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 06-30-2017, 08:08 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
3,679 posts, read 1,412,155 times
Reputation: 1495

Advertisements

Looks like the trend towards equality has ceased.

Pentagon officially delays transgender troop enlistment policy | TheHill
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-30-2017, 08:21 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
30,442 posts, read 20,090,801 times
Reputation: 8365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtnluver8956 View Post
Looks like the trend towards equality has ceased.

Pentagon officially delays transgender troop enlistment policy | TheHill





I voted, "why?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2017, 08:46 PM
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
4,783 posts, read 3,165,336 times
Reputation: 1335
Don't they still have guidelines about mental illness? Surely someone with gender dysphoria needs mental health help, not fatigues and weapons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2017, 09:04 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
33,245 posts, read 20,081,203 times
Reputation: 12987
i voted no
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2017, 09:20 PM
 
Location: My beloved Bluegrass
14,724 posts, read 10,616,557 times
Reputation: 19896
There are lots of illnesses and conditions that disqualify people from being able to join the military, and many of those also would get a current service member medically discharged. Anything that requires daily medication to function is almost always a disqualifier. I was under the impression transgendered individuals, once they start taking them, actually require hormones to function normally. Just based on that alone, no, I don't they should.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.Moderator - Arkansas & subforums, Asia, Kentucky & subforums, Military Life, and P&OC
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2017, 09:28 PM
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
4,783 posts, read 3,165,336 times
Reputation: 1335
But gender dysphoria is a serious mental illness, it has nothing to do with taking hormones. They cannot be physically cured because it is a mental disorder. You can believe you are a car, wearing tires on your arms is not going to help you at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2017, 12:29 AM
 
Location: Middle of the Pacific Ocean
11,672 posts, read 6,271,423 times
Reputation: 11493
Yes, I think they should be able to join. Granted, while I understand some of the concerns about daily medications and the impact that could have on combat readiness (i.e. those hormones aren't guaranteed in a war zone), the simple fact is that many military jobs will not take you anywhere near a war zone. But I have transgender service members under me now. They do their jobs just like everyone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2017, 01:19 AM
 
Location: Northern NJ
7,954 posts, read 7,908,387 times
Reputation: 11183
Absolutely not. Not for combat roles. The purpose of the military is to defend the country. I don't want mentally confused people doing that job. There are a million occupations for TGs. We want our biggest, baddest, toughest MEN doing this job. I really don't even want women in combat roles. It's a male job and it should be done by men who have no confusion or dissonance with regard to the immutable reality of the gender they were BORN with.


Perhaps in distant support roles far from combat there can be a use for them where their mental state is not a distraction to others.


The combat wing of the military should not be a social engineering experiment or a demonstration of tolerance. It's too important a job. I don't want tolerance in the military. I want intolerance and discrimination. Big, bad, tough guys. Nobody else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2017, 12:06 PM
 
Location: My beloved Bluegrass
14,724 posts, read 10,616,557 times
Reputation: 19896
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
Yes, I think they should be able to join. Granted, while I understand some of the concerns about daily medications and the impact that could have on combat readiness (i.e. those hormones aren't guaranteed in a war zone), the simple fact is that many military jobs will not take you anywhere near a war zone. But I have transgender service members under me now. They do their jobs just like everyone else.
Every service member should be capable of going into the combat zone, the line between the combat zone and the rear echelon is much fuzzier than it used to be. Honestly, any service member that can not be deployed for any three out of five years for any reason should be discharged. When a unit's strength is discussed there shouldn't have to be with an asterisk adding but only 45-57% are deployable, which happened with quite a few of the combat service support units tapped for Bosnia. None of those type of units were over 70% deployable when the first orders came out. Service in the military is not about the right to a job but the responsibility to defend this nation or it's interests.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.Moderator - Arkansas & subforums, Asia, Kentucky & subforums, Military Life, and P&OC
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2017, 12:15 PM
 
Location: On a Long Island in NY
7,680 posts, read 8,481,630 times
Reputation: 7034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1 View Post
Every service member should be capable of going into the combat zone, the line between the combat zone and the rear echelon is much fuzzier than it used to be. Honestly, any service member that can not be deployed for any three out of five years for any reason should be discharged. When a unit's strength is discussed there shouldn't have to be with an asterisk adding but only 45-57% are deployable, which happened with quite a few of the combat service support units tapped for Bosnia. None of those type of units were over 70% deployable when the first orders came out. Service in the military is not about the right to a job but the responsibility to defend this nation or it's interests.
You are aware that even many all male combat arms units regularly deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan with well over 30-40% undeployable for a variety of reasons right? No military unit in the history of mankind has ever deployed at 100% strength.

A Marine friend of mine was in an infantry company that had to leave behind the equivalent of an entire platoon when they deployed to Iraq. They had to use reservists and guys right out of boot to fill the open slots.
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