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.

 

Trump Tweets NO Transgender in Military

page: 43
78
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So if Trump says trans people can serve, they just have to do it before or after their transition, that solves the problem.



He doesn't HAVE to say that.

If that happens like that it's a non issue and the individual will be dealt with like anyone else.





posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Again I say If the person is qualified let them do it.
But dude look at the cost this is a none issue to be honest the bigger question is the amount of Viagra you guys need

This all stinks this is a deflection for something incoming lets not miss it.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: MortonBunkum

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So if Trump says trans people can serve, they just have to do it before or after their transition, that solves the problem.


That's a bit of a stretch to say 'it solves the problem.'

In the case of pre-enlistment modification:

1) You'll have genetic women who can't meet the male physical standards even though they claim to be male, plus have undergone surgery.
2) Then you'll have genetic males who can meet the female physical standards but who have obviously undergone surgery.

Scenario #2 is more likely to get enlisted, but may be drummed out if they become disruptive with the other women because they may not be able to fit in.


so.....

and then? you have experiece in this sort of behavior mod thing?


First off, I'm not arguing the behavior. I'm sticking to physical standards and enlistment criteria. Mental Health treatment and surgery can deny any volunteer their enlistment.

Second, stop asking for some personal expertise on subject. You are not a behavior mod expert either. It's poor debate tactics. This is an opinion forum *and* it's the mud pit. People post. Get over it.


some studies show the mental distress is permanently damaging and that it's done on purpose


I have no idea what mental distress you are talking about. But as I said before, if the hypothetical volunteer has a history of mental issues and treatment, it's a black mark on enlistment criteria.



still waiting for sources showing how the military paid for Manning's transition


Are you asking me or the person who mentioned Manning? I'm not messing with that bag of crazy.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu


First off, I'm not arguing the behavior. I'm sticking to physical standards and enlistment criteria. Mental Health treatment and surgery can deny any volunteer their enlistment.

And I'm arguing that anyone who wants to sign up should be able to. Just like they can buy guns. right ??


Second, stop asking for some personal expertise on subject.

I'm asking for sources for the allegations being made


You are not a behavior mod expert either.

and you know this how?


It's poor debate tactics. This is an opinion forum *and* it's the mud pit. People post. Get over it.





posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: MortonBunkum
a reply to: Teikiatsu


First off, I'm not arguing the behavior. I'm sticking to physical standards and enlistment criteria. Mental Health treatment and surgery can deny any volunteer their enlistment.

And I'm arguing that anyone who wants to sign up should be able to. Just like they can buy guns. right ??


Second, stop asking for some personal expertise on subject.

I'm asking for sources for the allegations being made


You are not a behavior mod expert either.

and you know this how?


It's poor debate tactics. This is an opinion forum *and* it's the mud pit. People post. Get over it.





Not just "anyone" can buy guns.

Now if you said "anyone" can vote, that would be closer.






posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234

After consultation with my Generals...


My Generals. Mine. MY Generals.

Why does he refer to our Generals as his? The men and women who swore an oath to the Constitution and the United States are not his property or personal military force. He is not CEO of America, he is the President of the United States.

He may be Commander in Chief but that doesn't make the military his. They are our military not his.

Furthermore, on topic; Whoever he consulted with he didn't even tell them that he was going to make this announcement:

Pentagon and Trump don't appear coordinated on military transgender ban

Pentago n 'worried Trump was going to declare war on North Korea' during today's tweets about military


They are his Generals. They take orders from him.


edit on 26/7/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: MortonBunkum
a reply to: Teikiatsu


First off, I'm not arguing the behavior. I'm sticking to physical standards and enlistment criteria. Mental Health treatment and surgery can deny any volunteer their enlistment.

And I'm arguing that anyone who wants to sign up should be able to. Just like they can buy guns. right ??


As BB said, not everyone can buy guys. But anyone of legal age can volunteer. Not everyone is accepted. Them's the breaks. Also something to just 'get over.'



Second, stop asking for some personal expertise on subject.

I'm asking for sources for the allegations being made


What allegations? Specificity, use it.



You are not a behavior mod expert either.

and you know this how?


Because you would have claimed to be one by now. And if you do claim to be one, welcome to the internet where anyone can google and *try* to sound all expertish. So it's best not to throw around claims of credentials in the first place. I haven't bothered with my degree in biology up to this point, for example.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Grambler

Again I say If the person is qualified let them do it.
But dude look at the cost this is a none issue to be honest the bigger question is the amount of Viagra you guys need

This all stinks this is a deflection for something incoming lets not miss it.


The viagra thing is ridiculous.

In fact, I am against Trumps policy of just throwing more money at the military in general.

He rightly acknowledges the problem with education can't be solved by just throwing more money, yet comes to the exact opposite conclusion with the military. The viagra thing is just one example. Overseas bases, ineffective vehicles, etc. cost far more and I am disappointed that really no politician discusses this.

As far as a distraction, perhaps you are right. Perhaps Obama passing this law was also a distraction from his disastrous policies.

But I have already said, I think this is an issue of very little importance to me.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: EchoesInTime

A persons sexual identity and orientation should not be an indicator to their devotion to duty, honor, or the mission.

Trump is CnC though. It is his call to make.


Gender is something the government can't discriminate over. It seems like a pretty open and shut case, so basic in fact that I wonder if the Supreme Court wil even hear it. Given the speed of the court system though, this will likely be the new policy going forward for the next 3 years, and only be litigated under whoever holds the President's office next term.

The followup is what I found more interesting. The 15k transgendered people currently serving active duty or in the reserves are good enough for the military, but no body new can contribute. That right there is going to become a major point in whatever court case this ultimately results in.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   

What allegations? Specificity, use it.


the allegations that the military paid for Manning's transitional surgery - that was my initial query

as to what you think you have guessed to know about my background:

Because you would have claimed to be one by now. And if you do claim to be one, welcome to the internet where anyone can google and *try* to sound all expertish. So it's best not to throw around claims of credentials in the first place. I haven't bothered with my degree in biology up to this point, for example.


i see

so, then: if you throw some claims of credentials at me, am I to dismiss them? Or take them seriously?

and if I never claim to have any credentials then I am an expert?

hmmmmm
I really don't understand Americans





edit on 26-7-2017 by MortonBunkum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

There is a lot more profit and power to be had in military contracts and the spoils of war than there is in education.

That sad fact is the reason Trump is willing to expend money hand over foot replacing ageing military technologies whilst pretty much ignoring the education gap the widens as the years go by.

Plus a semi literate population make better drones and can be shaped and moulded to think and vote as directed a whole lot easier i imagine.
edit on 26-7-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't think it is...

Isn't it unconstitutional to discriminate for that reason???

Sex, age, race, religion and sexual orientation???


I just said the same thing (and we're now 45 pages in, so this is super buried) but I imagine the counter argument will be made by lawyers for this, that sex isn't gender. Sex is only male or female... totally binary. It's gender, not sex that is fluid, and there is no intent in the law to protect based on gender, only on sex.

Basically, it hinges on if gender and sex are the same thing.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
The 15k transgendered people currently serving active duty or in the reserves

Please source these numbers for me. From what I understand ... there are exactly 47 trannies (ETA openly) serving in uniform on active duty.


edit on 2672017 by Snarl because: ETA



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: EchoesInTime



The military is no place for people who don't even know who or what hey are.

And, no, they really don't, any more than some dude claiming he's a cat knows.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Grambler

There is a lot more profit and power to be had in military contracts and the spoils of war than there is in education.

That sad fact is the reason Trump is willing to expend money hand over foot replacing ageing military technologies whilst pretty much ignoring the education gap the widens as the years go by.

Plus a semi literate population make better drones and can be shaped and moulded to think and vote as directed a whole lot easier i imagine.


Eh off topic, but real quick.

No he is right about education. Throwing more money at it won't help, getting the government out will help.

How else would you explain the fact that every year the government tosses more money and gets more involved in education, yet results go down across the board, except in places like charter schools.

If anything, I would say those that pushing leftists academic agendas are most responsible for failing schools, so perhaps they are the ones that want a dumbed down population where everyone gets a trophy.

The military spending issue is about appeasing special interests and a base, you are right about that.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

I've not seen a solid number either. 1000 to 15000 is what I found from a brief search.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

*snip*

Lastly, what's the the complete list of mental illnesses that the military tolerates upon enlistment, and after? I have no idea but such a new social thrust out to begin with established 'parallel' precedents no?

It's my understanding, up until 2007, the military services are exempt from the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. This means they can potentially bar someone from enlisting because of a mental disorder or other disability covered under the ADA. However, changes were made in 2008 and maybe after, and I'm unsure if this now applies. As an example, up until 2007, anybody who'd used methylphenidate in childhood (a treatment for ADHD), wasn't allowed to enlist.

I googled and found this:
www.ada.gov - ADA: Know Your Rights...

The ADA uses different standards than the military and the Department of Veterans Affairs in determining disability status....


edit on 7/26/2017 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   

The military has not historically covered gender-transition surgeries, though President Barack Obama did announce plans for it to begin doing so.


So then, so far they haven't.


That cost would be between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually for transition-related costs, according to a RAND analysis commissioned by the Department of Defense. The group estimated there are between 1,320 and 6,630 active-duty transgender servicepeople currently. A study in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2015 put the number at 12,800 people and $4.2 million to $5.6 million, concluding that “doctors agree that such care is medically necessary.”


This statement makes no sense to me.


This would be a military health-care spending increase of 0.04 to 0.13 percent. Even in the most extreme case, it is one tenth of the annual $84 million that the military spends on medication for erectile dysfunction.

The relative costs drops into the ten-thousandths of a percent when taken in context of the Department of Defense budget as a whole, expected to be proposed at $640 billion. The F-35 cost $1.5 trillion. Military bands cost taxpayers $437 million.





www.theatlantic.com... ly-072617
edit on 26-7-2017 by MortonBunkum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: MortonBunkum

What allegations? Specificity, use it.


the allegations that the military paid for Manning's transitional surgery - that was my initial query


And I suggested you stop asking me. I never mentioned Manning.



hmmmmm
I really don't understand Americans


That's cool. Takes all kinds. Except in the military.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


The military is no place for people who don't even know who or what hey are.

And, no, they really don't


do you know who or what you are?
have you changed over the years of life?

are you the same now as you were 10 years ago, or 20 or 30?



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join