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.

 

Court rejects Trump's transgender troop ban

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Oh for gods sake!

If people want to serve and they are able to serve, then they should be free to serve.

This is a stupid move on Trumps part.


LOL, just like the Travel Ban, I think everyone knows that some court will block implementation. It is just a "statement" to his supporters that he tried.....

Now the court is to blame if anyone is unhappy. This is kind of right out of the Republican Playbook..... "We Tried"... seems to be the Republican theme for the last few years.




posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Thank you for that excellent post. When it comes to protecting our nation, political correctness and emotion should always take a back seat to logic Effectiveness and efficiency.


Yea labels by people who aren't transgender or gay, of what ever usually straight old men call people to single out 'Not normal people'.

There wasn't an issue with transgender people in the military before. Why is it an issue now? Because of medical costs that less than .0001% of the US military budget?

There's arguments against and for including transgender people, but has there been a recorded case of a catastrophe linked to someone being transgender before?



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
The Judge was appointed by Bill Clinton.

More resistance bs. It will get appealed until it gets to a Judge that is not a Clinton stooge.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Trump is the commander and chief, he is above the generals and the judicial has no role to play whatsoever.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
He is not having a good start to his week is he?
I was thinking the same thing. Talk about a manic Monday.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
He is not having a good start to his week is he?

Has he had a good start to ANY of his weeks?

Good point.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
There wasn't an issue with transgender people in the military before.


WTF? They were outright banned from the military for the entire history of this country's military until the Pentagon made a controversial and politically pandering move in July of last year to allow them to serve. It would be far more accurate to say there wasn't an issue with banning them before the pandering began.

As for the OP, once again a US court forgets it's role and bench activism bites America in the ass. The courts need full overhauls yesterday. A court is no place for activism or agenda pushing and is entirely about interpreting existing laws... which, if actually done, would confirm that centuries of executive privilege alongside the POTUS acting within his Constitutional authority is as immutable as it had been for generations of Commanders-in-Chief prior to Trump.

I don't think the Democrats are going to appreciate what they're doing when, some years down the road, every action of whatever asshat they have in the big chair is challenged and a group of conservative judges slap their entire platoform into the dirt. Precedent is a dangerous mistress.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FissionSurplus

If the individual is mentally capable and physically capable of doing the job, then they should be able to do the job.

In my opinion.


How does the military know if you weren't born the sex you enlist with?



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FissionSurplus

If the individual is mentally capable and physically capable of doing the job, then they should be able to do the job.

In my opinion.




How does the military know if you weren't born the sex you enlist with?



Military doesn't know and doesn't care.

They just want people to be physically and mentally able to do the job.

If a person is trans or gay or even straight, military doesn't care.

That is secondary to the mission.

If your "gender identity" gets in the way of the mission, then you really didn't want to join the military anyway. Because that's not what the job is about.

I don't care what a person is or feels, as long as they put mission first. If they don't? I wouldn't want them on my team.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
No demographic should be banned from killing innocent people and becoming cannon fodder for the elite.



Yes, its only a matter a time now that people with mental disabilities are allowed into the military, then people that are in wheelchairs, then people that are over the age of 32 able to join, then people that need their parents to hold their hands while in boot camp. And the list can go on and on...



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Judge was appointed by Bill Clinton.

More resistance bs. It will get appealed until it gets to a Judge that is not a Clinton stooge.


Damn lefties, wanting equality in the military

What has the world come to? Trans in the military?

OTZ CLINTUNS FAULT GUIZ



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: musicismagic

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
No demographic should be banned from killing innocent people and becoming cannon fodder for the elite.



Yes, its only a matter a time now that people with mental disabilities are allowed into the military, then people that are in wheelchairs, then people that are over the age of 32 able to join, then people that need their parents to hold their hands while in boot camp. And the list can go on and on...


That's called the slippery slope logical fallacy.

You do realize that was the arguement against gay marriage, right?

"What if people want to marry their toaster?"

Well, I don't really give a damn, because this is a free nation - get over it.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: craterman
Trump is the commander and chief, he is above the generals and the judicial has no role to play whatsoever.
I trust you mean commander in chief.

So one third of our government branches has no role to play what-so-ever? You must certainly be joking!



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

WTF? They were outright banned from the military for the entire history of this country's military
Got a link to back that statement up? My guess is it was a "Don't ask don't tell" sort of situation. I'll bet there have been transgenders serving throughout this countries military history but nobody talked about it and nobody really cared.


It would be far more accurate to say there wasn't an issue with banning them before the pandering began.
I agree yet this is a far cry from your first claim. So which is it, there was an outright ban or there wasn't a ban?


As for the OP, once again a US court forgets it's role and bench activism bites America in the ass.
So what is the role of the US courts? Obey Trump or the constitution?



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: carewemust

Personally I think if they're willing to put their lives on the line, risk their welfare, then they deserve coverage for reassignment surgery. Also, what percentage of the budget does reassignment surgery take out of the military? My guess, next to nothing.

Further to the above, why ban transgendered person(s) as a whole for this single benefit? Why not ban the benefit itself? Why target an entire class of people joining and serving the military?

It's just not making logical sense you know?


The military is for fighting. We should spare the bare minimum as taxpayers on anything but fighting.

The military, despite its budget, tends to run a tight ship. There isn't as much waste as you think given the mission.

I would be okay with maybe earning it as an after-service benefit, but not during. You need focus.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Another example of liberals ,if you were a soldier would you want someone who is unsure of his self being,besides the fact,who is the majority of those avoiding military service,the liberals,another ignorant waste of time



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


So, with just these two notes pointed out, we have a situation where a KNOWN personality issue that can warrant clinical diagnoses and administrative discharges exists in people who want to join the military (or are currently serving). Why in the world would we want to invest so much money and time into individuals who are basically ready to be "chaptered" out of the military?


If your argument is that we shouldn't allow the military to be open to the transgendered or those with gender dysphoria well, it's too late for that. Like it or not, the transgendered have historically served in the military with little to no issue:

The first most obvious one, Chelsea Manning. But moving on from her, a few examples:


1952: "Ex-GI becomes blonde beauty!" screamed one headline as newspapers in the United States broke the news.
George Jorgensen, a quiet New Yorker, shocked a nation by returning from a trip to Denmark transformed into the glamorous Christine.

www.bbc.com...


Chris Beck was a fearless Navy SEAL, one could even say reckless. “Come out motherf—er!” he would shout to the Taliban as he charged into the caves of Afghanistan. But there was a reason for this. He had been suppressing who he wanted to be for years, which sometimes made him run headlong towards a possible death.

Kristin Beck, a transgender retired Navy SEAL who used to be named Chris, made a splash in the media Wednesday after President Donald Trump announced he would bar transgender people from serving in the military.

www.businessinsider.com.au...


A former gun-toting U.S. Marine who weighed 240lbs and drove a muscle car has revealed how she had a sex change to become a woman after admitting she had been running from her real identity.
Sona Avedian, 33, said she had been suppressing her true self by seizing on dangerous deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan as a way of 'overcompensating'.
Ms Avedian, previously Matthew, even married and fathered a child before coming to terms with her identity in 2012 and undergoing a huge transformation.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... female.html#ixzz4x4cllPSM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The few above have been in the military for years. Years. There's been no major issues to deem this ban necessary. None.

Historically the transgendered have served the military with little to no issue or incident. It's a matter of fact.

Further to this:


The American Psychological Association questions the reasoning behind President Trump’s call to bar transgender people from the military. We’ve seen no scientific evidence that allowing transgender people to serve in the armed forces has had an adverse impact on our military readiness or unit cohesion. Therefore, we ask that transgender individuals continue to be allowed to serve their country,” said APA President Antonio E. Puente, PhD.

www.apa.org...

There have been studies on this matter that disagree with the excuse some ban is necessary because the transgendered are somehow psychologically unfit.


I'm not saying that all transgender people are unfit for service,


Yet, you referenced a portion that states this is some mental disorder and deems them unfit. It's either one or the other.


I cannot go in to MEPS, knowing that I'm a schizophrenic, and expect to be hired by the military, or to be able to hide the symptoms that may inhibit my ability to do my job. Instead, the military is unwilling to invest the time and money into me, so they would bar me outright from enlistment.


Well Schizoprehnia is something else.

Also just another note. The argument it's about "cost"


A June 2016 study from the RAND Corporation estimated that there were between 1,320 and 6,630 transgender active-duty service members — out of 1.3 million service members in total — and noted that not all of them would seek treatment related to gender transitioning. The study also estimated that the cost associated with medical care for gender transition would only increase military health care expenditures by between $2.4 million and $8.4 million each year — an increase of between 0.04 and 0.13 percent.

www.scientificamerican.com...

We're all well aware the military budget is bloated and not divided equally in terms of expenditure. $700 billion annually, more than half the world's combined budget. But we wish to argue money money on what? some 6000 or so active transgender personnel? Really? But no worries about waste from black budget holes that $ billions dissappear into? Not the amount spent on viagra? 5 x as much? How many $ billions wasted on the F35 program huh? But target transgendered people? A small small minority? All of a sudden we care about the military budget?


I understand how non-PC it is to discuss gender dysphoria as being a mental condition,


So long as you bring solid facts, I'm more than happy to discuss. But with most arguments from the rightwing of the sphere, it falls to pieces once we discuss facts.


The military is not a Walmart


No. It's a piggybank to the defense contractors and military corporations though. This doesn't seem to bother you at all. No, it's those what? 6000 active transgendered serving. Easy ideological scapegoat. Not logical, but it suits your belief. Lord knows you start actually focusing on all that money, those $ billions disappearing in other parts of the military. No no, we should worry about those 6000 transgendered personel potentially using the military as a walmart.

Christ.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Devino

Pentagon ends transgender ban


The Pentagon said Thursday it was ending the ban on transgender people being able to serve openly in the U.S. military.


Was not that hard like the third link down, Ny times also covered it, so did the La Times.

They were not allowed to openly serve, IE they were then considered cross dressers as along as that did not get in the way of the mission folks generally did not care.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I wish...one day...that your entire army consists of declared SJW's, gays, females, lesbians and transgenders. The more the merrier. The number of "ordinary heterosexual" men should be reduced to a minimum. In fact...all...errr...genders that you made up should be equally represented in the military.

Oh what an army it would be.

The best in the world almost assuredly.

Why.. ? because diversity.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Why are you so unhappy about transgendered, gay and females serving? They they can perform the tasks required, if they're prepared to put their lives at risk for their country, what's the ish?

Why do you feel the need to down these people?



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join