Trump Signs Directive Banning Transgender Military Recruits

a reply to: XAnarchistX

Yes, and there is a group of women of both Yazidi and Christian religions also fighting against them.

When you go to war, you go with the army you have. They are what is there to fight with and in the position of fighting or dying.

That is much different than in the US where we are not under imminent threat of fight or die but can afford to pick and choose the optimum troop paradigm for the training we put our military forces through.

a reply to: infolurker

Well, at least we don't have to waste taxpayer money to pay for unnecessary medical treatments.

Yea, what kind of scum risks their life expecting something in return?

Sarcasm aside, all of the medical costs for transgenders in the military equate to about one bomb.

a reply to: ketsuko

I just posted it to demystify this stereotype that LGBT+ people are not 'fit' for action.

I think all marginalized people should leave the imperialist army

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: infolurker

Well, at least we don't have to waste taxpayer money to pay for unnecessary medical treatments.

Yea, what kind of scum risks their life expecting something in return?

Sarcasm aside, all of the medical costs for transgenders in the military equate to about one bomb.

Again,

www.military.com...

a reply to: XAnarchistX

I fail to see the use of specifically training a frontline troop of any kind who is medication dependent.

But sure ... let's allow all the marginalized people like insulin dependent diabetics and people who have psychological disorders and need their medications. I'm sure there would be nothing whatever wrong with having them on the front lines during a serious supply disruption.

Transgenders are medication dependent.

a reply to: ketsuko

Transgendered =/= Diebetics

Great argument!

And like I said, all marginalized people should leave the Imperialist army

What ordinary people don't understand was the million hours of forced Transgender Sensitivity training foisted on those who wear the uniform.

Nobody ever needed to be trained. It was forced down peoples throats in the form of LGBT victory.

I hope he kicks out gays next. Then I hope he takes a critical look at Women (and by Women I mean Feminists).

No one in the military community signed up to be part of a social experiment. If America needs a Gay Military, let them recruit that. If America needs a Feminist military, let them recruit that.

And then ... let them go to the front lines first and prove their worth in Combat.

In all honesty, this is the first forward step I've seen the military take in four decades. Good job Mr. President!! An old Soldier salutes you!!

a reply to: XAnarchistX

Medication dependent is medication dependent.

If you need medication to maintain your level of functioning in any way, then you have no business being in any warzone and there is no point in taking you into the military and training you.

I am medication dependent and they wouldn't have any business training me either.

The fact is that you are on a medication for a reason and if you lose access to it, you lose a part of your functionality. You become less than optimum. I don't get how you don't understand that unless, of course, you've never been medication dependent for your normal daily functioning.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Is banning people with flat feet also flat out banning a certain demographic?

Pun intended.

Is being a post-op trans person the same has having flat feet?

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Is banning people with flat feet also flat out banning a certain demographic?

Pun intended.

Is being a post-op trans person the same has having flat feet?

I would think worse, mental disorder is not the same as flat feet.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You know...I agree with that. I dont often agree with your well thought out posts...but in keeping with the constitution I have to agree, that a post op should be perfectly acceptable within the terms being discussed

a reply to: thesaneone

Sorry but the military isn't about feelings.

You wouldn't think so. Are post-op trans people less capable than other citizens who enlist? Is there something about them that makes them less fit to serve in the military?

If the answer is "no" or really anything but a "yes" that would apply to every trans person, then what aside from "feelings" is the purpose of the ban?

a reply to: Snarl

I really don't think gays serving is as big of an issue as civilians make it out to be.

I've been in combat with straight men and women and I've been in combat with gay men and women. There are good and bad soldiers in both groups. Some freeze, some fight, some piss themselves and hide in the trucks. Regardless of whether or not they like men or women.

Every unit I've been in the gay soldiers were known (how could they not be = military is family). Honestly, they took more ^$%# from other soldiers, most of which was just typical banter in the Army. We still treated them like our brothers and sisters and put our lives on the line for them, just as they did for us.

Trans soldiers are another ball of wax. They expect to be NMC for however long it takes for their reassignment and recovery, plus special accommodations (meds, surgery, assignments). And I guarantee, groups would have wanted their medications paid for for life. A surgery that took place on active duty would require VA to continue paying for medication requirements resulting from that surgery. I have no doubt this played a part in the decision to restrict them from entering service, or for the military performing the reassignment.

As a soldier, I hate seeing money go to "projects" when it could be spent on soldiers. We still have troops living in WWII housing on some posts, yet half the dependents have breast implants (self esteem issues). As a man, I would never complain about "area beutification", but I balk at the tax payer footing the bill.

TL;DR - gay soldiers are an asset to the military, trans soldiers are a liability. There is not and should not be a comparison.

a reply to: Snarl

Damn..well said

a reply to: 200Plus

Best response I have seen yet. Thank you

a reply to: 200Plus

I'm sorry. Better to have a military without them. They're an unnecessary liability. There are plenty of straight troops to get the job done.

My issue with gays is simply this: They're highly prone to lying. They've done it for so long it's a natural thing for them to do when they're 'avoiding'. You have to be able to trust people you'll have to fight next to. If they fudged their training and lied about it ... they're a liability in the foxhole.

If the country wants gays in uniform, let them organize into their own units. Seriously. Their metrics would prove what I'm stating here ... and that's exactly why they'll never be segregated and tested for 'unit' fitness. The truth would be the thing that comes out of the closet.

There's a certain group of folks that carry the entire weight of the military. Just getting rid of the straphangers would be a good start. Streamline things and you'll be able to focus on a better demographic of recruits. A group that aren't going to say, "Nuh uh. I've got no desire to join up with that crowd of misfits."

ATS is getting close to resembling stormfront.

This is just sad reading these days. Enjoy your new fascism.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Are post-op trans people less capable than other citizens who enlist?

Aren't they though? How long does it take to fully recover from surgery? How easy is it to insure they'll get their medication and be able to dilate their fancy new vaginas at the front? What about the host of mental issues that go along with being transgender and getting the operation? What about the insanely high suicide rate/attempts?

If someone signs up for four years and is only operationally viable for two of those years, why should they be courted by the military? We're not hurting for recruits.

I also don't see why anyone who is transgender would WANT to join the military. I'm thinking (and fully admit I have no proof or first hand knowledge) folks in the military are going to be more likely to take issue with transgender individuals, and that's just bad for everyone.

originally posted by: Jerseymilker
a reply to: infolurker
And like other military members they should be allowed what ever medical treatment they need.

First its the transgendered people, what next ban gays from the military?

I think need is the word here.

originally posted by: carabao
ATS is getting close to resembling stormfront.

This is just sad reading these days. Enjoy your new fascism.

OK.

Here is your chance. Instead of simply criticize, tell us why someone who is dependent on medication is perfectly fit to serve in a potential warzone where that medication may be disrupted. Why should the military take on recruits they know in advance will be medication dependent in order to be fully combat capable? Would it even be ethical when their job description could put them in a position where they might be stranded without?

And then explain why transgenders alone of all the different people who are medication dependent for all the different reasons a person can be ought to be made an exception for.