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, 04:58 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,088 posts, read 13,427,441 times
Reputation: 5756

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor Cal Wahine View Post
That's not an authored study. It's an FAQ page from the APA - the same source that I used to link to the interview that I posted earlier. I'd like you to provide a citation for the study you have read that you keep referring to that indicates that the mental health and biological sciences community has made a determination about transgendered soldiers being fit to serve and having no issues. You keep stating that, so you must have learned it somewhere.

You have gallantly described yourself as a person of truth, so please share with us the source for all the truth you are sharing here.

The APA is a professional organization specializing in mental health. If it's a mental illness, why do they specifically state that it is not? What do you think they are basing that conclusion on? And let's be honest here, you're not going to accept any links I provide because your mind is already made up on the matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-26-2017, 04:58 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
32,998 posts, read 19,960,878 times
Reputation: 12883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Since there are already a few thousand serving in the military the Secretary of Defense should be able to intelligently answer if a problem exists. This is just another distraction by Trump and it smells of Bannon to divert real discussions about real issues, it worked. Mattis asked for 6 more months to address the issue last month and the White House circumvented him. If they are going to worry about psychological issues then they need to do it universally, not just for transgendered. They have a pretty poor track record on screening military.


So now that this is out there what do they do with a few thousand already in the military.
according to this article,

RAND estimates that between 30 and 140 would like to seek hormone treatment, and 25 to 130 would seek surgery. The estimated annual price tag: $2.4 million to $8.4 million, per year.

Treatment is estimated to cost as much as $50,000 per soldier. Treatment generally moves from counseling to hormone therapy, and in relatively rare cases, gender reassignment surgery. A military doctor must deem the treatment medically necessary.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...gery/90331678/

I think the military should stop paying for their treatment because it is not service related. If they don't need to take medication or have surgery, then they should be allowed to stay because they don't have a chronic illness. However, if they do need to take medication, then they should be processed out (medical retirement)

If you really view them as everybody else, then treat them as everybody else. What do you say to a Marine who was recently diagnosed with Rheumatoid Arthritis? He would be processed out because he suffers from chronic illness cannot be corrected without medication and physical therapy. He can still get service related disability benefit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 05:01 PM
 
9,845 posts, read 11,872,872 times
Reputation: 6324
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould View Post
If God had intended men to get it up, there would be no problem.

Unless you are looking at Hillary Clinton naked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 05:07 PM
 
6,387 posts, read 5,403,431 times
Reputation: 11008
For anyone outraged at the notion of trans people in the military....were you upset about this yesterday? How about last year or five years ago or ten? Because trans people have been serving all this time.

If you ever were a Support Our Troops kind of person-did you have an asterisk in your slogan to denote that your support for troops did not include trans members of the troops?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 05:09 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,088 posts, read 13,427,441 times
Reputation: 5756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1 View Post
You don't seem to grasp the real issue. If they must have a daily medication or it will create a crisis of some sort they are not deployable. You would be amazed by the number of almost inconsequential illnesses that will get a current service member medically discharged, let alone prevent a person from joining, simply because it involves mandatory medication. ADHD that required medication after the age of 14 is one example that gets a lot of young people declared disqualified, although if they can function completely non-medicated some can get waivers.

If transgendered people want to serve without actual transition I can understand the rationale, but it would have to be a strictly off-duty social transition. Anything else is a military readiness issue.
Hormones aren't required daily, though, and it's not some medication that without it causes some kind of medical crisis, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Even if they had to be taken daily, any soldier has the capability of swallowing a pill. That doesn't exactly take a doctor or special skills.

And you're all still missing the point. The military was working on rules for this. There would've been denials and admissions based on individual cases, but at least some trans people could serve. The fact that thousands already do shows that it is reasonably possible, and the majority of them don't even go through transition during their service anyway. And if any issues ever did arise during service, there was nothing to prevent them from being discharged later on like with any other demographic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 05:09 PM
 
4,928 posts, read 2,177,718 times
Reputation: 7060
So what happens to the 15 transgender soilders currently in the military?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
32,998 posts, read 19,960,878 times
Reputation: 12883
There are a lot of active duty military service men and women have been processed out for the exact same reason (medical readiness.)

Why is this a discrimination issue?!

If you need to take meds on daily basis for a pre existing condition, then you shouldn't be serving.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 05:10 PM
 
10,930 posts, read 5,006,021 times
Reputation: 4885
Default "I served 34 years in the Army. I’m transgender. President Trump is wrong."

I served 34 years in the Army. I’m transgender. President Trump is wrong. The most important thing in the military is getting the job done. Gender identity has nothing to do with it.

Sheri Swokowski is a retired Army colonel who served as the human resources director for the Wisconsin National Guard and the Rocky Mountain region of the U.S. Forest Service.

Quote:
President Trump says allowing transgender people to serve in the military would bring “disruption” that could stand in the way of the “decisive and overwhelming victory” our armed forces must strive for. Apparently, he doesn’t think transgender Americans are capable or worthy of defending our nation. But he’s wrong. Thousands of patriotic transgender Americans already put their lives on the line every day to keep our country free. We’ve been doing that since the 1700s.

I know: I was one of them.
Quote:
People are afraid of what they don’t know or what they don’t understand. It’s much more difficult to hate and discriminate against someone when you know their story. Maybe the president will listen to some of the stories of the brave men and women, like me, who serve our country proudly. In the military, the most important thing is to get the job done. Getting the job done is based on a person’s character and ability. An individual’s gender identity has no influence on those things. It’s a shame Trump doesn’t realize that.
I personally think if someone is getting the job done, who cares about the rest. What do you all think?

Last edited by HockeyMac18; 07-26-2017 at 05:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 05:10 PM
 
Location: My beloved Bluegrass
14,670 posts, read 10,561,660 times
Reputation: 19810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Since there are already a few thousand serving in the military the Secretary of Defense should be able to intelligently answer if a problem exists. This is just another distraction by Trump and it smells of Bannon to divert real discussions about real issues, it worked. Mattis asked for 6 more months to address the issue last month and the White House circumvented him. If they are going to worry about psychological issues then they need to do it universally, not just for transgendered. They have a pretty poor track record on screening military.


So now that this is out there what do they do with a few thousand already in the military.
In all fairness, this is going to have to be addressed. They actively sought some of these individuals to come out in the open to start the process of preparing the leaders for the change. These people were living and serving as their biological gender, some with the anticipation of transitioning once they left the service. These were stellar service members and they spent a great deal time speaking to leadership groups. I happen to be friend's with one's wife. (And, contrary to all the flap about swinging penises in group showers, all the ones we are aware of are FtM, not MtF). This particular service member is a Navy Captain. At any rate, the service member has, with official encouragement, started the transition but would have never done so otherwise. It would not be fair to this service member to now be run out. There will need to be some type of waivers for these folks. Yeah, if they keep on the hormones they will be non-deployable, but for this limited group, because they are in a very unique situation not of their own making, they need to be waivered until retirement, at minimum. My friend's spouse is prepared to suspend treatment until retirement, serve as they originally were doing then transition after retirement, and I fully support that.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.Moderator - Asia, Arkansas (w/ subforums), Kentucky (w/ subforums), Military Life, and P&OC
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 05:11 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,088 posts, read 13,427,441 times
Reputation: 5756
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
well, I am glad you bring it up.

Bold is the exact reason for Congress to consider a proposal to beef up pre-deployment mental health
screening of troops.
I agree with that, but post-service care is even more important. Even mentally well-adjusted people can have serious problems after rough deployments. In any case, this is a whole different discussion.
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. The time now is 01:59 PM.

© 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