U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-01-2017, 03:51 PM
 
16 posts, read 3,391 times
Reputation: 13

Advertisements

Commandant: 'I Will Not Break Faith' With Transgender Coast Guardsmen | Military.com

Last edited by Poncho_NM; 08-12-2017 at 06:27 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-01-2017, 04:42 PM
 
28 posts, read 9,065 times
Reputation: 54
who will be the new commandant?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
17,987 posts, read 21,923,322 times
Reputation: 20257
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/u...er-troops.html

"The commandant, Adm. Paul F. Zukunft, said his office had reached out to the 13 Coast Guard members who self-identify as transgender after seeing the president’s tweets.

'That is the commitment to our people right now,' Admiral Zukunft said. 'Very small numbers, but all of them are doing meaningful Coast Guard work today.' ”

Shouldn't the ability to do the job be the fundamental qualification?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2017, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
27,515 posts, read 43,060,851 times
Reputation: 14293
I served 20 years on Active Duty, as far as I am aware the military has never been real crazy over providing elective surgeries for anyone.

If your elective surgery was going to stop you from being deployable for any period of time, that would have been a likely 'NO' to the process.

Medical procedures need to be things that will allow for continued deployments. Like if you have a condition that if left untreated would render you un-deployable. And even then, they closely reviewed how long the healing process was going to be [called 'limited-duty']. If you need a procedure and the healing process is going to be too long, they would prefer to simply kick you out and let you heal as a civilian on the VA dime.

My youngest son recently went through this process with the Army, though I have seen it many times among my co-workers. He broke his leg, but for it to heal correctly he needed a surgery and the limited-duty after that was going to be lengthy.

One time when I was an E3 during a routine check-up the corpsman offered to set me up with a corrective procedure. When I went back to my command, they did some research and found the surgery was going to be a 'training' event for the medical department, and I would have had a high risk of being disabled from the procedure. My command stepped in at that time and refused to allow the procedure.

If a deployable servicemember wanted to have an elective surgery that was going to disable him for 3 months, I can not imagine many commands that would be in favor of approving such a procedure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2017, 12:09 PM
 
14,730 posts, read 7,210,313 times
Reputation: 13655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner View Post
I served 20 years on Active Duty, as far as I am aware the military has never been real crazy over providing elective surgeries for anyone.

If your elective surgery was going to stop you from being deployable for any period of time, that would have been a likely 'NO' to the process.

Medical procedures need to be things that will allow for continued deployments. Like if you have a condition that if left untreated would render you un-deployable. And even then, they closely reviewed how long the healing process was going to be [called 'limited-duty']. If you need a procedure and the healing process is going to be too long, they would prefer to simply kick you out and let you heal as a civilian on the VA dime.

My youngest son recently went through this process with the Army, though I have seen it many times among my co-workers. He broke his leg, but for it to heal correctly he needed a surgery and the limited-duty after that was going to be lengthy.

One time when I was an E3 during a routine check-up the corpsman offered to set me up with a corrective procedure. When I went back to my command, they did some research and found the surgery was going to be a 'training' event for the medical department, and I would have had a high risk of being disabled from the procedure. My command stepped in at that time and refused to allow the procedure.

If a deployable servicemember wanted to have an elective surgery that was going to disable him for 3 months, I can not imagine many commands that would be in favor of approving such a procedure.
Just want to repeat this, because "fully deployable" is an issue for the "Chair" Force as well as any other.


A condition that renders a member "non fully deployable" will result in discharge, even if the person is able to perform desk duties. That may make little sense to civilians, but when it's necessary for units to be able to rotate personnel in and out of arduous duties, those "desk jobs" can't permanently occupied by people who can't themselves be deployed in their turn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2017, 08:16 AM
 
5 posts, read 1,881 times
Reputation: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner View Post
I served 20 years on Active Duty, as far as I am aware the military has never been real crazy over providing elective surgeries for anyone.

If your elective surgery was going to stop you from being deployable for any period of time, that would have been a likely 'NO' to the process.

Medical procedures need to be things that will allow for continued deployments. Like if you have a condition that if left untreated would render you un-deployable. And even then, they closely reviewed how long the healing process was going to be [called 'limited-duty']. If you need a procedure and the healing process is going to be too long, they would prefer to simply kick you out and let you heal as a civilian on the VA dime.

My youngest son recently went through this process with the Army, though I have seen it many times among my co-workers. He broke his leg, but for it to heal correctly he needed a surgery and the limited-duty after that was going to be lengthy.

One time when I was an E3 during a routine check-up the corpsman offered to set me up with a corrective procedure. When I went back to my command, they did some research and found the surgery was going to be a 'training' event for the medical department, and I would have had a high risk of being disabled from the procedure. My command stepped in at that time and refused to allow the procedure.

If a deployable servicemember wanted to have an elective surgery that was going to disable him for 3 months, I can not imagine many commands that would be in favor of approving such a procedure.

Your comments reminded me of a incident that occurred during Gulf War Part I. Our unit had just rotated back from overseas and there were many mobilized reservists assigned to our squadron. One female Sailor convinced a Navy Reserve physician who was an cosmetic surgeon in Los Angeles that getting a breast augmentation at government expense was necessary to improve her self esteem. Evidently they jumped through all the right hoops and the procedure was conducted at the local Naval Hospital. My squadron Corpsman confirmed it and I'm told that she was very pleased with the results. She completed her mobilization and returned to reserve status at the conclusion of her presidential call up orders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2017, 08:32 AM
 
14,730 posts, read 7,210,313 times
Reputation: 13655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel1960 View Post
Your comments reminded me of a incident that occurred during Gulf War Part I. Our unit had just rotated back from overseas and there were many mobilized reservists assigned to our squadron. One female Sailor convinced a Navy Reserve physician who was an cosmetic surgeon in Los Angeles that getting a breast augmentation at government expense was necessary to improve her self esteem. Evidently they jumped through all the right hoops and the procedure was conducted at the local Naval Hospital. My squadron Corpsman confirmed it and I'm told that she was very pleased with the results. She completed her mobilization and returned to reserve status at the conclusion of her presidential call up orders.
That kind of thing can happen when a military doctor is contemplating leaving service and realizes that he needs to some procedures under his belt before he hits civilian practice.


When his superiors make note of something like that, that window closes quickly. It has nothing to do with military policy.


Another thing that can happen legitimately is that all specialists in any military field are required to train. For reconstructive surgeons, that means performing a certain number of procedures monthly, and if there aren't enough genuine combat-related procedures to meet training needs, they are allowed to accept elective surgeries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2017, 04:44 PM
 
Location: AZ
353 posts, read 150,205 times
Reputation: 1303
The military, all services, have a difficult time recruiting physically fit men and women. The military must be prepared to fight. You would be shocked at the vast numbers of troops who were not eligible to deploy to Desert Shield/Storm due to medical issues: asthma, pregnancy, emotional breakdown etc. No, you did not see it in the media. The Pentagon is very good at managing flow of information to the press. There are way too many people in the services who ought not to be there. When it comes down to it, very few are actually warfighters. The vast majority are support and uniformed bureaucrats. We will be in trouble if it comes to a fight with North Korea or Iran. These are not pushovers. Our humanitarian nonsense will get us into big trouble if a real fight begins. I think it will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2017, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Central Maryland
4,363 posts, read 2,902,227 times
Reputation: 3476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bygeorge View Post
The military, all services, have a difficult time recruiting physically fit men and women. The military must be prepared to fight. You would be shocked at the vast numbers of troops who were not eligible to deploy to Desert Shield/Storm due to medical issues: asthma, pregnancy, emotional breakdown etc. No, you did not see it in the media. The Pentagon is very good at managing flow of information to the press. There are way too many people in the services who ought not to be there. When it comes down to it, very few are actually warfighters. The vast majority are support and uniformed bureaucrats. We will be in trouble if it comes to a fight with North Korea or Iran. These are not pushovers. Our humanitarian nonsense will get us into big trouble if a real fight begins. I think it will.
I tend to agree with you, but I just finished watching a bunch of WWII documentaries last week. One of them was about the logistics management of getting the stuff to where it needs to be when it needed to be there. One comment stood out to me, that of all the people in the military during WWII, only 1 in 6 actually served in combat situations.

I used to think that having people in the military that cannot serve in combat situations, forces those that can to be rotated into combat more often, somewhat unfairly. Now I am not so sure. I suppose that a significant number of those non-combat roles during WWII were in the Army Air Corps, much like the USAF today. Pretty, much only the pilots are considered combat, and there are a considerable number of personnel behind the scenes, making sure the pilots and aircraft can do what they are supposed to do.

Where I see a problem with the PC management style of allowing anybody to serve, is when it comes to facilities management. Whether it is heterosexual, homosexual, transgendered or whatever, in the military, facilities have long been set up to handle same sex personnel in group situations. When I was in the USAF in the 70s we could at least assume that the other guys sharing the shower with you were not getting aroused seeing you naked. We at least understood that, if they were getting excited, they had to keep that fact hidden, if they can, or they might get into trouble.

You have to remember that the "Starship Trooper" shower scene is fictional, and human nature will prohibit that from ever being considered normal, in that it is impossible to have a situation like that where no one ever feels titillation seeing someone they are attracted to, naked. Maybe over time, a person might get used to the situation. I think, in my case, at least, it might happen about the time I hit my 40s.

So, how can that situation be avoided? Private bathrooms and showers everywhere for the military? Maybe four different group shower rooms? Male, Female, M>F, F>M? That might still leave out the openly gay which means they would still need private facilities.

Back when I joined, I knew that I would be showering with other men, but I was never asked if it would be OK if any of them might prefer having sex with men. Had someone asked if I would be OK with that I would have to think a long time before signing up. Before anyone says that I am closed minded, especially the women who criticize men because they were always looked at as sex objects by men, I would ask them how they would like the "Starship Troopers" shower room to be the norm at any time in their life.

I've never been on a Coast Guard Cutter. Do they have private bathrooms for everyone? Do they have them in boot camp?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2017, 10:38 AM
 
14,730 posts, read 7,210,313 times
Reputation: 13655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruzincat View Post
I tend to agree with you, but I just finished watching a bunch of WWII documentaries last week. One of them was about the logistics management of getting the stuff to where it needs to be when it needed to be there. One comment stood out to me, that of all the people in the military during WWII, only 1 in 6 actually served in combat situations.

I used to think that having people in the military that cannot serve in combat situations, forces those that can to be rotated into combat more often, somewhat unfairly. Now I am not so sure. I suppose that a significant number of those non-combat roles during WWII were in the Army Air Corps, much like the USAF today. Pretty, much only the pilots are considered combat, and there are a considerable number of personnel behind the scenes, making sure the pilots and aircraft can do what they are supposed to do.
The fact that only a relatively small number of people are actually trigger-pullers does not negate the importance of the ideal that everyone is "fully deployable."

Take, for instance, a Navy carrier. There are about 5,000 sailors on the vessel, yet only about 75 actually get into air planes and put weapons on the enemy. The other 4,025 never leave the vessel in time of war.

In fact, there are some of them that never even do anything explicitly war-related. Most of them are washing clothes, cooking food, maintaining equipment--civilian work.

Unless, of course, the ship takes a weapon hit in their compartment, in which case they suddenly man fire hoses, rescue the injured, and bleed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top