I already pointed out that the military commissioned a study from RAND and they found no problems with uniit cohesion in the militaries they studied that allowed transgender people into the military. If you were honestly curious, you really should have come across that by now.
I seriously do hope it’s changed since you’ve been in. I know it wasn’t like that when I was in from 1979 to 2000. Punishing the entire platoon with PT is not only a violation of the regulations, but is also counterproductive. The mass assault of an individual, well, I’m sure you don’t need to have that explained to you.
The guy was a slacker in BCT? Fine, separate him from the military.
When were you in? Did the guy get beat because he was Jordanian or a slacker? Do you think beating fellow recruits is the best way to enforce conformity? Do you know how much conformity is required of today’s military? Do your job, protect your Wingman (I was Air Force), accomplish the mission. Those are the values today.
There’s really no logic in this when you realize what the person who originated it is using it to excuse. Basically, the originator is using the entire thing as a thinly disguised screed, is using the entire thing out of context. Let me explain:
No. But what they do have a right is to be treated in a less than arbitrary manner. For example, it is wrong to prohibit persons of a certain race or religion from serving solely based on that race or religion. That is not mandating a “right to serve in the military”, it is mandating that the military not be capricious.
Actually, it is an equal opportunity employer, especially for the civilian positions. But as far as for military positions, it is also an EOO in that positions in the military cannot be closed to persons based on criteria such as race, religion, or even gender unless such a prohibition can be proven to be a reasonable and effective requirement of the position.
There is a difference between prohibiting someone who’s obese from serving in a profession which reasonably requires a certain state of physical fitness and prohibiting someone from serving in that profession based on race, religion, or gender. The person originating this screed either knows that and is being disingenuous or is simply stupid if he doesn’t know that.
The screed’s originator also completely ignored certain aspects of United States military history, most importantly the part where President Truman forced them to integrate the races. The military of course has standards. The issue here and now, just like it was when there was segregation, is “Are those standards reasonable?” Well, the evidence shows that certain standards are not reasonable.
You know what else isn’t reasonable? Yep, it’s that BS screed purportedly from Gowdy.
I think the segregation of the military is a wholly different issue. African Americans have proven over and over again that they are equal or better to their white counterparts in enduring the physical stressors inherent in military service, especially in infantry units, the Marines, special forces, SEALS, Rangers, etc. In MY OPINION, anyone that’s transgendered AND can perform to the levels their job requires needs to be left alone. But will they be? I’m not so certain. But I served from 1988-1992 so that was awhile ago. Maybe things have changed.
I do however happen to agree that military standards should NOT be changed for ANYONE. They’ve already afforded females lesser physical requirements and it doesn’t need to go further than that. I never once in this thread advocated for the banning or dismissal of gays/transgendered people from the military, but the fact remains that particularly in certain types of units, the stereotypical harm will befall them and there’s NOTHING anyone can do about it. Our death machine requires able bodies and consummate conformity to operate properly.
That’s all I’ve been saying. Once again, to reiterate, I relayed an email that was supposed to be from a Congressperson that my old man sent me. Neither he nor I even conveyed a belief in those words, other than maybe to get people to realize that it’s a tough culture on anyone, let alone an openly gay or transgendered person. And the fact that there are certain roles that they would be extremely ill-fitted for. And for good reason.
I’m sorry but that’s quite clearly bullshit and I’m pretty sure you know it. Your dad didn’t forward you an email just for the fuck of it. He sent it because he agreed with it. And you aren’t just pointing out the obvious fact that it’s a tough culture. You are clearly suggesting that trans people will get beat up because they won’t cut it, like your Jordanian brother in arms. And “hey, waddya gonna do?” as your sum up.
An almost reasonable argument can be strung together with ductape and bubblegum if one tries to contend that units that are most likely to find themselves in positions where they can be captured should not contain such people, as they suffer a unique risk of torture and death against the enemies we’re most likely to face (fundamentalists).
The same argument is floated for women and the much higher incidence of rape for female POWs. It doesn’t really hold water there, either, but it is at least a reasonable factor to consider.
That’s just false. Some transgender people need treatment. Plenty don’t. Plenty of transgender people don’t require any more medical treatment than cis/non-trans people (forgot if you were one of the ones who didn’t like “cis”) do.
There’s plenty that can be done about it – order the military to accept and tolerate trans people in their midst, and they’ll do it. That’s what happened with desegregating black people, women, and (more recently) gay people, and the military hasn’t suffered (it’s probably greatly improved). I served in the Navy (got out about 10 years ago) and there was a guy who was gay – it was an open secret, since this was before it would have been allowed – and he was good at his job, so no one cared beyond a few assholes who would say shit behind his back.
Young military folks are supremely adaptable, and the most important quality is whether one can do the job.
Take it up with Una. That was her statement, not mine. Of course, if no treatment is necessary, then there is no reason not to let transgender people enlist.
I’m not attached to the argument, it’s just one that I’ve seen that I have no clear answer for.
Sure there’s a clear answer – many trans people don’t require any more treatment than others. There’s no reason to ban them from the military, including anything about medical expenses. If the concern is really about medical expenses, then the issue would be handled through rules about medical expenses, not with a blanket ban of a category of people that includes many healthy folks who need no special treatment.
At risk of you accusing me of advocating for a ban of transgender people from the military, that’s not really the argument that I’ve heard. I mean, I’ve heard the expenses argument, which is stupid. The argument is: The military already doesn’t allow people with some medical conditions to enlist. Why should they allow people with THIS medical condition to enlist? If you have something helpful that I can say as a response to this, then please, I’m all ears.
Some medical conditions are more detrimental to serving in the military than others. Some would be prohibitively expensive for the military to cover. Being transgendered is not detrimental and not that expensive even when (if) getting therapy. ISTM, the argument is backwards. You need a reason WHY a certain medical condition goes on the ineligible list rather WHY NOT.
The only thing in THIS thread is her ‘back of the napkin’ estimates for treatments - and in that list she specifically says its ‘worst case’ and even then qualifies that its ‘some percentage’ that seek treatment.
In other threads she has clearly stated that not all seek treatment, etc - its very much an individual choice as to what/when etc.
Every enlistee has ‘medical conditions’ - this is no worse/better than the others - I have yet to see any evidence that this ‘condition’ affects the person’s ability to do the job at hand. (unlike flat feet or a missing limb)