What are you even talking about?
I guess I should nominate you for this thread.
Seriously, wut? 
No, I’m sure you know what you are talking about. But the problem is none of *us *know what you are talking about.
Would you rather have an open and honest person to have your back, or one that was lying to you?
The point is pretty simply. Some of your fellow soldiers are being screwed. You can choose to stand by them, or you can choose to sit on the sidelines and fire off baseless “concerns” over their fitness to serve. You chose the later. Okay, that’s your choice to make. Just own it, and don’t try to paint the people who are supporting all our troops as disloyal or disrespectful to the military.
I’m guessing the subject is “beer.”
Or, the Festivus Airing of Grievances has come early this year.
No.
Can’t your employer access your medical records if they pay for at least part of your insurance? If they can, being on a cocktail of hormones would be one way for them to identify folks.
I don’t think so. HHS web site says:
(bolding mine)
Though I admit I don’t know what those “other laws” might be.
Can’t hit fog.
Yes, the laws helped quite a bit, and saying otherwise is lying.
Hey, the people with those beliefs can suck it up and act like members of an armed service, as opposed to people in a social club. That is what we’re running, right? An armed service? I mean, I know it’s a fully-socialized welfare force, marching on the dole, but we at least try to keep it combat-ready, don’t we? So who cares what the grunts think about trans people in the ranks? Are we going to politely ask their opinion of the colors of the barracks next? Are we going to politely request their considered essays on the merits of PT and uniform regulations?
When did anyone start caring what people in the ranks, living on government funds and government food, thought of anything? If they want to have opinions, they can go out and make their own way in the world, and earn something.
Yes, the whiners get you killed, I’m sure. Therefore, anyone who whines about serving next to a trans person can report to the disciplinary barracks. Hey, nobody said life was fair.
And I have twice that as ARM, and even more as MIPS. I’ve been embedded in lots of places.
US military component commanders (the job title, not the Naval rank) have the legal right to get medical information about servicemembers under their command. It’s not something that is done on a whim, since the request requires justification and a legal review, but it can be done.
When I was contemplating enlisting (a couple of decades ago), I was told that I needed to get my allergy shots down to once a month or less, so as not to strain the logistics if i should be deployed at the end of a thousand-mile-long supply line.
When people are on hormone treatments, how often do they need to get the treatments?
It’s not an issue of military readiness, high end estimates of the number of transgender people in the US military, active and reserve, are about 15,000- out of a total headcount of about 2 million (.0075%). Their health expenses would make up about .1% of the armed services health care expenses. All of that amounts to a rounding error.
I don’t have any issue with someone who had previous reassignment surgery joining the military. It does seem wrong, though, to offer joining the military as a means of getting reassignment surgery that one may not be able to afford on their own. It wouldn’t seem to benefit the military in any way (while other “elective” surgeries like vision correction may) and it wouldn’t be possible in a private sector job without substantial amounts of out-of-pocket expense and earned or unpaid time off. Perhaps a policy of X years of service before becoming eligible would work.
Huh?
Are we stooping to the extreme Muslim argument?
“Men can’t be expected to control their lust, therefore…” ? :dubious:
It seems to me it would be easier* to require men to learn/practice self-control.
Hell, we’ve established ‘rules of war’ that prohibit raping enemy forces and their civilians; we would find rape-of-colleagues to be acceptable somehow? :eek:
I thought Tailhook and other similar scandals suggested otherwise.
–G!
*Saul/Paul failed to take that tactic.
Not all transgender persons pursue surgery. Some of us are happy with just fitting into our new gender role in society (called “non Op’s”).
Some transgender persons may not be certain about surgery, or scared of the physical risks.
Some transgender persons may not ever have been able to afford the surgery. This is the most common reason for not having it.
So you would ban all these folks - those who are already happy, those who fear surgery, and those who are poor.
So I guess you should propose the same thing for service people using college incentives. And let’s not pursue the argument that college gives a clear benefit to the military, because I’ve known people who got liberal arts degrees that could not possibly help their military career.
Note that Trump gave no exceptions in his Tweet tantrum - ALL transgender persons are to be denied in any capacity, he wrote. Yet despite the issue obviously being more than just one part, everyone runs to the genitals.
From what I read it seems that the main concern of the Republicans was not paying for surgery and medication. However, Trump took this to the extreme. As was pointed out above, not everyone has gender reassignment surgery. Much as I dislike the Republican agenda, I don’t think a total ban was part of it.
That was exactly iiandiiii’s argument, that banning trangendered people from serving because “the cismales won’t be able to stop themselves from raping them!” is as stupid as using the same argument to ban women from serving. That argument was exactly what he was replying to.
Wow, Una it took some fancy word twisting to read that into my post. I was speaking specifically about transgender surgery because it is the cost of that surgery that appears to be the biggest objection by detractors. How you made the leap to me supporting the ban for non-surgical trans people is beyond me. For the record, I have no issue with transgender persons, surgically changed or not, in the military.
And yes, college incentives are based on time in service, among other things. I see no reason that elective medical procedures and time off for such should be any different. How long one should commit to military service before receiving benefits for elective surgery is the only thing that I am suggesting is debatable.
And for the record, I am not running to the genitals of anyone outside of my own spouse. :rolleyes:
I doubt the cost is the real objection.
Medical costs, morale, living/bathroom/bunking costs. Until we can afford it, we shouldn’t do it.
What living/bathroom/bunking costs? Transgendered people don’t need any kind of specific accomodations for those.