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

a reply to: Grambler

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

It was completely his choice to lie by stating he had consulted with "his generals".

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

I was reading through the archives of former President Obama's executive orders last night. I found one that was Amendments to Manual for Courts-martial. 28 pages detailing each article, chapter, and paragraph to be amended. Probably took a bit of work. Maybe if Trump finds himself awake at 3 A.M., instead of picking up his phone to tweet, he could instead, start reading through the Manual for Courts-martial so he will be able to list which sections he wants changed.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The point was made that the military spends more on Viagra than transgender care to put it in perspective and show that it is not an economic issue. There is no disrespect being aimed at servicemen engaged in sexual activities.

Transgender Service Members’ Medical Costs Are Not a “Burden” They’re valid, and they’d be cheaper than what the military currently pays for Viagra.

A 2016 paper by the Rand Corporation titled “Assessing the Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly” estimated that about 2,450 transgender people are on active duty (out of 1.3 million active-duty service members altogether), and of that number, around 29 to 129 service members would seek care related to a gender transition in any given year. The total cost of their health care would increase overall expenditures on health care by between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually, which amounts to a 0.04 to 0.13 percent increase in total active component health care expenditures. The true cost may even be lower; when the University of California system began to cover gender transition surgery in 2005, it only ended up covering 28 surgeries over a period of five years. By way of comparison, in 2014 the Department of Defense spent more than $84 million on Viagra and other medications to treat erectile dysfunction.

Slate

As for the transgender surgeries having recovery times, not all transgender people choose to undergo surgery for starters. In addition, as you can see, between 29 and 129 service members would seek care related to a gender transition in a given year. This is hardly threatening.

edit on 28amFri, 28 Jul 2017 03:05:26 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

when I served in the military it was about readiness not what gender you think you are

originally posted by: toysforadults
when I served in the military it was about readiness not what gender you think you are

So some transgender people can be ready?

a reply to: Deaf Alien

if you are getting sexual reassignment surgey how can you be combat ready

the facts are there is no place for this bull# in the military either you are serving your country or figuring out which sex you are

figure it out

originally posted by: peter vlar
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.

how long were you on active duty?

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Be honest. You've never even spoken to a trans person in your life.

a reply to: network dude

I don't really see how the length of my service is pertinent but if the implication is that I didn't serve or wasn't active duty then you're incorrect. The range of permanent injuries I have and the thickness of my file attests to that. How long I served and where I was stationed aren't particularly relevant to this though and I stand by my statement. Unit cohesion is a direct correlation to the strength of leadership within that unit.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: network dude

I don't really see how the length of my service is pertinent but if the implication is that I didn't serve or wasn't active duty then you're incorrect. The range of permanent injuries I have and the thickness of my file attests to that. How long I served and where I was stationed aren't particularly relevant to this though and I stand by my statement. Unit cohesion is a direct correlation to the strength of leadership within that unit.

Exactly.

It's funny none of these vets so against Trans folks will touch my Kristen beck comments. Or answer if they would support the medical policy of a Trans soldier that executes someone like Kim Jon.


Maybe because the argument is political and not based on reality?

a reply to: luthier

Of course not, nobody wants to look themselves in the mirror and realize that they're illiciting and opinion without basis in facts. There were numerous studies done in the early and mid 90's after Clinton initiated "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and those studies support my statements regarding unit cohesion. Furthermore, there is also a difference between social cohesion and task cohesion. If a female applicant can make it through BUDS to become a Navy SEAL, I don't see what difference there is in allowing a Transgendered soldier to serve honorably. The basic gist is that if you can pass the fitness standards, then there should be no issues. It's only people's personal views on the topic because they disagree with how someone else lives their life. What is or is. It hanging between a soldiers legs has no bearing on how they perform their jobs a day lon as they can properly meet qualifications for their MOS.

a reply to: peter vlar

Smacks of sharp practice to weed out the 'unbelievers'

a reply to: Byrd

As was pointed, out your father was less than truthful. He would have been detained on the spot in WW II for such an action.

a reply to: Byrd

Top generals still answer to the Commander-in-Chief, and if he decides there will be changes, there will be changes. the generals are NOT in charge. Trump IS, in fact, THE head of all of our military forces.

No debate. No discussion. They can follow orders, or they can be removed.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: whywhynot
The tweet is not official direction but as your source article reports the Joint Chiefs are naturally awaiting the proper directive thru the chain of command.

I wonder how much respect the "real" military has for the "tweeter in chief"?

Quite a lot, based on all we know. That from a veteran, wife of a (now retired) career soldier, and we know a LOT of military people.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

None of that has anything to do with transgenders being in the military and able to serve adequately. You trying to drown me in information about trans struggles doesn't magically validate your reasoning on keeping them out of the military. It just makes you look like an asshole who uses one struggle in a minority community to promote another struggle in the same minority community.

Years of problems, massive complications, a lifetime of hormones....and you think that has "nothing to do with" their ability to serve??

Of course it does!!!

a reply to: thepixelpusher

My post was spot on topic! I mentioned the medical conditions Trans can encounter (males to female having a dildo in their fake vagina to stretch the skin and the accompanying bleeding) and how they may not be battle ready after a conversion. And that may have been the reason that Trump and the generals denied Trans in the military. Are you going to censor me again! My point is based upon fact as my friend converted and shared all this with me. There I said it t again and it IS ON TOPIC!