community has been working hard to resolve any differences when they crop up. No one's perfect, but it's foolish to think you can use this sort of infighting as an excuse to cut loose on all of your prejudices.

Don't want to shower with a transgendered person? Fine, shower at a different time.
edit on 7/14/2015 by Kojiro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Kojiro
a reply to: NavyDoc

So you're just looking for free license to be a jerk? Um... no. Not going to fly. These are internal issues and the transgendered community has been trying to deal and sort them through for some time. I've seen emotions run high, but one thing they eventually remember is that they're all in it together. That is not allowance for someone like you to just trod freely over them all.


That's nonsense. I did not say that at all.


What I was pointing out that it is rather hypocritical to get upset about other people's sensitivities and prejudices when you have them yourself. You can't be upset if someone says "I don't want to shower with a transgender" when you, yourself say, "I don't want to shower with a transgender."


I think my analogy with the black community still having issues with the lightness or darkness of brown in some places like where my mom comes from, New Orleans, still holds.

Just because some of us of trans history might have issues showering with someone else of trans history (albeit in a different physical state) doesn't mean that cisnormative society should be carte blanche insensitive asses to transgender people.

Me as someone who had surgery at 17 feeling weird about showering with a transgender woman who has not had SRS is not being transphobic. It's just being uncomfortable showering with someone with a penis. I'd be perfectly fine showering with her if she hid it somehow.

I don't know if that makes any sense to you but yeah it's like this. I wouldn't have wanted to show that thing off when I had one and I have serious issues with someone who would call themselves a woman and want access to women's facilities who would not be discrete about having one.
edit on 14-7-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TrappedPrincess

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: JadeStar

Given the military provides and income, paying for the surgery is an option. I would like to see the some sort of help for the cost of the surgery or even an interest free loan, however I have many re-enlistment bonuses that would cover the cost of surgery and then some.

Perhaps 10 years from now, after all the kinks get ironed out we can hope the military can provide for surgery costs, in the short term I just do not think that is going to be an option immediately.


I totally understand. I also totally worry about those who sign up who aren't prepared for what they got themselves into.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Kojiro
a reply to: NavyDoc

So you're just looking for free license to be a jerk? Um... no. Not going to fly. These are internal issues and the transgendered community has been trying to deal and sort them through for some time. I've seen emotions run high, but one thing they eventually remember is that they're all in it together. That is not allowance for someone like you to just trod freely over them all.


That's nonsense. I did not say that at all.


What I was pointing out that it is rather hypocritical to get upset about other people's sensitivities and prejudices when you have them yourself. You can't be upset if someone says "I don't want to shower with a transgender" when you, yourself say, "I don't want to shower with a transgender."


I think my analogy with the black community still having issues with the lightness or darkness of brown in some places like where my mom comes from, New Orleans, still holds.

Just because some of us of trans history might have issues showering with someone else of trans history (albiet in a different physical state) doesn't mean that cisnormative society should be carte blanche insensitive asses to transgender people.

Me as someone who had surgery at 17 feeling weird about showering with a transgender woman who has not had SRS is not being transphobic. It's just being uncomfortable showering with someone with a penis. I'd be perfectly fine showering with her if she hid it somehow.


What is it about penises that frightens people? Hell Marines draw penises on everything and sometimes the occasional boobs but mostly penises of different shapes, sizes and varieties. Even in the entertainment industry it is still kind of taboo to show a full frontal nude of a male but women oh boy we can show them off all the time, right? People really need to get over this whole insecurity about nudity, its a penis not a cobra.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrappedPrincess

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: TrappedPrincess

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: TrappedPrincess

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: JadeStar

One thing I have to agree is that the military have a very high incident of suicides but we never get to know the basis or details for the mental problems leading to that.



Exactly.

And the first thing I thought of rightly or wrongly and despite what anyone here thinks of her and what she did, is the case of wikileaks's Chelsea Manning



I'd suggest that a histrionic scumbag traitor with mental issues is not the poster child you'd want.


Oh i'm not saying she is a poster child. I am saying she is a cautionary tale of what someone who is not comfortable with the gender they present as might do if they were forced to live as that gender in the military.


Then I'm an example of the opposite.


That's a very good point Princess.

I guess the question is which is more likely you or Chelsea?

As a scientist I don't want to guess. I want data.

To blindly experiment could cost someone their life.


Ok so you have myself, you have Kristin Beck, you have the aforementioned Sgt Ortega and I have met others personally and yet I only know of one Chelsea Manning who even if meaning well broke OPSEC and you don't violate OPSEC.


Ok but what of some of the suicides? What if instead of breaking OPSEC they just break themselves? We'd have no way of knowing. Chelsea would be the outlier here. She admitted to considering suicide so there is reason to believe that.


But we have NO EVIDENCE to support that those suicides were related to Trans issues. So therefore no reason to screw perfectly good candidates. Your making my point showing that Chelsea Manning is just a weak person and weak people do not belong in the military and not all Trans people are weakling cowards.


Woah there... Don't you think it is prudent to gather evidence first before making a decision which could adversely affect the lives of those who serve?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join