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.
[quote=lilyflower3191981;54577789]If I remember this correctly,
Single parents and military spouses with children can be discharged if they fail to implement and maintain a family care plan, which is one of the terms of remaining in the military after having a baby. Basically, the pregnant servicewoman has to demonstrate that once she has the baby she will be able to fulfill her obligation to the military and provide care for her child.
If the commanding officer is convinced that the member has done everything within his/her power to maintain a proper dependent care plan, the discharge characterization will normally be honorable. Otherwise, it would likely be general.
All these blah blah being said, women of child-bearing age are not the same as people with pre-existing conditions.
When my bro was serving in the Marine Corps, there is a saying, "If Marine Corps wants you to get married, they'd issue you a wife already." None of his team member was married. I don't even think they would select you to do the special operation if your life was full of drama. My brother's CO told his fellow Marines that be careful whom you chose to date, avoid certain type of women lol My bro was a force recon in the Marine Corps. Obviously, there are people who have common sense, there are people just want to be politically correct. There ares zero benefits allowing transgender folks to join the military. Plus, I thought they want the military to be downsized. lol So what is it?[/QUOTE
That's correct. The Corps tried to stop people from getting married but was quickly overturned.
Single parents and military spouses with children can be discharged if they fail to implement and maintain a family care plan, which is one of the terms of remaining in the military after having a baby. Basically, the pregnant servicewoman has to demonstrate that once she has the baby she will be able to fulfill her obligation to the military and provide care for her child.
If the commanding officer is convinced that the member has done everything within his/her power to maintain a proper dependent care plan, the discharge characterization will normally be honorable. Otherwise, it would likely be general.
All these blah blah being said, women of child-bearing age are not the same as people with pre-existing conditions.
When my bro was serving in the Marine Corps, there is a saying, "If Marine Corps wants you to get married, they'd issue you a wife already." None of his team member was married. I don't even think they would select you to do the special operation if your life was full of drama. My brother's CO told his fellow Marines that be careful whom you chose to date, avoid certain type of women lol My bro was a force recon in the Marine Corps. Obviously, there are people who have common sense, there are people just want to be politically correct. There ares zero benefits allowing transgender folks to join the military. Plus, I thought they want the military to be downsized. lol So what is it?
You are correct on the need to maintain a family care plan. Of course, that doesn't address women who are pregnant and, thus, are also non-deployable.
No, being transgender is not the same as being a woman of a child-bearing age; if that is what you got from my earlier post, let me be clear that such was not my intent. Still, the result on deployability for women who are pregnant and trans people undergoing gender reassignment surgery is the same. That is that they are non-deployable for a pre-determined amount of time. In the case of female troops giving birth, there is the 9 months during pregnancy as well as 12 weeks after pregnancy where they are essentially non-deployable (a full year in all). And, in the case of female troops of child-bearing age, this applies to any and all children they have while in service (I know numerous female sailors who have spent years being non-deployable due to multiple childbirths). I don't recall how long trans troops undergoing surgery would be OOC, but I don't think its as long as a year.
As far of benefits to allowing trans folks to join the military, they bring unique perspectives on life and add to the diversity of the service(s) in which they join. Those are all benefits in my book.
Note, some people want to downsize the military, but others want to add to the number of active duty troops. All in all, though, whether folks want to downsize or not, allowing trans individuals to join would have no impact (selection is competitive and people, whether trans or not, would be competing for a predetermined number of spots).
It is a valid comparison, a woman getting pregnant leaves the unit short of a body, and someone from somewhere needs to take her place.
Yes, not all positions deploy, and many of those positions are filled by members who have already had a few years assigned to a deploying unit. For example in the Navy, there is a limited number of shore assignments and even a smaller number of ones not having to do with maintenance or training.
What you write is true. But more than a few of those positions are also filled by members who will never deploy as a general matter (a lot of these that I know of are in the intelligence sector). Of course, we have people who will only serve a tour or two and never go out to sea anyway (I come across such cases regularly).
You are correct on the need to maintain a family care plan. Of course, that doesn't address women who are pregnant and, thus, are also non-deployable.
No, being transgender is not the same as being a woman of a child-bearing age; if that is what you got from my earlier post, let me be clear that such was not my intent. Still, the result on deployability for women who are pregnant and trans people undergoing gender reassignment surgery is the same. That is that they are non-deployable for a pre-determined amount of time. In the case of female troops giving birth, there is the 9 months during pregnancy as well as 12 weeks after pregnancy where they are essentially non-deployable (a full year in all). I don't recall how long trans troops undergoing surgery would be OOC, but I don't think its as long as a year.
As far of benefits to allowing trans folks to join the military, they bring unique perspectives on life and add to the diversity of the service(s) in which they join. Those are all benefits in my book.
Note, some people want to downsize the military, but others want to add to the number of active duty troops. All in all, though, whether folks want to downsize or not, allowing trans individuals to join would have no impact (selection is competitive and people, whether trans or not, would be competing for a predetermined number of spots).
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
What you write is true. But more than a few of those positions are also filled by members who will never deploy as a general matter (a lot of these that I know of are in the intelligence sector). Of course, we have people who will only serve a tour or two and never go out to sea anyway (I come across such cases regularly).
If your argument is a valid argument, then explain to me why a perfectly healthy capable 50 year old cannot enlist ? explain that.
As far of benefits to allowing trans folks to join the military, they bring unique perspectives on life and add to the diversity of the service(s) in which they join. Those are all benefits in my book.
Really?! Unique perspectives on life and military just don't mix. Sorry. Military does not need people who try to "find" themselves. They are not going to be happy in the military.
The bottom line is that the military discriminates by design to create the best fighting force we can with our general population. THE MILITARY DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO SERVE JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO SERVE. There are tens of thousands of people turned away by recruiters a month that do not qualify for one reason or another. 71% of American youth does not qualify for service for some discriminating reason.
This doesn't mean they are not GOOD enough, this just means the military is not for everybody. No more/less.
Why do some people care so much about those now not qualifying that comprise 0.3% of the population? The answer is politics and that is it.
If your argument is a valid argument, then explain to me why a perfectly healthy capable 50 year old cannot enlist ? explain that.
There are a couple of reasons for this, including the fact that you couldn't serve 20 years (the military knows that most won't serve 50 years, but they also look for people who will be open to/capable of serving long term as it costs them less money on training new people to take over, etc. . . . its why, as a general rule, most branches won't let you join if you're over 40 as you wouldn't be able to serve until retirement age, thus the service branch would be spending more money on training replacements who could serve that long vs. having a revolving door of older recruits who are forced out due to age) if you are 50, and the fact that, on average, most people who are 50 are not physically fit enough to join.
Of course, there are exceptions to joining the military if you are capable and 50 years, though these exceptions almost always are made for people with certain in-demand skill sets, including doctors and nurses: https://www.aarp.org/work/working-af...r-of-duty.html
There are also exceptions as a general rule to people 50 and older (or you name the cut off age) being physically fit and perfectly healthy and capable for service, but, as a general rule that is not the case. Hence, there is a general rule against people above a certain age signing up for military service.
Still, the argument/comparison does not compute. Someone being trans does not make inherently them incapable of serving. A healthy, young trans person (and there are trans sailors at my command) are just as capable as any other.
There are a couple of reasons for this, including the fact that you couldn't serve 20 years (the military knows that most won't serve 50 years, but they also look for people who will be open to/capable of serving long term as it costs them less money on training new people to take over, etc. . . . its why, as a general rule, most branches won't let you join if you're over 40 as you wouldn't be able to serve until retirement age, thus the service branch would be spending more money on training replacements who could serve that long vs. having a revolving door of older recruits who are forced out due to age) if you are 50, and the fact that, on average, most people who are 50 are not physically fit enough to join.
Of course, there are exceptions to joining the military if you are capable and 50 years, though these exceptions almost always are made for people with certain in-demand skill sets, including doctors and nurses: https://www.aarp.org/work/working-af...r-of-duty.html
There are also exceptions as a general rule to people 50 and older (or you name the cut off age) being physically fit and perfectly healthy and capable for service, but, as a general rule that is not the case. Hence, there is a general rule against people above a certain age signing up for military service.
Still, the argument/comparison does not compute. Someone being trans does not make inherently them incapable of serving. A healthy, young trans person (and there are trans sailors at my command) are just as capable as any other.
Your explanation is all about speculation, nothing more.
You cannot PROVE a perfectly healthy 40 year old or 50 year cannot serve 20 years, plus a majority of the troops do not serve that long, period.
This thread is the proof that trans sometimes need operations and their operations are sometimes medically necessary. For this reason, they should not be allowed to join.
Really?! Unique perspectives on life and military just don't mix. Sorry. Military does not need people who try to "find" themselves. They are not going to be happy in the military.
The bottom line is that the military discriminates by design to create the best fighting force we can with our general population. THE MILITARY DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO SERVE JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO SERVE. There are tens of thousands of people turned away by recruiters a month that do not qualify for one reason or another. 71% of American youth does not qualify for service for some discriminating reason.
This doesn't mean they are not GOOD enough, this just means the military is not for everybody. No more/less.
Sure, they do. Unique perspectives on life/background/diversity can make the workforce--whether military or not--more inviting and enjoyable, leading to greater workplace satisfaction and reduced turnover. There is a reason why corporations/organizations the world over are investing in organizational behavior consultants on ways to improve morale and workplace satisfaction.
The military isn't for everyone. I agree. When I was going through my military training, there were multiple people who wanted to join, but who were turned away (weeks before graduation, mind you) due to various reasons (many of them health related). I just don't see why there should be a ban on trans people. Much like it was hard to defend a ban on gays/lesbians/bisexuals serving openly (thank God that ban has been lifted).
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.
Unique perspectives on life and military just don't mix. Sorry. Military does not need people who try to "find" themselves. They are not going to be happy in the military.
