And Republicans LOST THEIR SHIT, and there were literally dozens of congressional hearings where the various service chiefs outlined how AWFUL the drawdown is, and how they absolutely cannot afford to lose one more body, and sequestration, and mission readiness, and…and…and. And there was wailing and gnashing of teeth in response by congress, and they swore they would put a stop to the drawdown specifically because it was harming the military, national security, freedom, and baby eagles.
Except, of course, it’s not a problem to kick those crazy weirdo maybe-fags out.
One potential factor (I learned from the RAND study) is that male-to-female transitions are materially more common. And the military is disproportionately biologically male. So, the logic goes, the military will have a higher prevalence of transgendered people than the population at large. (I think that’s what they’re saying; maybe i’m confused.).
I’m assuming you’ve picked out Arab linguists in particular because the previous ban on all LGBT people did result in several desperately-needed Arab linguists being discharged, which did result in an increased danger to our troops serving in Iraq who then either had to use local translators (who were intrinsically more risky to use) or to make do without. It was widely reported as a serious problem, and one caused by a stupid policy that excluded highly qualified, highly motivated and highly patriotic service members for a highly stupid reason.
It’s the same bullshit here. I suppose we’ll find out how much harm was done afterwards. And won’t that be swell?
An impression we can easily sustain by enforcing bona fide occupational qualifications, committing to the idea that we accept or reject based on merit alone.
Thanks. Women can now serve in every capacity in the military? If so, that makes things a lot easier. I’m wondering if an active duty military person could verify that.
I would say it doesn’t really matter, to be honest. Assume for the sake of argument that women are still prohibited from being Navy SEALs (recent news suggests that’s not the case). If a SEAL is stricken with a medical condition that renders them unable to meet the physical requirements of being a SEAL, but doesn’t render them incapable of serving in another capacity, the Navy will reassign them to a different job. Gender transition, being a documented, medically necessary treatment to a medical condition, would be treated no differently.
Yes, and because it was SOOO harmful to national security, they immediately stopped the draw down and signed all those that were forced out back up for enlistment!
Oh wait, no they didn’t. They continued the drawdown and it is still on-going. I feel pretty good about our National Security, don’t you? You afraid of the scary terrorists, or maybe the North Koreans?
You know, it seems weird to me that the same people complaining about Trump’s budget increase for the military seem to think that our National Security is just fine, but when a never-gonna-happen plan to kick out some unknown amount of people is tweeted by this same Trump, all of a sudden it’s a threat to National Security.
So you don’t think prior bans on gay and lesbians is relevant to this issue? Really?
I take it you served. Tell me about your experience – where did you serve? What did you do?
In my experience, there was a pretty limited pool of LAN managers, and they were assigned by military personnel professionals (usually in the BUPERS office in Tennessee). Captains had pretty much zero influence over who was picked, and while they could send their LAN managers to various schools, that would leave them with no LAN manager for the interim, and there was no guarantee the school would be successful.
How is your experience different? How were LAN managers for submarines or other units chosen when/where you served?
Of course iiandyiiii’s story is relevant to this topic, because if this policy moves forward, his highly-skilled crewmate will get kicked out. What’s that, you say? You say he (maybe) won’t because he (might) not be trans, just gay or bi? Are you really so naive as to think this will end here?
If Trump gets away with the trans ban, then of course his next step is going to be a ban on gays in the military. And after that, it’ll be women. And immigrants from the Middle East (and how hard will it be to find Arabic translators then?). Heck, there’s no reason he wouldn’t even try to ban blacks in the military, though the courts would probably block him on that one.
When someone comes for the transgendered, or for homosexuals, or for people of certain ethnicities, you’d better damn well speak out, or when they come for you there’ll be nobody left to speak out for you.
Not sure. It would depend on the 3 that were randomly selected.
Besides, if you have a unit of 62 enlisted billets, and that unit could not be mission effective if 3 random people of that unit were suddenly gone, then that unit has a lot bigger problems to deal with.
To the best of my recollection, this does not mean that 16,419 were forced out of the Army. It means that endstrength was lowered by that amount, and the main levers to do so were managing recruitment and reenlistment bonuses to provide a lesser number of accessions and reenlistments to replace those leaving the Army for mostly normal reasons. To say it another way, it’s one thing if your company fires someone. It’s another thing if that person leaves and they don’t hire a replacement.
Illustrate further, in 2015 the Army recruited 59,000 Americans. This year, they are aiming for 62,000. With the Army growing now, the number is probably going to be closer to 70,000 recruits needed for next year.
To add another point to your consideration, Trump said (I use that term loosely, because who the hell knows if he even has a point) that his decision was based on the cost of trans troops to the military. The RAND report estimates that the potential bill for gender reassignment surgery would be expected to be less than $8 million per year.
Guess how much the military spends on Viagra and related drugs? $84 million.
What you had just said is that you think randomly choosing people would be worse than careful selection. But you’re demanding proof that Donald’s random kicking out of military personnel is any worse than a normal draw down of forces, which carefully selects.
Yep, that’s why I didn’t say anything when Obama declared Martial Law, instigated Sharia across the nation, came and got everybody’s guns, and set himself up as dictator for life :rolleyes:
I don’t agree with the ban, and think it is stupid. I don’t know how much clearer I could put it. I also don’t see it happening. But I don’t feel it harms National Security for 15,000 (at the maximum) to be kicked out of a military of 2 million people. If you do think so, then you should be whole-heartedly agreeing with Trump that we need an increase in the military budget, since apparently, our military is so weak that our National Security is harmed simply by 15,000 people being kicked out.
If they lose the best sniper, suddenly they’re less effective at sniping. If they lose their best medic, suddenly they’re less effective at healing their team. If they lose their best mechanic, suddenly they’re less effective at repairs.
Does all this really have to be spelled out to you? Maybe the unit could still do their job to some degree, but randomly choosing people might mean you lose the best at certain jobs, degrading effectiveness. A blanket ban on any category that has nothing to do with readiness, including trans people, is likely to result in the loss of some skills that will be costly to replace.
