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.

 

US military to accept transgender recruits after courts block Donald Trump’s ban

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
This will overturned by the Supreme Court. The President is the Commander in Chief. The courts cannot interfere, Long term, in military matters.
So... sorry Trump haters. Like all other actions against our President, this victory will be bitter sweet shortly.
edit on 30-12-2017 by Q33323 because: ****




posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

Stop your whining.

The facts are facts. Trannies have to undergo extensive therapies and take a whole lot of destabilizing drugs. Accepting trannies into the military while they are undergoing any type of treatment will bar them from deploying. Remove surgery from the equation and you still have a useless body eating up tax payer money.

You don't like my language? Well, you have no idea what's coming for these trannies when they get in.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Abysha

Stop your whining.

The facts are facts. Trannies have to undergo extensive therapies and take a whole lot of destabilizing drugs. Accepting trannies into the military while they are undergoing any type of treatment will bar them from deploying. Remove surgery from the equation and you still have a useless body eating up tax payer money.

You don't like my language? Well, you have no idea what's coming for these trannies when they get in.


Many soldiers are on anti-anxiety meds, anti-depressants, and sleeping aids. All of these are suspect of being "destabilizing". HRT is the opposite of being destabilizing. Beyond HRT, the ongoing treatment would be a therapist, which soldiers are totally already utilizing. The "meds" make a trans person's hormonal levels match their gender so saying that these meds are "destabilizing" is no different than just saying your own hormones are destabilizing.

You obviously don't know the subject nor even want to. You are ignorant on this which isn't terrible on its own but, when you insist on having belligerently hostile opinions and language on a subject and people you are ignorant about, that is terrible.

And I wasn't whining about your language or whining about you calling me a tranny. I was simply calling you an asshole for doing so.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

Didn't call you a tranny. Unless you are one. Either way it makes no difference to me.

This is what I care about:

Readiness

The military is something I do know about. Stay in your lane.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   
This is more s--- from the lawless Obama era to try and weaken our military and give out free sex changes on the American peoples tax dollars and let the poor who need medical suffer.. Just what America needs is soldiers who give out candy to the enemy instead of fighting. a reply to: antiantonym



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Q33323
This will overturned by the Supreme Court. The President is the Commander in Chief. The courts cannot interfere, Long term, in military matters.
So... sorry Trump haters. Like all other actions against our President, this victory will be bitter sweet shortly.


If the administration's challenge to the lawsuits has been withdrawn, how do you suppose SCOTUS is going to overturn it?



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: gimcrackery


Just what America needs is soldiers who give out candy to the enemy instead of fighting.


Breaking news: the military has been giving out candy, along with other food items, for basically it's entire existence.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Abysha

Didn't call you a tranny. Unless you are one. Either way it makes no difference to me.

This is what I care about:

Readiness

The military is something I do know about. Stay in your lane.


Again, a small minority of trans people undergo SRS, which is what the article you linked is about. If SRS was only allowed after active duty, would your opinion on this change?

This was my original point.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

If there was an outright ban on surgery for the duration of the enlistment, I could see that as being a workaround to the deployability problem.

But, two major points I can immediately see being a problem: what about somebody that goes career? Now they have to wait at least 20 years to get surgery. Issue #2: I think that a ban on surgery is going to immediately be met with "medically necessary" arguments.

It's a literal can of worms scenario, I think.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Abysha

If there was an outright ban on surgery for the duration of the enlistment, I could see that as being a workaround to the deployability problem.

But, two major points I can immediately see being a problem: what about somebody that goes career? Now they have to wait at least 20 years to get surgery. Issue #2: I think that a ban on surgery is going to immediately be met with "medically necessary" arguments.

It's a literal can of worms scenario, I think.



#1 is a good question. Can career soldiers take a year off? That's more than enough time. By a year, any sort of aftercare would have minimal impact and becomes part of grooming.

As far as "medically necessary", leave that up to the medical professionals involved in that decision. We already know what their answer will be because they follow WPATH standards. Transphobic people will never listen to medical professional when they disagree with them, anyway so I think #2 will cause a can of worms scenario, no matter what. You can't find logic nor discuss solutions when a person elevates their own intentional, willful ignorance above compassion, logic, and truth.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

Answering part two of your response first: I confess that "we" don't already know because I honestly have no idea, but we don't need to clog up the thread with that. I'll try to look it up though, so I have some idea at least.

As for the first part, there are some scenarios where I could see it being workable, in theory at least. Say, for example, an officer is going to the War College. The War College is roughly a year long, so (in theory) one could have surgery and start the College and stay there for the duration of their recovery. I don't think it's entirely plausible, though, to be able to go through recovery and participate in the education the College puts an officer through.

Beyond that, I think there'd be a significant push-back against giving somebody a year off in the middle of a contract for that, because that would in effect make them a paid member of the military, on active duty, but not subject to deployment, and now we're back to square one.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Weird, I just assumed life-long career officers where able to take a break like that. But your war college idea would work simply because when I say "one year", I mean with aftercare. You can go back to a rigorous physical job two months after an SRS (not sure about the recovery time for FtM folks, though). The rest of the time I cited is because after care is almost non-existent after that mark. Many people who undergo SRS take one term off in college or work and that's it.

All in all, I think that would be a decent solution for career soldiers.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Yep, and now he can tell his base that he tried but those meddling SJWs just wouldn’t leave it alone.

But he tried dammit!


if the man literally, visibly crapped his pants on live tv, i'm sure there would be some spin about what a fantastic win it was for him and for 'real americans'.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Abysha

Didn't call you a tranny. Unless you are one. Either way it makes no difference to me.

This is what I care about:

Readiness

The military is something I do know about. Stay in your lane.


Obviously not seing as "trannies" have passed the test and even been seals...

The first person to get the surgery was a 10+ year infantry decorated soldier.

Maybe you should be more concerned they are loosening the physical fitness requirements and people are getting kicked out for not being able to keep up with pt's.
edit on 30-12-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Both of those cases were well after their service, not during.

Don't make crap up.

Getting kicked out for being fat needs to be ramped up. These days fat soldiers get by simply because their necks are fat too. PT failures should never be allowed to continue serving. That standard hasn't changed.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: antiantonym

Everyone I know and me, finds trump to be a joke.
A sad and pathetic joke.
Hope the US feels better soon.
Best wishes from Scandinavia.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Abysha

If there was an outright ban on surgery for the duration of the enlistment, I could see that as being a workaround to the deployability problem.

But, two major points I can immediately see being a problem: what about somebody that goes career? Now they have to wait at least 20 years to get surgery. Issue #2: I think that a ban on surgery is going to immediately be met with "medically necessary" arguments.

It's a literal can of worms scenario, I think.


The military all ready bans elective surgery without permission. So this being elective surgery all they have to do is continue their policies of saying no.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Abysha

Didn't call you a tranny. Unless you are one. Either way it makes no difference to me.

This is what I care about:

Readiness

The military is something I do know about. Stay in your lane.


Obviously not seing as "trannies" have passed the test and even been seals...

The first person to get the surgery was a 10+ year infantry decorated soldier.

Maybe you should be more concerned they are loosening the physical fitness requirements and people are getting kicked out for not being able to keep up with pt's.


What difference does it make what they did before the surgery? What counts is the effects it has on them after surgery. Bruce Jenner won a gold medal he could never have done that if he had had gender reasignment since the damage the surgery causes to muscles.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
What counts is the effects it has on them after surgery. Bruce Jenner won a gold medal he could never have done that if he had had gender reasignment since the damage the surgery causes to muscles.


Lol what? What muscles does an SRS procedure affect? Like your boner muscle? Because that's not a muscle... you know that, right? And if it were... you need that to run marathons or fight in wars?

Is this all about a mythical boner muscle you wished existed?



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Abysha

If there was an outright ban on surgery for the duration of the enlistment, I could see that as being a workaround to the deployability problem.

But, two major points I can immediately see being a problem: what about somebody that goes career? Now they have to wait at least 20 years to get surgery. Issue #2: I think that a ban on surgery is going to immediately be met with "medically necessary" arguments.

It's a literal can of worms scenario, I think.


The military all ready bans elective surgery without permission. So this being elective surgery all they have to do is continue their policies of saying no.


You don't decide what is and isn't an elective surgery. Medical professionals do. I'll leave it at that.




top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join