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.
There are between 1,320 and 6,630 transgender troops in the active-duty force of 1.3 million, according the RAND Corp. which conducted a study for the Pentagon on the issue. Of those troops, 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.
In some areas being denied because you are too old or too fat is discrimination but when it comes to transgendered people in the military we are talking about a very small fraction of a percentage.
Women are just as smart as men so I think they can do amazing things in the military but I don't think they should be on the front lines fighting toe to toe and door to door.
The same goes for transgendered people. Most people join the military in their late teens, early twenties and this is a time when these young people are trying to figure themselves out and for some military service is an awakening and for others a Rude one. Toss in the confusion of a young person into a volatile mix and it is a recipe for a distracting problem.
Why should the military make special concessions to somehow fit in a transgendered person say a man that wants to be treated as a woman.
I don't think Trump should have banned them but let the military decide themselves on a case by case basis.
He had to rule, he has the authority....ambiguity is why things have gotten so off track.
Now people who are deciding their sex gender are free to do it, as they already are.....just not in the military at the public's expense.
I have no problem with this ban. The military (us) had to pay the bill to transform Manning. I can see the scenario where uncut transgenders join the military to get free surgeries and lifelong hormone therapy. They would spend most of their time in recovery and counseling and then quit or get medical discharges and be a burden for the rest of their lives.
I didn't even think about this part of it. And you are absolutely correct !
If they require daily/regularly scheduled medication (hormones) THAT is a readiness problem. Frankly, I think there might be a valid argument for a mentally stable transgender with no medical intervention. It has happened, unbeknownst to their comrades, through the years. But if there is ANYTHING that makes a service member non-deplorable for more than a brief, temporary time period they need to be discharged.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Are there any trans people on CD that can speak to this?
IDK.
If it is a matter of special needs I think the decision could be justified.
Then again women in the military and especially combat IMO require special considerations apart from men. So.
There are between 1,320 and 6,630 transgender troops in the active-duty force of 1.3 million, according the RAND Corp. which conducted a study for the Pentagon on the issue. Of those troops, 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.
If there's no way to ensure the individual can continue their mission and/or survive in worst case "what if" scenarios that aren't far-fetched, there's no reason for them to remain in the military. There's nothing discriminatory about it either. Many people have been medically forced out for conditions that came up while already serving too - and for the same reason (medical readiness).
No need to make it political would be my thoughts.
You are right. It should have nothing to do with politics. It is a common sense fiscal and readiness decision only.
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.
Back in the 90's a key represent of of one of my clients, a NY bank, underwent all that led to an eventual gender reassignment and reportedly his employer's large group health insurance paid for it. It was interesting that when the dust settled, it became a non- issue within the greater business community who respected the individual's knowledge, influence and ability to effect positive change. In other words the individual's strengths overcame the issue of transgenderism / sex reassignment.
Last edited by middle-aged mom; 07-26-2017 at 09:46 AM..
again. why are liberals now OK with involuntary servitude?
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.
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.
Virtue signaling. The people who are really "outraged" by it...aren't, and are just doing it because they dislike Trump.
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.
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.
