Viagra for PTSD?
It’s primarily in this thread one person trying to use a statement by one other person as a “wedge” in the discussion. failing to address pretty much all other aspects of the discussion. It’s a common tactic back when I started debating online in the 1990’s, and it’s just as transparent now as it was then.
The article does note that most of the Rxs go to older/retired members.
And most major medical bodies in Western medicine disagree with the opinion of a single person on the internet.
Well, I am having difficulty thinking of any medical condition that could be corrected by gender reassignment surgery. But then, I am not a doctor.
Precisely.
I’m admittedly taking a wild guess here, but I suppose, just maybe, it could be:
I would imagine that being trapped in the wrong body/hiding your identity produces mental stress. And mental stress is known to produce physical symptoms.
See, being a doctor not needed.
:smack:
Sometimes it’s just amazing what people post on here…
I don’t agree with Trump’s ban, and feel the military should decide on this. But shouldn’t that decision be based on the fact you just mentioned? Does the military normally accept recruits who need surgery in order to be battle ready?
Current DoD policy only applies to people currently serving, so this isn’t an issue yet.
Given that transgender medical treatment has been utterly disallowed until virtually the last 6-9 months (and that mostly limited to hormones, which as I’ve posted before are a pretty trivial cost), it’s safe to say that every one of the estimated tens of thousands of transgender persons who enlisted and served in the military over the decades were not joining to game the system for free surgery.
My good close personal friend was the highest-ranking out transgender military officer in the world during her last year before retirement, and knew she was transgender as far back as high school (fun fact, we went to high school together; she was in the year before me. Must be something in the water, huh). She enlisted as a transgender woman in stealth. Yet somehow she became a highly decorated combat veteran officer who led troops into battle many times, and received her commission papers (but no posting) to Generalship before retiring after 30 years of service.
Then there are my friends who served in the Navy, Air Force, Army, Marines, all of whom knew they were transgender before enlistment. All of whom were honorably discharged. Three of my personal friends I see regularly are combat veterans multiple times over.
They didn’t need surgery to be “battle ready” but they certainly all did suffer from not having it. Well, I’ll wager a lot of folks aren’t exactly 100% USDA-Prime when they enter the military. The military doesn’t require perfect physical specimens of humanity, they look for what impacts real service readiness. And then there are the folks who didn’t finally come to grips with their gender identity until they were in the service.
Our President, a billionaire playboy vulgarian man-baby, and his supporters, typically chickenhawk laypeople with no Q&E of merit, are expressing “concern” over what they think equates to battle readiness. When there doesn’t seem to be a plethora of fact (or really, any) demonstrating any systemic problem of battle readiness of transgender troops.
Has anyone found out yet if Trump simply believes that Transgender people are really Gays trying to game the system? After all, the Supreme Court already settled the issue of same-sex marriage, so Trump cannot lash out at gay service members. Maybe this is his way of gaming the system in his own pathetic mind.
So to be fair then, the military should admit anyone with a correctable or manageable health problem that would normally be disqualifying, such as obesity, high blood pressure, poor eyesight(that’s correctable through laser surgery), those who need hip and knee replacements, etc.
Obesity and high blood pressure are not easily manageable. Hip and knee replacements require special care that would invalidate any situation where having a bad hip or knee would be a problem. Poor eyesight, I could see an argument for.
But this doesn’t reflect the problem here. There is no reason that a trans person necessarily needs surgery. Even if you say that those who want surgery have to use outside sources for funding, that’s not saying that trans folk should not be allowed to serve.
As we’ve said all upthread–what matters is if they can do the job. If their gender dysphoria is so much that they need surgery to function as a person, you can argue they can’t currently do the job, and need to get their healthcare needs sorted out first.
That said, there is the argument that healthcare in this country is so messed up that we need the military to take up the slack. Maybe a trans person can’t actually get the treatment they need, which then means that the plan of letting them sort it out before joining isn’t viable. And, unlike the eye sight issue, it could actually be fatal.
The military has a whole lot of extra money, so maybe they should be looking into dealing with issues like this.
But, at the very least, any plan of “trans people not allowed” is both morally wrong and harmful.
Well, anxiety issues can cause problems with being able to be aroused. I mean, for men at least, it seems that arousal and anxiety are inversely proportional. And we assumed for a long time that this was also true of women, but studies have suggested otherwise.
So I don’t know if it causes it, but it makes a ton of sense.
Though there’s also just the possibility that the drugs are used in conjunction with the many antianxiety drugs that can cause ED. It could just be side effect management.
I recall that. I did not accept that apology then- I cited my impression of a dimly recalled Native American language quirk in which there was no word for “sorry”. Effectively, no takebacks. I thought then and I still think now that mature citizens really ought to be “voter ready” come election day. It is no secret or surprise, so everybody ought to be prepared to vote at the time, no excuses. The failure of so many interested citizens to follow through on this has resulted in president Trump, who really can’t be “taken back” without extraordinary effort. So what’s the use of sorry?
Do people need brain surgery or something before they can be arsed to vote? I do see how this is inconsistent with the misguided scolding I gave iiiandyiii earlier. I just cannot write very well anymore, apparently.
Last night (Korea time), I saw Anderson Cooper (I think it was) being a real jerk about this issue. He kept pretending that those who pointed out the military medical authorities prescribe ED drugs were trying to say the military should not. That’s not the case at all. What those people are doing is pointing out that for males with a particular condition, a condition that is tied to sexual function, the military assists them. Now Trump is being a jerk–no surprise there–and targeting another group of people, and [Gomer Pyle Voice]Surprise! Surprise! Surprise![/GPV] that happens to be a group of people Trump base isn’t exactly friendly to, let alone understanding of.
Here’s another thing that’s jut occurred to me. This thread is rapidly heading down the road where actual military (active/retired/former) has no problem with serving with TG, Gays, Lesbians, Gays, etc. All we care about is “Can they perform the mission?”
And for those who say the military is not a place to perform social experiments: You do not know US history, then. Truman issued Executive Order #9981, which is definitely a social experiment, one we are still practicing. And that’s because it was the right thing to do.
ETA: I seem to recall reading somewhere that not all people with gender dysphoria are viable candidates for gender reassignment surgery. That’s still not a reason to treat someone badly.
Surgery is not required. A soldier, under the current pending rules (prior to Trump’s Tweet) can fully transition from one sex to the other without having surgery. Surgery itself is a personal choice between the individual and their doctor. For some, it is not something they even want. They simply want to be able to live and be accepted as the gender they are–mentally and neuro-chemically–as opposed to the physical, external sex traits and characteristics they were born with.
As for the arguments about the financial burdens of superfluous elective surgery? Where have all of these protests been over the past years and years of the military providing breast augmentations for military personnel and their dependents!? It’s been okay for years for the Army to pass out bigger tits to eager females (much to the joy of the men in their lives, I’m sure). But now all of a sudden a seemingly elective surgery is preposterous?
It’s clear that as long as the government is spending millions of dollars getting dicks hard and making tits bigger, everyone is okay with it. But the minute you try to treat someone with a serious psychological/physiological condition, everyone loses their shit.
If they’re already soldiers, then they’re presumably already qualified to serve in the military. The real issue, I think, is that the federal government entices recruits with a variety of benefits as part of their compensation in exchange for service to the country. Many of these benefits include coverage for issues and for procedures or treatments that might not necessarily be vital, but nevertheless improve the physical and psychological health, and hence quality of life, for the individuals who get care. The point that has been made - and I agree - is that if a typical male soldier is going to get covered for ED, why not also treat someone who wants gender reassignment surgery? The only justification for not doing so seems to be on ideological grounds.