Supreme Court Lets Trump's Transgender Military Ban Take Effect

a reply to: CriticalStinker

All one has to do is look at the statistics surrounding non-military transgender people. Then look at the statistics surrounding "normal" military folks and you'll see it's best for everyone involved in this equation. Even if a few people who would have made great military men/women miss out.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Except one of the standards is "are you transgender." If so, you don't meet the standards. If not, you do. Just like "do you have a criminal drug record." If so, you don't meet the standards. If not, you do.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

About time. I hold no ill will towards transgendered people or anyone else within the LGBTQIA+ circle. However, we have to realize that not everyone is fit to serve. Unlike what some people tout, we are NOT all equal. The sooner we realize each and everyone of us are unique and have our own strengths and weaknesses, the better off we'll be.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Well that explains what happened it's all obummo fault for lifting ban that was already in place

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
I'm torn on this one personally. I get why some people would have concerns of people going through hormone treatment to be in compromising situations where lives are at stake, but I also understand someone courageous enough to volunteer wanting to serve.

The deal is there are a lot of conditions that prevent people from serving. One of my sons is 90% blind in one eye and he can't join, so he is going to be a electrical engineer... You can't be over weight, can't have medical issues, even some small ones, so on and so on.

Hell I'm not sure if you can still not join if you have flat feet as it was in the past, so the point is not everyone fits the mold of that they want, and transgenders have a lot going on that fits many categories of conditions the military will not accept.

That though is because you are unable to meet the standards or have a health condition that limits you're effectiveness.

So for example you might say you can't join because you're blind in one eye...you can't shoot, you need to be able to shoot to join up. You're fat, so you can't meet the physical requirements, you have high blood pressure, well you might stroke on the battlefield and so on. I mean we could get into the "ahhh but what about this exemption" debate and go round in circles all day but the point right now is about individuals with gender dysmorphia

Simply put there is nothing that physically makes anyone who is transgender unable to preform the roles of a solider.

You don't think that wanting to be a boy if you're a girl is a mental health condition?

At what point are we discriminating from supposed mental health conditions. If a boy who wants to be a girl/ or vice-versa can outshoot and beat their compatriots in PT and mental aptitude, then whats the real reason we wouldn't want them serving?

Because they could have a mental breakdown at any second regardless of how well they can shoot.

So could anybody...it's called fighting for your life in a war ergo traumatic, resulting in trauma.

Interesting...(all liberals? Democrats?)

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.

www.everydayhealth.com...

a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly!

There is a reason for everything in the military, no matter which branch of those armed forces one enlists or commissions into.

Sailors should probably not be afraid of water and know how to swim. Same with Coastguard.

Air Force although not all pilots, should probably not be afraid of heights.

Marines are both land and sea based, so they must be able to swim and run under combat conditions.
Who wants a Marine that can't cut it...

Army has definitely got it's issues beyond the other branches, but by far has the most diversity for mos/job options.

Those people who join combat arms, are few and far between. Combat arms makes up the smaller size units, when compared to the other not combat arms mos/jobs.

Not everyone in the military is combat arms, hence why they only have basic training. Their specific jobs are almost all support based for the combat arms.

Furthermore, combat arms MOS/jobs must meet minimum physical requirements, due to the fact one will be in combat, burdened by a combat loadout of gear that can be 60-120+lbs based on ones role.

Every one thinks saw Gunner is cool, until you have to carry a few thousand rounds belted ammo, your body armor, water and an mre, medkit, batteries, and all that while running a few miles or climbing over walls or up hills.

It's not easy, requirements exist for a reason.
Usually that reason is because some one got killed.

They created the standards to make sure issues like that don't become a liability consistently.

It's not that the military is restricted to keep people out because they don't like them, it's because the people needed must be able to defend their buddy under extremely insane conditions that exist in conflict zones.

There's a reason the percentage of people who have served is so low. 538

Only 7.3% of living Americans have served in the military, with only .4% having been in direct combat.

Because if any one could do it, we wouldn't have the best.

It takes the best physical and mental health, to endure under conditions that can kill you at any moment.

That kind of stress, will shut a snowflake down into a mental state of goop.

If they freak out over a little thing like words and misconception, or whichever trending offensive bs of the day it is, how could they stand a chance in a hostile work environment that can kill them?

That's, why we have strict physical and mental requirements for people in the military.

Trust me, military life is not for everyone.
It's a different world all of its own, there is a huge difference in civil life and military.

Don't take my word for it, ask any one who has served or been in a military family. They can tell you how drastic the difference is, seriously.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Wayfarer


It would take a real despicable coward to get out of military service because of bone spurs.

How many years did you serve. I forget...

I tried to enlist after 911 but literally no service (and I tried them all except for coast guard) would accept me (due to substantial hearing loss).

How about you?

Ah, yet you sit here and bash the president for something that kept him out. Something you have no proof of, but hate him enough to call him a coward for it. But I guess we're supposed to take your word that hearing kept you out, instead of calling you a coward.

Well I wasn't previously a sound technician or some other station that required great hearing, so that's simple. How do you reconcile Trump the star football player being unable to serve because of bone spurs (which would certainly have inhibited a star athlete)? Are you suggesting that Trump's youthful athletic achievements were fabricated?

P.S. - I could take being called a coward (and perhaps I am). I have thought for a while that perhaps not attempting to circumvent the physicals in some way so that I could still get in (much like many of the greats of the Greatest Generation did to fight in WW2) is tantamount to some kind of subtle cowardice(or laziness) of my own character.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Wayfarer


Isn't following orders totally BETA? Like, if you're commanding officer/drill-sergeant tells you to lick his boots, how can you be ALPHA for following those orders?

Don't good soldiers follow orders?

Those would not be lawful orders, so I would not need to follow them. I'm a senior manager today...I give "orders" all the time, people follow them too...Not much different back in the military or in civilian life.

I'm genuinely curious how 'lawful' and 'unlawful' is determined by subordinates. I have heard stories from my friends who were in the service of the ridiculous things their drill sergeants made them do, and given the nature of training they intimated it was just kind of assumed that silly things like what I mentioned were par for the course as a means of mental conditioning during training.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
I'm torn on this one personally. I get why some people would have concerns of people going through hormone treatment to be in compromising situations where lives are at stake, but I also understand someone courageous enough to volunteer wanting to serve.

The deal is there are a lot of conditions that prevent people from serving. One of my sons is 90% blind in one eye and he can't join, so he is going to be a electrical engineer... You can't be over weight, can't have medical issues, even some small ones, so on and so on.

Hell I'm not sure if you can still not join if you have flat feet as it was in the past, so the point is not everyone fits the mold of that they want, and transgenders have a lot going on that fits many categories of conditions the military will not accept.

That though is because you are unable to meet the standards or have a health condition that limits you're effectiveness.

So for example you might say you can't join because you're blind in one eye...you can't shoot, you need to be able to shoot to join up. You're fat, so you can't meet the physical requirements, you have high blood pressure, well you might stroke on the battlefield and so on. I mean we could get into the "ahhh but what about this exemption" debate and go round in circles all day but the point right now is about individuals with gender dysmorphia

Simply put there is nothing that physically makes anyone who is transgender unable to preform the roles of a solider.

You don't think that wanting to be a boy if you're a girl is a mental health condition?

At what point are we discriminating from supposed mental health conditions. If a boy who wants to be a girl/ or vice-versa can outshoot and beat their compatriots in PT and mental aptitude, then whats the real reason we wouldn't want them serving?

Because they could have a mental breakdown at any second regardless of how well they can shoot.

Sure, but so could anyone else at any time. Is there any actual data to back up that assumption?

originally posted by: Wayfarer
At what point are we discriminating from supposed mental health conditions. If a boy who wants to be a girl/ or vice-versa can outshoot and beat their compatriots in PT and mental aptitude, then whats the real reason we wouldn't want them serving?

Are we talking about post-transition?
1) If yes, the continued need for treatment is a logistic nightmare, you now have someone who can't be deployed to a FOB, or combat zones. There will not always be access to the meds they need, also there are a lot of other complications that come post transition that logistically do not work with the military structure. Putting them in the field doesn't only risk them, it risks the people with them. Its the same reason people with GI diseases cant enter the military.

2) If no, they'd fail the psychological evaluation with Gender Dysphoria. People with mood disorders, behavioral and speech disorders, can't enter either.

3) There are plenty of jobs within the DoD and Government on the Civilian side if people really want to serve their country.

My understanding of the trans main issue id they get in get the operation then can't function for months then use medical to get out. So the taxpayers are paying for their sex change. And yes thats from someone in the Army.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

I'm genuinely curious how 'lawful' and 'unlawful' is determined by subordinates. I have heard stories from my friends who were in the service of the ridiculous things their drill sergeants made them do, and given the nature of training they intimated it was just kind of assumed that silly things like what I mentioned were par for the course as a means of mental conditioning during training.

When you are on a football team they have you do silly things right? They have you do things you most likely do not want to do. In training it is the same, and if you want to be on the team you do it, or you leave...military training is the same...the hardest jobs have the hardest training and are the easiest to quit. You go through seal training and everyday they beg you to quit as example and they make it so easy to do. As to what one would be consider lawful order or not it is just years of working around them to know, and it would be surprising for someone to even give one, much less follow one.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Wayfarer

I'm genuinely curious how 'lawful' and 'unlawful' is determined by subordinates. I have heard stories from my friends who were in the service of the ridiculous things their drill sergeants made them do, and given the nature of training they intimated it was just kind of assumed that silly things like what I mentioned were par for the course as a means of mental conditioning during training.

When you are on a football team they have you do silly things right? They have you do things you most likely do not want to do. In training it is the same, and if you want to be on the team you do it, or you leave...military training is the same...the hardest jobs have the hardest training and are the easiest to quit. You go through seal training and everyday they beg you to quit as example and they make it so easy to do. As to what one would be consider lawful order or not it is just years of working around them to know, and it would be surprising for someone to even give one, much less follow one.

Thanks for the insight. Just so I'm understanding you correctly, would something like a drill sergeant telling you to lick his boots be an 'unlawful order' outside of basic training, but while in training it wouldn't'?

originally posted by: mikell
My understanding of the trans main issue id they get in get the operation then can't function for months then use medical to get out. So the taxpayers are paying for their sex change. And yes thats from someone in the Army.

That's is from one person in the army...what about asking the transgender veterans?

Many common surgical operations' healing time can last for up to two months.

gpcpd.walesdeanery.org...

I can't find any updated information whether of not the VA has decided to add sex reassignment surgery to it's medical benefits? From the article below, as of Sept. 2018, they were undecided.

In a statement, Human Rights Campaign spokeswoman Charlotte Clymer said the current VA policy “flies in the face of every major medical authority and undermines the health and wellbeing of transgender patriots who have laid their lives on the line for this country and their families.” VA does provide medical support services for transgender individuals before and after sex reassignment surgery, but not the procedure itself. Advocates estimate there are 160,000 transgender veterans in America today.

www.militarytimes.com...

originally posted by: headorheart
I still wouldn't want to have tax dollars to go towards hormones or therapy, but if they can pass the same medical tests as anyone else, I don't see why we should keep them from enlisting?

As has already been explained...

Mutilating one's body and taking hormones does not fix the underlying illness. The fact is, suicide rates are the same for those that have transitioned, proving that transitioning doesn't cure the underlying illness.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I know I am over simplifying this but to me that means that if you say that to be accepted to serve you must be able to pass the following standards then regardless of gender you should be accepted so long as you meet said standards.

The problem is, radical leftists refuse to accept that 'gender dysphoria' is a mental illness, and refuse to accept a standard whereby you have to not have any demonstrable mental illness to be accepted, if that includes gender dysphoria.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: watchitburn

What about chicks with silicone breasts?

Are you seriously equating that with gender dysphoria?

originally posted by: headorheart
I think my set back is that transgender people are not technically considered mentally ill. Even though it is a somewhat popular public opinion, I base my opinion of the DSM - V. Who knows, one day it may include that.

It did... until the radical leftists forced them to change it.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I think I would go back to what I said, in my opinion if you are able to meet the standards set by the military to serve then you should be able to.

So if the military takes the rational view that anyone suffering from gender dysphoria is mentally ill and unfit to serve, you're ok with that.

Good, thanks.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Sure, but so could anyone else at any time. Is there any actual data to back up that assumption?

Their dramatically higher suicide rate (both pre and post op)?