• Trump announces ban on transgender people in U.S. military
    387 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52512018]Do you not think that having transgender people in the US military is important for overcoming the discrimination that faces them - particularly when other armies from around the world such as the United Kingdom, Israel etc. have proven they can be successfully integrated?[/QUOTE] You seem to forget the US is all about ignoring globally tried-and-true solutions to their crippling issues.
[QUOTE=orcywoo6;52512019]People crying about this, do you realise these people will face combat? How are you going to be an effective combat unit if one of you is taking hormones or doing xyz related to being trans or changing. Its logical because people would end up at risk. It's the military, you're supposed to be one big uniform force that fights for your country, the whole point is that you become more than an individual and become a part of the bigger unit. How can that unit operate at 100% efficiency when people are making themselves different or "coming out". All that does is form clashes and separate what is supposed to be a tight knit group.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40733701"]As I've mentioned previously the United Kingdom's military has transgender people serving in it.[/URL] And please explain to me how people being themselves is "making themselves different". With the way you talk about uniformity, you'd want a military of exclusively white men, then? EDIT: I will note that there are likely fewer than 10 transgender personal serving in the British military, but my point stands. They are allowed to serve and it's clear they do their job as effectively as any other soldier. So why ban them?
[QUOTE=orcywoo6;52512019]People crying about this, do you realise these people will face combat? How are you going to be an effective combat unit if one of you is taking [b]hormones[/b] or doing xyz related to being trans or changing. Its logical because people would end up at risk. It's the military, you're supposed to be one big uniform force that fights for your country, the whole point is that you become more than an individual and become a part of the bigger unit. How can that unit operate at 100% efficiency when people are making themselves different or "coming out". All that does is form clashes and separate what is supposed to be a tight knit group.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure you know what a hormone is or how the human body works but you have hormones in your system at this very moment. You know this, right? To say T/E are hormones that you inhibit your ability to be a soldier is to also say that all males and females are incapable of being soldiers.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52512023]You seem to forget the US is all about ignoring globally tried-and-true solutions to their crippling issues.[/QUOTE] I'm trying to be straight and not relentlessly snarky when it comes to arguments anymore. While I guess I say that I agree with this, it doesn't exactly help the argument, does it?
You can be a couple pounds overweight and in the wrong places and not be qualified to serve. This is much bigger than just being singled out for being transgendered.
[QUOTE=orcywoo6;52512064] This is much bigger than just being singled out for being transgendered.[/QUOTE] Only it isn't. Like, that's literally how Trump has decided people get singled out now.
[QUOTE=orcywoo6;52512064]You can be a couple pounds overweight and in the wrong places and not be qualified to serve. This is much bigger than just being singled out for being transgendered.[/QUOTE] You haven't answered my questions. And I'll pose a new one to you - do you think transgender people shouldn't be allowed to serve in the United Kingdom's military?
[QUOTE=fulgrim;52512096]Only it isn't. Like, that's literally how Trump has decided people get singled out now.[/QUOTE] The people arguing in support of this ban should probably take a step back and just think about how it came to be. Last year the military provided open support for transgender troops, and in result you now have between 2 and 3 thousand openly transgender soldiers actively serving without issue in your forces. Other nations also have transgender soldiers in their armies, such as Australia, the UK, and Israel. The impetus for this ban tweet came from an argument over a bill to remove funding for transitions. Some Republicans considered the cost insignificant in the overall budget (which mathematically it is), while others held issue with it for typical conservative reasons. The point of contention was not whether or not transgender individuals could serve in the military, it was strictly about what the military should pay for in order for them to serve. Then, because this deliberation was preventing the border wall from being allocated funding, Trump and Trump alone, independent of the Pentagon, or Mattis, or any actual military expert, announced a blanket ban via Twitter. This was a massive overstep, but I guess since it stopped that debate, Trump got what he wanted. If you're getting ready to argue "Yes! Finally those liabilities are gone from this uniform fighting force that CANNOT be cohesive with people who are different", maybe stop yourself and realise that your army can and has operated absolutely fine with transgender soldiers, lawmaking concerning them just got in the way of Trump one day and he banned them on a whim. [editline] [/editline] Oh yeah and all this information is available in the thread, I'll post links to the sources if I have to, but really, everyone else has put the info right there on the page
He loves the LGBTs so much he doesn't want them to die in combat.
I get that some people don't like LGBT people. I don't respect it, I don't reserve judgement, truth be told I think it's a disgusting character flaw to judge people based on sexuality or gender identity. But I get it. But surely, even if you do get off on the idea of people serving in the military getting screwed over because they belong to a demographic you personally don't like- you have to worry about the precedent being set here? Trump will actively discriminate against people in your military and destroy American jobs on a fucking whim if it means he gets his own way. Sure this time it's a group of people you hate or don't care about, no skin off your balls- right?. But how do you know that will always be the case? what's stopping your career, your demographic, from falling into the firing line?, Trump's principles? (lol) You are no different from anyone who believed in the "B-but he held up their flag!?" shit, it just hasn't been convenient to screw you yet. The guy would sell you and anything you care about out in a heartbeat if it benefited him in anyway.
[QUOTE=MedicWine;52512031]I'm not sure you know what a hormone is or how the human body works but you have hormones in your system at this very moment. You know this, right? To say T/E are hormones that you inhibit your ability to be a soldier is to also say that all males and females are incapable of being soldiers.[/QUOTE] You are correct in that everyone has hormones. But what you neglected was that these hormones are in a balanced state within the body, and that messing with those levels can REALLY mess with the body and mind. I suggest you look up the effects of hormone imbalance.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. /useless philosophical contribution
Everyone making the argument that this ban comes down to practical military matters should keep in mind that last month the Secretary of defense, on the requests of the joint chiefs of staff, pushed back the deadline on transgender troops by 6 months. This isn't coming from a military readiness perspective. This is coming straight from the white house, with evidence so far pointing towards it being a purely political maneuver.
I bet Trumps glad he's started an international shitstorm in the name of saving a couple million dollars. [editline]27th July 2017[/editline] [media]https://twitter.com/RAdmAlexBurton/status/890255337533702145[/media] Its official British Navy says get your hands off my trans
Don't know if it was posted yet, but the Not Failing New York Times has an [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/trump-transgender-military.html"]article[/URL] about the background leading up to the tweets that I hadn't seen before [QUOTE]The announcement came amid the debate on Capitol Hill over the Obama-era practice of requiring the Pentagon to pay for medical treatment related to gender transition. Representative Vicky Hartzler, Republican of Missouri, has proposed an amendment to the spending bill that would bar the Pentagon from spending money on transition surgery or related hormone therapy, and other Republicans have pressed for similar provisions. Mr. Mattis had worked behind the scenes to keep such language out of legislation, quietly lobbying Republican lawmakers not to attach the prohibitions, according to congressional and defense officials. [B]But Mr. Trump was concerned that the transgender medical care issue could imperil the security spending measure, which also contains $1.6 billion for the border wall that he has championed[/B], and wanted to resolve the dispute cleanly and straightforwardly, according to a person familiar with his thinking, who insisted on anonymity to describe it. That prompted his ban. Republican congressional leaders were aware Mr. Trump was looking into whether taxpayer money should be spent on medical procedures for transgender service members, but had not expected him to go so far as to bar transgender people from serving altogether. [B]Mr. Trump and Republican lawmakers had come under pressure from Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian conservative group, and an ally of Mr. Trump’s. Mr. Perkins opposed the bill over spending on transgender medical costs and lobbied lawmakers to do the same. [/B] “Grant repentance to President Trump and Secretary Mattis for even considering to keep this wicked policy in place,” the Family Research Council said in one of its daily prayers last week. “Grant them understanding, courage and willpower to stand up to the forces of darkness that gave birth to it and wholly to repeal it.” Opponents of allowing openly transgender service members had raised a number of concerns, including what they said was the questionable psychological fitness of those troops. They said the military was being used for social experimentation at the expense of national security. “This was Ash Carter on his way out the door pulling the pin on a cultural grenade,” Mr. Perkins said on Wednesday. [B]“Our military leaders are saying this doesn’t help make us a better fighting force; it’s a distraction; it’s taking up limited resources.”[/B] Mr. Carter objected to the decision, for its effect on the military and on those considering joining. “To choose service members on other grounds than military qualifications is social policy and has no place in our military,” he said in a statement. “There are already transgender individuals who are serving capably and honorably. This action would also send the wrong signal to a younger generation thinking about military service.”[/QUOTE] I think it's indisputable that this was purely about politics and has absolutely nothing to do with military readiness. You have anonymous White House sources, Republicans and conservative lobbyists, and one of Trump's biggest campaign promises coming under threat. Combine these with the fact that he didn't talk at all with the Pentagon and gave the Sec Def all of 12 hours notice and it becomes even more laughable.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52513371]I just can't take sources like that seriously anymore Otherwise, solid article. [editline]27th July 2017[/editline] Excuse me, "sources"[/QUOTE] Anonymous sources regarding Trump have been proven time after time, why wouldn't you take them seriously? [editline]27th July 2017[/editline] Given the atmosphere in the White House you'd be absolutely [I]insane [/I]not to ask for anonymity when talking about the processes leading up to one of Trumps decisions.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52513371]I just can't take sources like that seriously anymore Otherwise, solid article. [editline]27th July 2017[/editline] Excuse me, "sources"[/QUOTE] Here comes the usual " I don't understand how journalism works" meme. It's right there with "this poll didn't ask 100% of the population therefore it's flawed" in terms of idiocy and relentlessness.
[URL="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/27/trump-transgender-military-ban-no-modification-241029?lo=ap_a1"]Another reason Trump's ban is bullshit; [I]it hasn't even become formal policy, it was just tweeted out.[/I][/URL] [QUOTE]There will be “no modifications” to the military’s transgender policy as a result of President Donald Trump’s declared ban on transgender men and women on Twitter, the chairman of the joint chiefs said in a message to top military officers on Thursday — the latest sign of the disarray following the commander in chief's abrupt announcement. Marine Gen. Joe Dunford also wrote in the message, which was sent to the chiefs of the military branches and senior enlisted leaders, that the military will continue to “treat all of our personnel with respect.” “I know there are questions about yesterday's announcement on the transgender policy by the President,” Dunford wrote in the internal communication, a copy of which was provided to POLITICO. “There will be no modifications to the current policy until the President's direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidance.” “In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect. As importantly, given the current fight and the challenges we face, we will all remain focused on accomplishing our assigned missions,” he continued.[/QUOTE] Announcing policy on social media is absolutely ridiculous and not what any politician should do, particularly if you're the President of the United States and responsible for millions of people. If Trump's staffers need to control his twitter usage 24/7, so be it - things like this shouldn't be allowed to happen.
[QUOTE=Lunakrypt;52512511]You are correct in that everyone has hormones. But what you neglected was that these hormones are in a balanced state within the body, and that messing with those levels can REALLY mess with the body and mind. I suggest you look up the effects of hormone imbalance.[/QUOTE] And it's ridiculous to apply an excessive standard whereby transgendered soldiers are subject to scrutiny/banned on those grounds whereas no other soldier is having their hormonal balance questioned. If you admit hormonal imbalance is such a serious issue that is common enough to worry about, why are transgender and only transgender soldiers being banned for it? They are not the only ones at risk of unbalanced hormones and if that's really the issue we can assess the facts and investigate whether it's actually a unique and worrying problem and grounds to exclude transgender people. But really that's not the issue is it, and if it isn't then what is? If your answer isn't that undue prejudice and discrimination is laid on transgender people than you are ignoring the facts and deluding yourself.
[QUOTE=Lunakrypt;52512511]You are correct in that everyone has hormones. But what you neglected was that these hormones are in a balanced state within the body, and that messing with those levels can REALLY mess with the body and mind. I suggest you look up the effects of hormone imbalance.[/QUOTE] Without the appropriate sex hormone, transgender will have severe hormonal imbalance. If you followed your own advice, you would have found this out.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52513838][URL="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/27/trump-transgender-military-ban-no-modification-241029?lo=ap_a1"]Another reason Trump's ban is bullshit; [I]it hasn't even become formal policy, it was just tweeted out.[/I][/URL] Announcing policy on social media is absolutely ridiculous and not what any politician should do, particularly if you're the President of the United States and responsible for millions of people. If Trump's staffers need to control his twitter usage 24/7, so be it - things like this shouldn't be allowed to happen.[/QUOTE] DoD had no clue apparently, they at first thought they bombed north korea, if buzzfeed is to be believed [QUOTE]At the Pentagon, the first of the three tweets raised fears that the president was getting ready to announce strikes on North Korea or some other military action. Many said they were left in suspense for nine minutes, the time between the first and second tweet. Only after the second tweet did military officials receive the news the president was announcing a personnel change on Twitter.[/QUOTE]
So unfortunate that 1% of the US population that the majority of lives in Boston and San francisco (probably the most anti-military cities out there in general) can't enlist or serve for this country only to come home to the welcoming arms and lulling comfort of the VA. Whenever these transgender threads pop up everyone makes this out as a bigger deal than it already is and each time I call it out for being token outrage for a token problem. Sure its discrimination I won't argue that, but it applies to so few people and even then many of those people have some sort of depression or other illness that would already prevent them from serving. This decision doesn't matter in the slightest regardless of if it's enforced or not.
[QUOTE=Shirt.;52521473]Sure its discrimination I won't argue that, but it applies to so few people and even then many of those people have some sort of depression or other illness that would already prevent them from serving. This decision doesn't matter in the slightest regardless of if it's enforced or not.[/QUOTE] So what you're saying is that since it only affects a small chunk of people it doesn't matter if we discriminate against them? Amount of people affected doesn't matter. Discrimination is discrimination, period. And discrimination is wrong.
[QUOTE=Shirt.;52521473]So unfortunate that 1% of the US population that the majority of lives in Boston and San francisco (probably the most anti-military cities out there in general) can't enlist or serve for this country only to come home to the welcoming arms and lulling comfort of the VA. Whenever these transgender threads pop up everyone makes this out as a bigger deal than it already is and each time I call it out for being token outrage for a token problem. Sure its discrimination I won't argue that, but it applies to so few people and even then many of those people have some sort of depression or other illness that would already prevent them from serving. This decision doesn't matter in the slightest regardless of if it's enforced or not.[/QUOTE] So discrimination is fine so long as it doesn't effect "enough" people? Is it cool if I steal some of your money? It's okay I will only nick what I deem to be an insignificant amount.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;52521487]So what you're saying is that since it only affects a small chunk of people it doesn't matter if we discriminate against them? Amount of people affected doesn't matter. Discrimination is discrimination, period. And discrimination is wrong.[/QUOTE] I think you need to go to a job interview, get an insurance quote or apply for a bank loan before making broad statements like that. Morals have no place in the world of politics Im afraid. You should read up on machiavellis prince.
[QUOTE=Shirt.;52521574]I think you need to go to a job interview, get an insurance quote or apply for a bank loan before making broad statements like that. Morals have no place in the world of politics Im afraid. You should read up on machiavellis prince.[/QUOTE] I don't give two shits what has a place in the world of politics or not. Discrimination is wrong, end of story. And I will not support discrimination. Especially with retarded logic like it only affecting a small portion of the populace. That's just justifying your own apathy and it's pretty disgusting.
[QUOTE=Shirt.;52521574]I think you need to go to a job interview, get an insurance quote or apply for a bank loan before making broad statements like that. Morals have no place in the world of politics Im afraid. You should read up on machiavellis prince.[/QUOTE] Sorry but if you think that sex discrimination is acceptable you're fundamentally against the literal first rule of American politics so I'm not sure you should be acting so condescending
[QUOTE=Shirt.;52521574]I think you need to go to a job interview, get an insurance quote or apply for a bank loan before making broad statements like that. Morals have no place in the world of politics Im afraid. You should read up on machiavellis prince.[/QUOTE] I have not laughed so hard at something in a while, thank you. You have know about a Machiavellian approach? Then you would understand how stupid passing decriminatory feel good non binding decree (that alienate you further from military command chain despite being head of military!) is. And if you were emphatic human being, you would understand pain and frustration being told when attempt or while serving your country that you cannot by a detached lunatic just so he can build his 'big beautiful wall'. Nobody need some background or life experiences to say no population, small or not, should not be discriminated, because people can use empathy and US has laws that specifically require it after so many years or massive social issue, unrest, suffering, and exploitation because of it.
[QUOTE=Shirt.;52521574]I think you need to go to a job interview, get an insurance quote or apply for a bank loan before making broad statements like that. Morals have no place in the world of politics Im afraid. You should read up on machiavellis prince.[/QUOTE] Spoken like someone who's never faced a single problem in their entire life.
[QUOTE=Shirt.;52521574]I think you need to go to a job interview, get an insurance quote or apply for a bank loan before making broad statements like that. Morals have no place in the world of politics Im afraid. You should read up on machiavellis prince.[/QUOTE] The heck does this even mean? Discrimination based on gender, race, sexual identity, religious preference, etc is [I]already illegal[/I] in most of these fields. For example, if I discriminated against a client, as a realtor, for any of the above, I would lose my license and face massive fines. If one of my lending partners did so, they'd face the same thing. Ditto our insurance partners. Discrimination is [I]not[/I] tolerated in most professional fields, and anti-discriminatory policy is enforced by federal law in many cases.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.