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

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

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.

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?

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: NavyDoc
What advantages does SRS bring the service? Especially when we are in a drawdown and turning people away/and using any medical issue to discharge over?

Not having "in-betweens" joining up and freaking people out maybe?

That's rather prejudiced isn't it? Trappedprincess was a good Marine by accounts, even if he wasn't "all of the way done."

I did not mean it to be prejudicial.

I meant for it to be a stark example of how those who are cisnormative (people who are not transgender or transsexual people who have completed everything and blend into society) might see someone who was in the midst of their transition.

I myself would not be comfortable sharing close quarters with a transgender woman who did not have SRS and was less than discrete about her private parts. Now if I would be kinda freaked out about that imagine a woman not of transgender experience who might be exposed to such a person living in close quarters.

The military as you probably know better than I do probably isn't set up for that.

Shrug. I think it points out that even transgender people have their prejudices and hangups which sort of indicates that non transgender people shouldn't be criticized for theirs if you guys have the same issues between each other.

You're joking right?

That's like saying: "Well since black people have had their own hangups with skin color within their race it's ok if some white guy calls them all the n-word".

Um, no.

Why not? You get to have prejudice against and hang-up against "in betweeners" and feel uncomfortable with them to the extent you made up a disparaging name for them but nobody else gets to? That's a bit hypocritical, isn't it?

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?

Nope. Not different.

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.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I tell you what, my husband is still scratching his head about the transgender soon to be banned in the military, because is a big can of worms been opened on that, still so many rules, codes, conducts and so on and on.

But hey que sera, sera.

I'm sure is all for the good of equal opportunity and civil rights of every human being.

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.

a reply to: JadeStar

I understood exactly where you were coming from. For instance, my friend is a very modest and private sort. I'm not sure she'd be comfortable with her penis dangling around in open view while she finally transitions.

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.

Really now girl? Really? Your selling us a bit short don't ya think. I admit I may be built tougher emotionally than some but I have met plenty of us "gals" who made it just fine throughout their military career. You make us all sound like a bunch of sissy drama queens. I promise you that ain't the case sugar, I'll attribute your perception of us as a whole to youthful naivety.

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.

a reply to: JadeStar

Pretty chilled out here on the SW coast of England, our biggest city is only 250,000, heck there's only around one and a half million of us in the whole region in Winter, 3 Seattle's would have more people lol....but the overwhelming majority here don't like people who pick on other people so our bigots generally behave themselves.
On-topic, in the UK the only questions of anyone serving in the military is can they do the job, trans is no issue, and I personally couldn't give a toss who defends me at the beaches as long as they are good at their job.#

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: JadeStar

Pretty chilled out here on the SW coast of England, our biggest city is only 250,000, heck there's only around one and a half million of us in the whole region in Winter, 3 Seattle's would have more people lol....but the overwhelming majority here don't like people who pick on other people so our bigots generally behave themselves.

So is this Brighton? I'd love to visit someday. i hear it's lovely. You also have the beaches with little pebbles in common with us

On-topic, in the UK the only questions of anyone serving in the military is can they do the job, trans is no issue, and I personally couldn't give a toss who defends me at the beaches as long as they are good at their job.#

Like so many things (for instance as was the case with lifting the ban on gays in the military) we might have to look at how the UK has handled this first.

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.

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.

I am very happy with this decision. I am just concerned with the ramifications if it is implemented in a haphazard way.

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.

Yeah there is no way I could see them going to some military surgeon. I doubt any would be that good, at least until it became commonplace. The surgeons who specialize in SRS who are the best have hundreds if not thousands of SRS surgeries to their name. I'd hope that if the military ever did cover surgery it would be to pay one of these private surgeons not do it themselves.