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.

 

Top US general promises no changes in military transgender policy for now

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: RomeByFire

I like this statistic.
Transgender people are twice as likely as the general population to serve in the military


Perhaps because they have had to take crap all of their lives for who they are




posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

If they are physically fit anybody should be able to join.
Of course there are physical restrictions for service just like many other jobs. Discrimination is something different.
It's excluding a person who in every other way is fit and suited to the job.
Don't bring extremes into the equation. It's intellectually dishonest.
It's not discrimination if they don't let the blind man teach drivers education.
Or the paraplegic teach gymnastics or track. They are unsuited.
But a fit transgender should not be disqualified.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I personally disagree but I respect your opinion.

If they are good at what they do they should not be discriminated against. I am willing as a taxpayer to pay for all honorable service people care.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Why would a surgery take years to recover from?
My mom had triple bypass and was doing Disney world three months later.
Broken bones take a few months.
Back surgery a few weeks.
Breast implants a few days .
Why is it different for transgender reassignment?


Perhaps genital mutilation for transformation is a touch different than this or that patch up job.

You should read all those citations, those FYI pages for people that get it done, that account from that person who it it go wrong and no one could seem to fix it. A person could join, the surgery goes wrong, and for the entire 3 years duration they enlisted for and beyond be getting reoperated on the whole time.

Everyone acts like this is simple stuff like broken bones, botox or limb amputations.

People really ought to study up on something before they blindly support it to the death.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
Trump supporter here.

To me, the OP shows that once more Trump has a bad roll out for a policy.

He should have had his people let military leaders know this was coming before he tweeted about it.

The fact that they can't even answer what will happen to active duty trans with this policy is ridiculous, and appears very amateurish.





Obama did the same thing to the military really. Ordered it and then made them figure out how to implement it thing.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: network dude

I personally disagree but I respect your opinion.

If they are good at what they do they should not be discriminated against. I am willing as a taxpayer to pay for all honorable service people care.




Military shouldn't have to pay for sex change or special favors ect. Not just the sex change welfare positions, hay join and get a very expensive deal done at tax payer, its also about not knowing if that were their real reason for joining.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

So you agree that we shouldn't pay for Viagra? It cost millions more than sex-change surgeries.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Did you read the rand report? Your making a strawman.

I don't think they should get surgery either. But living as a Transgender if they are qualified for the job shouldn't be a factor.
edit on 27-7-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Interesting isn't it that plenty of the very same people who complain bitterly that only poor people join the military because it's the only way they can get access to higher education (i.e. assuming the only reason anyone joins is to get the GI Bill) are most incurious about whether or not poor transgenders would join for the "free" surgery.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


Well lets not forget the nature of the question. Not only are we talking apples and oranges I dare say that education covered by several plans has been to the benefit of society in so many ways but a man going into the military to get a sex change is all about that person period. No benefit to anyone but self.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd
I didn't see this on a search (might have a different title and keywords, though)

Trump's announcement on the transgender policy apparently was NOT something that the generals or anyone who holds a current military commission and is on active duty knew about.



Top US general promises no changes in military transgender policy for now
By LUIS MARTINEZ
Jul 27, 2017, 12:30 PM ET

Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has issued guidance to military commanders stressing that there will be no change in military policy toward transgender service members until Defense Secretary Jim Mattis receives further direction from the White House.


President Trump announced via Twitter on Wednesday what appeared to be a reinstatement of the military's ban on transgender service members.

"I know there are questions about yesterday’s announcement on the transgender policy by the president," Dunford said in a written message to military commanders, according to a copy obtained by ABC News.

"There will be no modifications to the current policy until the president's direction has been received by the secretary of defense and the secretary has issued implementation guidance," continued Dunford, the nation's top military commander.

"In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect," he said. "As importantly, given the current fight and the challenges we face, we will all remain focused on accomplishing our assigned missions."
Source



Vice Adm. Robert Burke, the Navy's top personnel officer also said that no action would be taken though they would talk to Trump about what his intent was... and that they were not stopping any treatments in progress (which, if you read the news, cost far less than the military's Viagra prescriptions)

A Reuters story adds a detail that I had wondered about - though the sitting president is Commander in Chief, he ALSO has to go through the chain of command. My dad (as a Sargent) once dressed down a general (during WWII) for giving a direct order to the troops under my dad's command. He said in effect that if the general gave the order to Dad's commanding officer and that officer gave the command to Dad that HE would order the troops...but the general can't do so directly.

And Dunford just said the same thing about the military and Trump Tweetfests:


"There will be no modifications to the current policy until the President's direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidance," Dunford said in the message, first reported by Reuters.
Source



Trump won't be able to govern effectively until he learns how to govern as President... which is NOT the same as CEO. This lesson hasn't hit home yet.


The Viagra deal is a bull# comparison, how many more men are in the military vs transgender? Also ptsd causes ED. Viagra also helps more than just that individual.I highly doubt anyone has ever gone into the military to get ptsd so they can get ED to subsequently get Viagra. Being the cost of transition is so high I highly doubt the same could be said for transgender going into the military. Doubt those statistics add the extra cost of retraining troops and the bathroom and bedding preferential treatment. Also the high rate of mental disorders associated with transgenerism would have to play into this as well, which makes up a grand total of-- bad idea to begin with.
edit on 27-7-2017 by TheLead because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien


Ok dude no don't think viagra should be covered. And really the prime reason why the military handed out condoms is because of the several costs of doing otherwise.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

I am not questioning the overall benefit of the GI Bill. I'm just pointing out that where they will argue that one "traps" people into serving, they are incurious about whether or not a similar argument could be made for the other and I think it could.

As you say, there is little benefit to society though from transgender surgery.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Deaf Alien


Ok dude no don't think viagra should be covered. And really the prime reason why the military handed out condoms is because of the several costs of doing otherwise.


That would make them feel less of a man and could be determinal to their service.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Logarock

Did you read the rand report? Your making a strawman.

I don't think they should get surgery either. But living as a Transgender if they are qualified for the job shouldn't be a factor.



Well qualified for the job able to do it anyone knows doesn't cover everything. Its not a end all. I see folks fired over the years very good at the job and still get fired.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Deaf Alien


Ok dude no don't think viagra should be covered. And really the prime reason why the military handed out condoms is because of the several costs of doing otherwise.


That would make them feel less of a man and could be determinal to their service.



My unit back in the day......1st week in (wont say the name) 1/3 of the unit down with VD. Unit cant function, extra expence for medicine ect ect that all I am talking about not your BS "feel like a man" ect.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Deaf Alien


Ok dude no don't think viagra should be covered. And really the prime reason why the military handed out condoms is because of the several costs of doing otherwise.


That would make them feel less of a man and could be determinal to their service.



My unit back in the day......1st week in (wont say the name) 1/3 of the unit down with VD. Unit cant function, extra expence for medicine ect ect that all I am talking about not your BS "feel like a man" ect.

Why is it BS? Many men with ED complain that it makes them feel less of a man.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

The entire unit cohesion/morale argument is nothing but hot air. If the unit lacks cohesion it's because of piss poor leadership, not an issue of morale because someone is uncomfortable with someone else in their squad or platoon.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Well still thats a lot different than a man claiming his tool makes him feel like less of a woman


edit on 27-7-2017 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheLead
The Viagra deal is a bull# comparison, how many more men are in the military vs transgender? Also ptsd causes ED. Viagra also helps more than just that individual.I highly doubt anyone has ever gone into the military to get ptsd so they can get ED to subsequently get Viagra. Being the cost of transition is so high I highly doubt the same could be said for transgender going into the military. Doubt those statistics add the extra cost of retraining troops and the bathroom and bedding preferential treatment. Also the high rate of mental disorders associated with transgenerism would have to play into this as well, which makes up a grand total of-- bad idea to begin with.


The cost of transition is not as high as you probably think.

MOST transgender people do not get plastic surgery to rearrange their genitals (in part because it's very complicated and often causes other problems.) Both sexes bind and pad (and work out) and take hormones to achieve the transition.

Yes, I know both m-to-f and f-to-m -- some I've known for a very long time (decades.) And I know the spouses of several of them. And I've read blogs/articles/etc by trans folks.

Most do not do surgery (the most common is breast reduction for f-to-m transgenders.) m-to-f may get breast implants, but many don't require it. The hormones do the job.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join