Trans Folks In The Military- I Need Help Countering Arguments- And Fast

[Nava]

@Slash1972

That’s cool with me, but I doubt you’d be so open to the “opinion of medical professionals” if that opinion ended up being “Not fit for military duty”

And if the opinion is “if current definitions did not include ‘in the male, lack of a penis’ as ‘major dismemberment, unfit for duty’ I would be honored to consider this particular candidate ‘fit for duty’”? I’m translating from memory but that was said by the head medical examiner, in the case of the first FtM candidate to the Spanish military. He also pointed out that the list was in need of a good general review. The Spanish military currently accepts transgender soldiers.
Military medical examiners don’t just give their opinions: they examine candidates in view of very specific requirements. The doctor is supposed to consider the requirements regardless of their own personal opinions on the subject.

[Slash1972]

@Nava

Military medical examiners don’t just give their opinions: they examine candidates in view of very specific requirements. The doctor is supposed to consider the requirements regardless of their own personal opinions on the subject.

If that is the case, then it isn’t really a “medical” decision. It’s a policy decision. A doctor can give a diagnosis, and then somebody else can determine if that diagnosis precludes someone from enlisting.

[steronz]

@Slash1972

If that is the case, then it isn’t really a “medical” decision. It’s a policy decision. A doctor can give a diagnosis, and then somebody else can determine if that diagnosis precludes someone from enlisting.

Sort of. The policies in this case are based on mission requirements – applicants need to be able to lift X pounds over their head, applicants should be able to march X miles and pass a standard physical fitness test. New applicants shouldn’t have medical needs that would be challenging to meet in all reasonable locations. These requirements are based on career fields – it’s why my colleague is still able to serve despite having a part of his leg bone removed, he is and always has been a desk jockey.

So the “medical decision” would be determining if the diagnosis precludes an applicant from satisfying those requirements. The “policy decision” is setting those requirements for each career field. The policies are not based on specific diseases or disorders.

[DrDeth]

@Nava

No (either for them or for the harassers), but I do object to the assumption that they will be harassed. I find that assumption insulting to those members of the military who would not, do not, harass others.

I didnt say they would, but you have to admit they might.

[DocCathode]

Either he hasn’t received notification of my replies, he’s having a personal crisis, or (and I find this to be the likely one) he can’t come up with a good rebuttal and has walked away.

In any event, thanks again.

Also, trans man loses ROTC scholarship Transgender cadet loses scholarship over military ban

I hadn’t thought of this before. It is, IMHO a damn shame.

[DrDeth]

@Gyrate

Why would I object to that? Why would you think I would object to that?

Because you replied to my post suggesting counseling with
Posted by Gyrate
Which is one of the big reasons previously put forth against integrating black soldiers into regular units and allowing women and homosexuals to serve. And while there have been many who have been hostile to the change, overall it’s been to the benefit to the military and the haters diminish once the new status quo is in place.

Which indicates disagreement.

[Ronald_Raygun]

@Bear_Nenno

Because of the level of medical treatment, care, counseling and monitoring required. The actual amount of treatment required would be unique to each individual, as some people may not desire any surgery or hormone therapy at all. Others might wish to receive several surgeries to go along with their reassignment. A study conducted when Pres. Obama first proposed the idea found that the average soldier would require 238 days of treatment and recovery. Soldiers requiring surgery or recovering from surgery are routinely placed in a nondeployable status. The same goes for soldiers undergoing mental health evaluations/counseling or taking certain prescription drugs. Any or all of these situations would likely apply to a transitioning soldier. I’m not claiming that they have mental health issues, but part of the transition process requires evaluation by a mental health provider who must declare the soldiers is “stable” in his/her new gender. This type of care is not available while deployed. So, even a soldier who doesn’t want any treatment at all would be nondeployable for at least a brief period. The goal at the time was to have the soldier, commander, and medical provider all sit down and figure out the best time for the soldier to take care of everything so as to not interfere with training and mission readiness. All of this is a moot point at the moment, of course, because current policy outright precludes gender reassignment.

I suppose I’m not understanding what “deployable” specifically means, as I’ve never been in the military, but there does seem to be some confusion about what “transition” means. I know a couple of trans women who are 10 years in, and they’re currently working out the logistics for bottom surgery. Are they still in the process of transition?

Yes, if you’re a trans woman who needs weekly electrolysis sessions, that’s a problem. A soldier who decides to socially transition and perhaps take hormone therapy, while postponing any desired medical procedures, shouldn’t be an issue. But you mention that taking prescription medication can make a soldier non-deployable. Hormone therapy is typically a life-long treatment.

[steronz]

@Ronald_Raygun

I suppose I’m not understanding what “deployable” specifically means, as I’ve never been in the military, but there does seem to be some confusion about what “transition” means. I know a couple of trans women who are 10 years in, and they’re currently working out the logistics for bottom surgery. Are they still in the process of transition?

Again, the “transition” is defined by doctors and is based on a specific diagnosis. They will come up with a transition plan, after which the transition/treatment will be medically deamed as complete. Ongoing hormone requirements wouldn’t be considered as part of the transition plan.

This is an area where the military policy differed from the civilin world. You couldn’t decide to transition on your own, and you couldn’t spend 10 years sorting it out (unless your doctors decided it would take 10 years, but then you’d have been medically discharged in all likelihood).

[Hari_Seldon]

@Slash1972

Please don’t use this as any sort of argument.

Why not? It is a perfectly cogent argument.

The only purpose of the policy is to appeal to the base. The deplorables.

[Slash1972]

@Hari_Seldon

Why not? It is a perfectly cogent argument.

The only purpose of the policy is to appeal to the base. The deplorables.

No, it is not. There are other, stronger arguments, the least of which is “Because trans folks are human beings who deserve a chance to serve their country”

Using “National Security” as an argument goes nowhere, because nobody can show that it harms National Security.

[iiandyiiii]

@Slash1972

No, it is not. There are other, stronger arguments, the least of which is “Because trans folks are human beings who deserve a chance to serve their country”

Using “National Security” as an argument goes nowhere, because nobody can show that it harms National Security.

It’s just an opinion argument that you don’t like. I’m in favor of all potential arguments… And I have personal experience with someone who was partially swayed by the national security (specifically, recruiting) argument. So I don’t plan to stop making it just because you don’t like it.

[tim314]

@electronbee

So… this is a tough one. And, as someone with actual military experience, I’ll do my best to provide some accurate information.

When one is forward deployed, things can become scarce. The military has an incredible amount of logistics to make the day-to-day happen but real-life comes into play more often than not. I’ve had packages get redirected to Alaska when I was in the ME, things just go missing never to arrive, empty packages, stolen packages, you name it. These packages were both things I ordered for personal use as well as for repair parts and other supplies.

I can only imagine this problem can become even more profound if one is, and forgive me as I was in the Navy and not Army, at an “outpost” as I have seen some documentaries. These very forward positions do not get replenished very often and seem to be so as an as-need basis by air drops, or the eventual scheduled supply convoy.

Now… where that all matters is that if you join the military, the expectation is that you “will” serve your duty where they put you. This can be a rather cut-and-dry process that all members of the military experience when they get their first set of orders out of boot camp or initial training. You might have put down Hawaii, California, Oregon but if they need you in Afghanistan at some super-forward outpost, that is where the fuck you are going. Period. Whine and moan all you want, prep for Afghanistan, roll out.

If you are trans-gender, and are not taking hormone therapy or did not have surgery I don’t see any of this as an issue. Your day-to-day requirements will be like any other individual. If you require medication, that could be problematic as your supply drop might get destroyed, etc. You might think: “Just send another!” Maybe, but you assume they stockpiled another shipment. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. Maybe the ship that was en route that logistics determined would carry that shipment got diverted to a more pressing issue. Maybe the contract for the meds got delayed or the supplier didn’t have them on hand. Basically, imagine anything can go wrong and will in regards to you getting your meds.

I can’t imagine hormone therapy is like taking aspirin or something. Whatever poor soul misses their supply has got to end up out of sorts after that, plus, the intake of the meds when they arrive and readjusting again, ugh. That would have to suck.

And, that is why those who have diabetes may not get forward deployed. True story too. Knew an IT1 who wanted to go to Bahrain, touched down, came back three weeks later as he was a diabetic. Yup.

Any ways, IMO, it wouldn’t be fair to not be available to serve in whatever place you need to be for whatever reason. That means someone(s) have to serve longer or twice to compensate. It sucks when you had planned to leave at a certain time, made plans for rotating back home, only to be extended three months due to no replacement. Blows. It really does.

TL:DR: Trans with no meds, no problem. Trans with meds, problem.

To me it seems the straightforward answer is: Make the requirement be the requirement – don’t make the person’s identity be the requirement.

For example, if a requirement for military service is “you need to not be dependent on any medicine you can’t get while deployed to Afghanistan (or wherever)”, then make that the requirement, for everyone. Don’t make a special “no transgender people allowed” rule.

It was the same with the debates over women in combat positions… People would say things like “Women don’t have enough upper body strength.” Whereas I say, if a particular combat role requires you to, say, be able to run across a field while carrying 50 pounds, then make “must demonstrate the ability to run while carrying 50 pounds” be the requirement for everyone. Don’t make a “no women allowed” rule that ignores whether they actually meet the physical requirements or not.

[Gyrate]

@DrDeth

Because you replied to my post suggesting counseling with
Posted by Gyrate
Which is one of the big reasons previously put forth against integrating black soldiers into regular units and allowing women and homosexuals to serve. And while there have been many who have been hostile to the change, overall it’s been to the benefit to the military and the haters diminish once the new status quo is in place.

Which indicates disagreement.

Except that:

1. I specifically didn’t quote the line about counselling so I specifically wasn’t responding to what appeared to an afterthought in your post to begin with; and

2. Nothing in what I wrote disagrees with the section of your post I quoted.

[Nava]

@DrDeth

This is the only sane argument for keeping transgendered people out of the military- they will get harrassed, it will be hostile.

That being said, people join the military every day knowing they could die, so perhaps just some additional counseling is the solution.

@Nava

…I do object to the assumption that they will be harassed. I find that assumption insulting to those members of the military who would not, do not, harass others.

@DrDeth

I didnt say they would, but you have to admit they might.

Underline mine in substitution of your very own original italics. Is your name Donald J. Trump?

[Slash1972]

@iiandyiiii

It’s just an opinion argument that you don’t like. I’m in favor of all potential arguments… And I have personal experience with someone who was partially swayed by the national security (specifically, recruiting) argument. So I don’t plan to stop making it just because you don’t like it.

My “liking” it is irrelevant.

[iiandyiiii]

@Slash1972

My “liking” it is irrelevant.

I agree! I’m going to continue using arguments that I’ve found to be effective with folks in the past, and encourage others to make all sorts of arguments that they think might be effective when pushing for just issues, even if I don’t personally find it to be a great argument.

[Slash1972]

@iiandyiiii

I agree! I’m going to continue using arguments that I’ve found to be effective with folks in the past, and encourage others to make all sorts of arguments that they think might be effective when pushing for just issues, even if I don’t personally find it to be a great argument.

Wait, your thoughts on your own arguments are not swayed by an anonymous message board poster? How are you living your life?

[Ronald_Raygun]

@tim314

To me it seems the straightforward answer is: Make the requirement be the requirement – don’t make the person’s identity be the requirement.

For example, if a requirement for military service is “you need to not be dependent on any medicine you can’t get while deployed to Afghanistan (or wherever)”, then make that the requirement, for everyone. Don’t make a special “no transgender people allowed” rule.

It was the same with the debates over women in combat positions… People would say things like “Women don’t have enough upper body strength.” Whereas I say, if a particular combat role requires you to, say, be able to run across a field while carrying 50 pounds, then make “must demonstrate the ability to run while carrying 50 pounds” be the requirement for everyone. Don’t make a “no women allowed” rule that ignores whether they actually meet the physical requirements or not.

Honestly, this is an argument I’m perfectly fine with.