i recall (maybe its just in the movies) that ‘flat feet’ were a reason for rejection - in any event I was speaking to recruitement - not currently - either way - it helps to recognize that things that once were ‘automatic rejection/retirement’ are no longer the case - which equally applies to the transgendered.
FWIW, flat feet is not an automatic enlistment disqualifier. Perhaps it once was. However, the current Department of Defense Instruction for Medical Standards for Apploutnment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services (DoDI 6130.03) lists only rigid or symptomatic pes planus as a disqualifier. So non-rigid and non-symptomatic flat feet is okay. It provides the following additional comment:
“The use of custom fitted or over-the-counter orthotics does NOT imply pes planus is symptomatic. An applicant with pes planus who reports NO pain limiting symptoms due to walking, marching, running or jumping (with or without orthotics) activities meets standard.” (p. 51).
Interestingly enough, I wonder what effect the current policy changes (either for or against a ban on transgender military personnel) will have on the continued inclusion or removal of some other current medical disqualifications such as:
amputation of the penis
absence of one or both testicles, congenital (752.89) or undescended (752.51)
change of sex
hermaphroditism, pseudohermaphroditism, or pure gonadal dysgenesis
Hypogonadism
I agree with you that a statement like that could imply that all need treatment. But “treatment” typically includes many aspects, and for some (especially NB/NC persons) it’s limited to counseling, which may even have a limited term and be completed prior to trying to enter service.
My back of the napkin calculations DID assume that all transgender persons would be on hormones, but that is one of the simplifying “worst case” assumptions that I made. In practice, I find that maybe 10-20% of persons who I know of as transgender are not on hormones, and possibly even as many as 5-10% of those who have had a complete name and legal gender change. I know a transman who has had surgery, legal name and gender change, etc. and was only on hormones for 2 years, and has been off them for another 2. Another gal I know had everything including surgery, and has been off hormones for 3 years (she as it happens is a Navy vet, a security officer who took 2 bullets while guarding a docked ship in the Middle East). Effectively, both of these folks have no “maintenance cost”.
So it highlights even more how my calculations were a “worst case” example. There may in fact be 10% of so of transgender persons for whom there would be no other expense, simply a reclassification of gender.
That’s fine. I don’t know how many people need treatment or don’t or whatever. Nor am I promoting the argument about treatment costs. Just trying to let you know (and others) that saying that would let someone easily rebut your position, that’s all.
Again, it’s not my argument and **CarnalK **provided a great response to anyone who IS promoting that as a reason for the ban.