U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
View Poll Results: Should transgendered individuals be able to serve in United States of America's military?
Yes 101 52.33%
No 92 47.67%
Voters: 193. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-26-2017, 09:33 AM
 
Location: Austin TX
6,055 posts, read 3,476,719 times
Reputation: 8148

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JanND View Post
I agree. How times have changed. I remember when liberals were against war. Now they use the fact that someone hasn't been in the service as a slanderous remark......So much indecisiveness.
Isn't it humorous? Liberals hate war and funding our bloated military complex but holy crap, if you didn't serve your country what a piece of sh1t you can suddenly become in their eyes when the narrative calls for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-26-2017, 09:35 AM
 
20,178 posts, read 11,177,864 times
Reputation: 20178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor Cal Wahine View Post
There's no place for "gender fluidity" in the military. The entire premise of war-ready troops is teaching them that everyone is the same and that together they comprise one unit. There is no individuality in the military. Everyone is expected to eat, sleep, pee, poop, walk, talk, and breathe the same. Without this basic sense of selflessness and autonomy, military precision does not exist.
Well, not exactly. You won't convince a Marine that he's "the same" as an airman. You won't convince a submariner that he's "the same" as an aviator.


Military troops are not "the same." They simply don't recognize civilian divisions.


At the end of my first day of basic training, a long day 'way back in the 70s, just before putting us to bed, our instructor sat us down for a final briefing.


Sgt Jimmy Weeks, a squat guy from South Carolina with a thick drawl that he spat out of the corner of his mouth like chewing tobacco, said:


"One thing we ain't gonna have in this flight is racial troubles.
"The reason we ain't gonna have no racial troubles is because you ain't got no reason to have no racial troubles.
"The reason you ain't got no reason to have no racial troubles is because you're all the same color: Namely green.
"You all got the same hair: Namely none.
"You all got the same daddy: Namely me.
"And you all got the same wants and desires: Namely to get the *&#&@^ out of here!"


What the military does is erase the divisions that civilians recognize. No long hairs, no short hairs, no Guccis, no Wranglers, no Polos, no Addidas, no Nikes. Those divisions have no utility in the military.


And then it introduces its own divisions that are needed to win battles: Aviators, riflemen, yeomen, et cetera.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 09:35 AM
 
9,764 posts, read 3,170,172 times
Reputation: 4053
Hollywood Outraged Over Trump's Plan for Transgender Military Ban: "You Will Regret It"

Hollywood Outraged Over Trump's Plan for Transgender Military Ban | Hollywood Reporter


Quote:
The ACLU called the move an "outrageous and desperate action" in a statement: “This is an outrageous and desperate action. The thousands of transgender service members serving on the front lines for this country deserve better than a commander-in-chief who rejects their basic humanity. Let us be clear. This has been studied extensively, and the consensus is clear: There are no cost or military readiness drawbacks associated with allowing trans people to fight for their country. Moderator cut: copyright violation
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 09:36 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
5,539 posts, read 9,945,614 times
Reputation: 9056
Will current transgendered members of the military be honorably or dishonorably discharged?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Austin TX
6,055 posts, read 3,476,719 times
Reputation: 8148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
Well, not exactly. You won't convince a Marine that he's "the same" as an airman. You won't convince a submariner that he's "the same" as an aviator.


Military troops are not "the same." They simply don't recognize civilian divisions.


At the end of my first day of basic training, a long day 'way back in the 70s, just before putting us to bed, our instructor sat us down for a final briefing.


Sgt Jimmy Weeks, a squat guy from South Carolina with a thick drawl that he spat out of the corner of his mouth like chewing tobacco, said:


"One thing we ain't gonna have in this flight is racial troubles.
"The reason we ain't gonna have no racial troubles is because you ain't got no reason to have no racial troubles.
"The reason you ain't got no reason to have no racial troubles is because you're all the same color: Namely green.
"You all got the same hair: Namely none.
"You all got the same daddy: Namely me.
"And you all got the same wants and desires: Namely to get the *&#&@^ out of here!"


What the military does is erase the divisions that civilians recognize. No long hairs, no short hairs, no Guccis, no Wranglers, no Polos, no Addidas, no Nikes. Those divisions have no utility in the military.


And then it introduces its own divisions that are needed to win battles: Aviators, riflemen, yeomen, et cetera.
Wonderful post. You nailed the exact sentiments that my post failed at.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 09:38 AM
 
Location: North Texas
24,000 posts, read 32,840,016 times
Reputation: 27536
I'm liberal and I'm fine with this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,105 posts, read 13,496,767 times
Reputation: 5783
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonnymarkjiz View Post
As a liberal, I don't really like the fact that someone who puts their life on the line for the country can't identify how they want. They're going overseas and fighting hard for ....America. (I don't really like the fact that we're in the middle east bombing random countries, but...).

On the other hand, I see why he did it. The focus should be on the military, not about "I wanna be a girl so call me Jane instead of Joe" and all of the attention goes to him/her. Not to mention, the Chelsea Manning thing too.

I'm conflicted on this decision. What are your thoughts?
There have already been many trans people who have served and are serving without any problems, so the concern is completely unfounded. Those people who cannot serve within their abilities don't last, anyway. The only thing that should matter is the quality of the service, not how or as what someone identifies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 09:39 AM
 
20,178 posts, read 11,177,864 times
Reputation: 20178
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
Trump was overdue to throw another piece of red meat at his base.

It appears Trump's position results in the inability of transgender people to serve in the military in any capacity. What becomes of the thousands of transgender individuals in the military, right now, serving in a variety of capacities in the US and overseas. Will they be dishonorably discharged or terminated?

Announcing this via Twitter seems entirely innappropriate. Obvious the Pentagon was blind sighted.

Whole deal seems to be another deflection to take the public's eye off the many balls in the air, right now.

I do not understand transgenderism, tend to see both sides of the debate relative to the military. I do not fully appreciate the challenges of transgenderism or impact on the military and have no personal position.
What this means is that someone who needs the level of medical maintenance as a host of other conditions (which have been mentioned here) that make a person "not fully deployable" would be released from service just like anyone else who was "not fully deployable."


The condition of their discharge would depend on the quality of their service to that point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 09:39 AM
 
9,764 posts, read 3,170,172 times
Reputation: 4053
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
There have already been many trans people who have served and are serving without any problems, so the concern is completely unfounded. Those people who cannot serve within their abilities don't last, anyway. The only thing that should matter is the quality of the service, not how or as what someone identifies.
take it up with the generals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 09:40 AM
 
Location: Colorado
11,896 posts, read 7,324,699 times
Reputation: 21346
This might be the first time I've ever agreed with Trump.

As someone who has first hand experience of the military medical system as an Army wife for years, I don't think that the military or VA healthcare systems are the right environment for something as complex as gender transitioning. I just don't. And I am not sure that a soldier who was willing to get it done on their own dime outside of it, would remain in a state of "readiness" through the process...I really doubt it. I'd say either they wait until they're out, or they get medically discharged. Doesn't have to be dishonorable, at all. Some people just are not a right match for the military.

This doesn't have to be some big social condemnation of transfolk. I have many trans friends and I love 'em to death...but I've been close to the military too, and the two things don't seem very compatible to me.

Freedom and entitlement are two different things. Sometimes a person has to make choices, cannot have the cake and eat it, too. The military should be seen as an employer, people are not entitled to keep a job, if they're doing something that makes them not very suitable for the job. I don't see this position as being anti-trans, or hostile to the LGBTQ+ community in the slightest.

EDIT: My stance isn't about pronouns, or identities, it's more about medical procedures. I think that the way Trump phrased it makes it clear, that's where he's coming from, too.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 33, 34, 35 - Top