One other factor that others did not mention is that to some degree, the military ought to be making decisions not just on what is best for the armed forces, but also out of concern for those seeking to join.
Let’s take a person with some orthopedic problem. There are obvious reasons why such a person would not be suited to military service. But I think it is also fairly important to recognize that this person probably is going to have their health deteriorate because of the physical demands of many military jobs. Literally nobody is suggesting we throw the doors open to everyone, of course.
But the eyesight issue is an interesting case. Nobody has to have 20/20 vision when they join the armed forces. If it is within reasonable limits, they can wear glasses. And even someone who becomes a pilot at a young age, and who has excellent eyesight, may be eligible for corrective surgery as they age. Which is common sense really: after you invest a lot of money to make a pilot, why not provide a medical procedure that will allow you to maximize that investment?
So if a transgendered person joins the military, and does a good job, and some years later seeks surgery, I’m not particularly bothered by that. I don’t know if there’s a policy that if you get lasik/gender reassignment/whatever similar medical procedures there may be, then one is obligated to continue service for some period of time to recoup the government’s investment in you, but on first blush, that seems like a reasonable thing. As in, “You could have been eligible for a $25 grand reenlistment bonus, but you chose to get breast enhancement. Glad to have you around for another few years!”
How is it pointless when it was mentioned in the very first post of this thread when it was originally in Great Debates?
Is there some sort of debate on whether or not the ban is bad? Of course the ban is bad. What is the debate? You just want people to come into the thread just to agree that the ban is bad? What’s the point of that?
If your point is “Doesn’t matter if it harms National Security or not, the ban is bad”, then I think that is worthy of discussion, especially since the very first post called the ban harmful to National Security.
Now, if you just want to rant and complain about the ban, feel free. Not sure why you would seek to limit the discussion of other surrounding topics.
Fine. I offer the same proof that **iiandyiiii **offered when he made the statement that losing a few thousand members of the military would harm (not impact) national security.
Of course it does, or else we would eliminate that 11% to save money. If the ban would result in a loss of 11% of our military personnel, then of course that would harm National Security as well. Losing .5%? Not so much.
So if the President, just on a whim, decided to rid the military of red-headed male soldiers, or soldiers that weigh between 189 and 192 lbs., or soldiers that are orphans you would have no problems with such a decision?
Jesus Christ, does anyone know how to read or comprehend a simple statement? Where, EVER, have I said I would have “No Problems” with it? Where have I said I have “No problems” with the ban? I’ve actively, plainly, and repeatedly said the ban is immoral, stupid, cruel, and bigoted. I simply disagree that “It’s harmful to National Security” is one of the numerous reasons that the ban is bad.
There is a lot of other treatments before, beside and after SRA. If someone needs to have medical care because of some treatment they paid for themselves, would you expect it to be covered? Would your response change depending on what the surgery was? The same technique used to reduce breasts in FtM is used to reduce them in cis-women who want smaller boobs for whatever reason, or in people of any gender who have had breast cancer, or in cis-women who want to avoid breast cancer and have a family history of it (talk about radical); it’s considered routine in any country with a decent medical system.
Swedish doesn’t have a word which corresponds exactly to “sorry”, yet they manage to convey its multiple meanings in multiple ways. Please, could we all drop the belief that languages must be translatable word-for-word, and that when such a correspondence does not exist it means the concept does not?
You get all worked up over shit you have no control over. People will respond, they will respond to this idiot in 2020. In the mean time, save yourself all this angst and just accept that Trumnpageddon will fuck just about everything we believe in.
We can’t change this mofo, we’re along for the ride.
Oh, and God bless John McCain. (I said God, now it’s time for your atheist screed)
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, Of course there is no such policy. It’s a medical issue, not a pay issue. So, when I was on active duty in the Army and I had a collapsed lung (really happened, by the way), should I have incurred additional obligated service for receiving treatment? What other medical diagnoses do you suppose should get the "“I don’t understand it so you have to pay the military back somehow” treatment?
At first, second, and all the way to last blush, that does not seem reasonable.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Trump is basically pulling one of those movie villain moves where he goes “Ha ha! You can either stop me, or you can rescue this basket of kittens I’ve just thrown into the river - but you can’t do both!”. This time around it’s transgendered military members who are the kittens, and Trump is hoping the Democrats will be too busy dealing with that to keep hectoring him on Russia.
The standard that you set of something that would harm national security is something that would leave us open to invasion from China.
I contend that we are not going to be invaded by anyone, even if the military were 10% of its current size. So the question is, and never has been, “Does this action lead us open to invasion?”, the question is, “Does this action cause harm and disruption among our military personnel, even if it doesn’t compromise our ability to deter or repel belligerent forces?”
By randomly removing some number of personnel, you are going to leave holes in many units. Some unit is going to lose its radio operator, and while there will be a replacement, that replacement is not going to be up to speed on the more informal protocols that that unit uses and is going to be made less effective by that. Most people in the military, and so most people who would undergo a transition, are in support, not in combat roles. So removing random links from your support chain could leave gaps unfilled and unnoticed until it’s a problem.
Loss of unit cohesion and communications can get soldiers killed. Loss of logistics operations can prevent optimal deployment strategies. Firing the transgendered soldiers isn’t going to make us more invadable, it isn’t going to prevent us from being able to project force to anywhere on the globe. We could fire everyone who isn’t a white christian straight male, and our military is going to be fine as far as being able to perform the functions we wish it to, but, it will not be as effective as it could be, and in the transition, could lead to many problems in finding and filling gaps that very well could be the cause of a mission failure or casualties among our forces.
Is it? Where did you read that? Is it the same place you read that I have “no problem” with the ban? Or the same place where I said I would be “fine” with it?
I’ll quote my own post, so you can have another chance to make up what you think I said:
You can feel free to make up other things that you think I said and then argue against them. However, I think there might be some sort of terminology that describes that action.
If you think the loss of .5% of the military harms National Security in any meaningful way, then good on you. You must shiver under your blankets at night in fear of our National Security hinging on such a low population of the military. Not sure how you sleep at night. You must really be for the defense budget increase then, since you feel such a small loss of personnel would harm National Security. An increased Defense budget could only increase our National Security. Glad you agree with Trump on something.
“After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow…” 8:55AM eastern time, 26 July 2017
“…Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming…” 9:04AM eastern time, 26 July 2017
“…victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you” 9:08AM eastern time
Look at the first tweet. Look at the elapsed time between subsequent tweets.
Now go back and look at the first tweet again.
The brass thought the crazy fuck was about to start a nuclear war for Chrissake.
Then it turned out instead to be a bunch of bigoted bullshit, from a fucking “bone spur in one foot or the other he don’t remember” draft dodger, looking for a way to fuck over more people … the people who might have to fight whatever wars he starts.
Almost started a war. Using his office to be a bigger asshole than he already is.
Using Twitter to rule by decree.
You are OK with that???
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU
P fucking S: He never consulted with any generals or experts, he knows more than they do. REMEMBER???
You fucking idiot.
The Joint Chiefs followed those tweets with a brief letter, announcing that there would be no changes to current policy until the Secretary of Defense gets proper written instructions, then they’d think about how to implement it, and in the meantime, everyone is to use their grown-up manners.
There’s at least an outside chance that Donald never remembers to send the paperwork.
Try reading all of the posts that you make. How about this? "
Here you claim that national security is not going to be harmed if it is not something that prevent Chinese invasion.
Yeah, it’s called quoting the words that you posted.
Apparently, you need some serious reading comprehension, as I stated explicitly in the post that you are currently replying to (though you snipped it, as if that makes a difference) that I think that our military would be just fine at 10% of it’s current levels for deterring or repelling invasions.
It does concern me for individual soldiers and missions though. I don’t want to see missions failed and soldiers die due solely to bigotry, but that’s just me, YMMV.