Trump's Transgender Policy for the Military

[ThisIsTheEnd]

President Trump is banning transgender people from serving in the military in a bid to “help those people,” presidential aide Sebastian Gorka said on Friday.

Gorka, in an interview with BBC Radio 4 Today, cited studies showing that the transgender community has a 40 percent suicide rate. "That is a tragedy. We need to help those people.

“We don’t need to help try and force them into the hierarchical military environment where they are under the utmost pressure to kill or be killed,” Gorka said. “That is why the president is doing this out of the warmth of his consideration for this population.”

He also said the U.S. military is not there to represent or reflect America, but rather “to kill people and blow stuff up.”

“They are not there to be socially engineered,” Gorka said. “We want people who are transgender to live happy lives. But we want unit cohesion and we want combat effectiveness.”

[Trinopus]

Poe’s Law: I cannot tell if that’s factual, or parody!

[Dissonance]

@ThisIsTheEnd

“We don’t need to help try and force them into the hierarchical military environment where they are under the utmost pressure to kill or be killed,” Gorka said. “That is why the president is doing this out of the warmth of his consideration for this population.”

Someone should really let Gorka know that the draft ended in 1973, his boss isn’t keeping them from being “forced” into anything.

@ThisIsTheEnd

He also said the U.S. military is not there to represent or reflect America, but rather “to kill people and blow stuff up.”

“They are not there to be socially engineered,” Gorka said. “We want people who are transgender to live happy lives. But we want unit cohesion and we want combat effectiveness.”

If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, this argument that the military is there to kill people and blow stuff up and not to reflect America or be socially engineered is the last refuge of the bigot. I doubt Gorka would understand unit cohesion or combat effectiveness if they crawled up his ass and died. This is the same argument that was made against desegregating the military, against allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, and to exclude women from most roles in the military.

@Silver_lining

The bathroom makes things problematic.

Oddly this argument always seems to include worries about bathrooms - from ‘they’ll have to install women’s rooms on ships’ to ‘whites will have to share bathrooms with coloreds’ to this latest incarnation.

[Slash1972]

@simster

you get that not all transgendered individuals “need treatment” nor that all of them going in ‘know’ that they are transgendered or that if they need ‘treatment’ that said treatment is not necessarily any different or any more expensive than what average soldiers may need during the course of the enlistment - right?

They are still invaluable soldiers that volunteer to join - we should not be turning them away for any reason other than being fit for duty and able to perform the job they get - which is the same test for EVERY recruit.

Quit thinking that being ‘transgendered’ or ‘homosexual’ makes you ‘damaged goods’ or otherwise incompetent or handicapped - this is simply not the case.

Hey, it’s not my argument. I was just responding to the person who said “We have a medical condition that needs treatment”

I don’t think any of those things you mentioned.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

My father, a retired Army general, just emailed me this purported statement from Congressman Trey Gowdy. I don’t know whom he is nor the provenance of this statement alleged to be from him, but I thought I’d just drop it here. Having served as enlisted for four years myself (along with basically everyone male in my family, vets of every war dating back to WWII), I can see the logic in it:

"*Nobody has a “right” to serve in the Military. Nobody.

What makes people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer? Very far from it.

The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short.

Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers. Poor eyesight will disqualify you, as well as bad teeth. Malnourished? Drug addiction? Bad back? Criminal history? Low IQ? Anxiety? Phobias? Hearing damage? Six arms? Hear voices in your head? Self-identify as a Unicorn?

Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair? Can’t run the required course in the required time? Can’t do the required number of pushups?

Not really a “morning person” and refuse to get out of bed before noon?

All can be reasons for denial.

The Military has one job. War. Anything else is a distraction and a liability.

Did someone just scream “That isn’t Fair”? War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful.

YOU change yourself to meet Military standards. Not the other way around.

I say again: You don’t change the Military… you must change yourself.

The Military doesn’t need to accommodate anyone with special issues. The Military needs to Win Wars.

If any of your personal issues are a liability that detract from readiness or lethality… Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors. Who’s next in line?*"

[iiandyiiii]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

My father, a retired Army general, just emailed me this purported statement from Congressman Trey Gowdy. I don’t know whom he is nor the provenance of this statement alleged to be from him, but I thought I’d just drop it here. Having served as enlisted for four years myself (along with basically everyone male in my family, vets of every war dating back to WWII), I can see the logic in it:

"*Nobody has a “right” to serve in the Military. Nobody.

What makes people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer? Very far from it.

The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short.

Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers. Poor eyesight will disqualify you, as well as bad teeth. Malnourished? Drug addiction? Bad back? Criminal history? Low IQ? Anxiety? Phobias? Hearing damage? Six arms? Hear voices in your head? Self-identify as a Unicorn?

Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair? Can’t run the required course in the required time? Can’t do the required number of pushups?

Not really a “morning person” and refuse to get out of bed before noon?

All can be reasons for denial.

The Military has one job. War. Anything else is a distraction and a liability.

Did someone just scream “That isn’t Fair”? War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful.

YOU change yourself to meet Military standards. Not the other way around.

I say again: You don’t change the Military… you must change yourself.

The Military doesn’t need to accommodate anyone with special issues. The Military needs to Win Wars.

If any of your personal issues are a liability that detract from readiness or lethality… Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors. Who’s next in line?*"

This is all fine, but I don’t see what it has to do with transgender people.

[CarnalK]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

My father, a retired Army general, just emailed me this purported statement from Congressman Trey Gowdy. I don’t know whom he is nor the provenance of this statement alleged to be from him, but I thought I’d just drop it here. Having served as enlisted for four years myself (along with basically everyone male in my family, vets of every war dating back to WWII), I can see the logic in it:

"*Nobody has a “right” to serve in the Military. Nobody.

What makes people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer? Very far from it.

The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short.

Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers. Poor eyesight will disqualify you, as well as bad teeth. Malnourished? Drug addiction? Bad back? Criminal history? Low IQ? Anxiety? Phobias? Hearing damage? Six arms? Hear voices in your head? Self-identify as a Unicorn?

Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair? Can’t run the required course in the required time? Can’t do the required number of pushups?

Not really a “morning person” and refuse to get out of bed before noon?

All can be reasons for denial.

The Military has one job. War. Anything else is a distraction and a liability.

Did someone just scream “That isn’t Fair”? War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful.

YOU change yourself to meet Military standards. Not the other way around.

I say again: You don’t change the Military… you must change yourself.

The Military doesn’t need to accommodate anyone with special issues. The Military needs to Win Wars.

If any of your personal issues are a liability that detract from readiness or lethality… Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors. Who’s next in line?*"

Well you can tell your dad that the military is not autonomous and is under civilian control. Also, ask him how much the military deteriorated under other inclusions. Maybe he can fill your head with how more awesome the military was when black people were kept separate. Or at the very least, your dad can explain the similarities between flat feet and being transgendered.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

You are unnecessarily and unfairly disparaging my father, a 36 year servicemember, and also failing to see the logic behind how nobody is “picking on” transgendered people, rather, the inclusive rules of the military apply to everyone across the board. Many are excluded for any manner of reasons. Don’t shoot the messenger, I am merely offering up a thirdhand account of what some congressperson opined. I never said I agreed with it, only that I identified the logic behind it.

[iiandyiiii]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

You are unnecessarily and unfairly disparaging my father, a 36 year servicemember, and also failing to see the logic behind how nobody is “picking on” transgendered people, rather, the inclusive rules of the military apply to everyone across the board. Many are excluded for any manner of reasons. Don’t shoot the messenger, I am merely offering up a thirdhand account of what some congressperson opined. I never said I agreed with it, only that I identified the logic behind it.

I don’t see anything wrong with the statement you quoted, I just don’t see what it has to do with transgender people.

[Slash1972]

Perhaps it’s because, as one poster put it, transgender people “have a medical condition that needs treatment” and the military is free to disallow people who have medical conditions that need treatment from enlisting?

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I’d be interested to see some kind of compiled data on transgendered servicemen/women/?/ in terms of their medical needs vis a vis “normal” soldiers, as well as reports on their graded SQT scores for their MOS’s and if there’s any evidence of hazing, failure to “fit in”, etc, as well as the opinions of troops of them in the subjective sense that these “regular” troops know that they serve with a gay or transgendered fellow servicemember.

[Slash1972]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

if there’s any evidence of hazing, failure to “fit in”, etc, as well as the opinions of troops of them in the subjective sense that these “regular” troops know that they serve with a gay or transgendered fellow servicemember.

How is this relevant?

[running_coach]

@Slash1972

Perhaps it’s because, as one poster put it, transgender people “have a medical condition that needs treatment” and the military is free to disallow people who have medical conditions that need treatment from enlisting?

Are you aware that not all transgendered require/want surgery? Some are satisfied with hormone treatment or putting it off for years? It’s as individual as the individual.

How would you feel about the VA performing surgery (and paying for it) after the person has left the military?

[CarnalK]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

You are unnecessarily and unfairly disparaging my father, a 36 year servicemember, and also failing to see the logic behind how nobody is “picking on” transgendered people, rather, the inclusive rules of the military apply to everyone across the board. Many are excluded for any manner of reasons. Don’t shoot the messenger, I am merely offering up a thirdhand account of what some congressperson opined. I never said I agreed with it, only that I identified the logic behind it.

How am I remotely disparaging your father? The mere fact that I don’t crumple at his opinion? And where, in your father’s quote, is anything mentioned about picking on people or inclusiveness that I agree, I am missing? The whole thing is “we’re here to fight wars, don’t give me that namby pamby rights stuff”. I have heard that a bazillion times -every single time the military is under fire for one of its policy. Every time.

[Slash1972]

@running_coach

Are you aware that not all transgendered require/want surgery? Some are satisfied with hormone treatment or putting it off for years? It’s as individual as the individual.

How would you feel about the VA performing surgery (and paying for it) after the person has left the military?

Yes, I’m well aware. I’m not the one who said transgender people “have a medical condition that requires treatment”

I don’t care if the VA pays for surgery after the person has left the military.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@Slash1972

How is this relevant?

Because of the team cohesiveness that is built in military training. If you have someone everyone hates, for whatever reason, then it undermines unit readiness. I’m sorry if you don’t believe that, but it’s absolutely true.

@CarnalK

How am I remotely disparaging your father? The mere fact that I don’t crumple at his opinion? And where, in your father’s quote, is anything mentioned about picking on people or inclusiveness that I agree, I am missing? The whole thing is “we’re here to fight wars, don’t give me that namby pamby rights stuff”. I have heard that a bazillion times -every single time the military is under fire for one of its policy. Every time.

You said that “I should tell my Dad that the military is not autonomous and under civilian control”, like a highly educated West Point grad that was a military engineer wouldn’t understand the concept of the civilian soldier. The Sylvanus Thayer ethic is still taught and highly regarded there. Also, IT’S NOT HIS QUOTE. It’s from a Congressman that he repeated to me. Furthermore, YES, if someone is perceived as “namby pamby” by the entire platoon, even regardless of their ability, it undermines readiness. Perhaps you can understand this concept of the ultimate form of cohesiveness that is NOT inclusive but based on total conformity.

[Slash1972]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

Because of the team cohesiveness that is built in military training. If you have someone everyone hates, for whatever reason, then it undermines unit readiness. I’m sorry if you don’t believe that, but it’s absolutely true.

Yes, and this same excuse could be used for black military members or female military members. Not sure why it’s relevant for transgender military members.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@Slash1972

Yes, and this same excuse could be used for black military members or female military members. Not sure why it’s relevant for transgender military members.

Because the male military culture is not really accepting towards gays or transgendered people, for better or worse. It is what it is. Maybe it’s changed since I was in. We had a Jordanian guy in our platoon in basic that constantly got the rest of us punished with PT because he was a slacker. Eventually one night most of the platoon beat the shit out of him and shortly after, he quit and the platoon was better off for it. Again, in the military, conformity is the rule of law. Don’t like it? Quit or suffer. Seriously, that sounds harsh but it IS the culture. I don’t think you’re understanding it correctly in your defense of transgendered people.

[Monty]

@Dissonance

Oddly this argument always seems to include worries about bathrooms - from ‘they’ll have to install women’s rooms on ships’ to ‘whites will have to share bathrooms with coloreds’ to this latest incarnation.

The USS GERALD R. FORD has no urinals, so evidently the actual real Navy doesn’t have a real problem with bathrooms not designed to be “male” as the advantages of eliminating urinals outweigh retaining them. (And none of the puns in this post was intentional.)

[Trinopus]

For some reason, I am unable to find any respect for a military that enforces discipline upon its members by vigilante assault.