US SC Approves Ban on Trans in Military

[Kittens Are Jerks]

15 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Big money and constant medical care to keep them active.   THat's enough right there.

They don't require enormous ongoing medical care to remain active, nor does it cost a great deal. We've been over all that. Besides, how can you justify spending considerably more money on Viagra? Are those guys fighting for the country or are they screwing it?

[Big Jim]

3 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

You're confusing prejudice with criteria. There's a difference.

It's once thing to reject an individual for not meeting qualification criteria, another to reject them for who they are. Furthermore, studies have shown that transgender military personnel report few mental and physical health problems, so any presumption that they are unfit to serve due to their mental or physical health, is ill-informed.

 

The leaders of the military get to decide which criteria to use.  If the criteria states that you must be the gender you were born as without modification would that suit you?  You seem to be looking for rational reasons from what has always been a somewhat irrational organization.  There are so many things about the military that don't make sense it seems futile to focus on just one.  Excluding people with gender dysphoria is not much different than selecting them by the date they were born but the draft did that for many years.  

[+and-then]

On 1/22/2019 at 4:57 PM, spartan max2 said:

This is blatant discrimination. 

The Pentagon's job is to break things and kill people.  It's pretty basic.  In such endeavors, discrimination is a plus, not a negative thing.  If the individual is there to take part in THAT mission and not some mission of their own, they should be welcomed.  Otherwise, they are a drain on the force and not strength to it.

[spartan max2]

3 minutes ago, and then said:

The Pentagon's job is to break things and kill people.  It's pretty basic.  In such endeavors, discrimination is a plus, not a negative thing.  If the individual is there to take part in THAT mission and not some mission of their own, they should be welcomed.  Otherwise, they are a drain on the force and not strength to it.

I mean probably about half of the people in the military are there to get college paid for and to see some of the world while they are at it.

That is a mission of their own you could say.

How is a trans a detriment to the military ?

[zep73]

4 minutes ago, seanjo said:

Wanting your testicles removed, having your penis turned inside out and pushed up into your pelvic cavity while popping hormone pills to grow breasts is not a sign of mental stability.

What if you felt you were something else? You can't shake it. It would make you feel whole to become that.
Then let's imagine you became that. Now you feel complete! But around you people think you're a freak.

Wouldn't you like a chance to prove yourself?

[Agent0range]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Big money and constant medical care to keep them active.   THat's enough right there.

Well then...we should kick out married couples.  You know how much it costs to have a baby?  My buddy has a daughter with MS.  They had to completely renovate an on base house for them.  Super expensive.  Not to mention the cost of her medical care.  She was only supposed to live to 12.  She's 22.  He should definitely be kicked out.  The cost of her medical care (they can't even do it on base, they have to send her to a specialist 90 miles away) must be astronomical.  Oh man...if you knew how much I get a month from the VA, you'd probably have a stroke.  Trump should send a hit man for me.

[Big Jim]

Just now, sci-nerd said:

What if you felt you were something else? You can't shake it. It would make you feel whole to become that.
Then let's imagine you became that. Now you feel complete! But around you people think you're a freak.

Wouldn't you like a chance to prove yourself?

People have often been compelled to seek mental health treatment because they felt they were something or someone else.  Some people feel they are more than one someone else.  But aside from the debate about the mental conditions behind gender dysphoria, the place to prove yourself should be somewhere that doesn't affect, in the slightest way, the lives of others or the readiness of the military.  Nor should the military be required to pay for surgery, convalescence and medication so that you can feel complete.  They need recruits that are already complete.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

They don't require enormous ongoing medical care to remain active, nor does it cost a great deal. We've been over all that. Besides, how can you justify spending considerably more money on Viagra? Are those guys fighting for the country or are they screwing it?

I)  Any operation or series of operations take the soldier out of duty for considerable time and costs money. That right there is sufficient to just say NO.

II)  You can stop taking viagra any time. it's a pill and can be taken any time you want, or not. far different than taking daily injections. 

You have far from convinced me. Just say NO to the transes

[Big Jim]

14 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I mean probably about half of the people in the military are there to get college paid for and to see some of the world while they are at it.

That is a mission of their own you could say.

How is a trans a detriment to the military ?

The offer of college tuition is designed to attract desirable, motivated and intelligent recruits into joining the service.  Therefore it benefits the military and its purpose as well as that of the individual.  The military has no great need for transgendered people so they are exploiting the medical provisions offered to all members for their own benefit alone.  They are subverting a benefit meant to cover emergencies and medical necessities into a means to cover their own elective surgery.

[spartan max2]

17 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

The offer of college tuition is designed to attract desirable, motivated and intelligent recruits into joining the service.  Therefore it benefits the military and its purpose as well as that of the individual.  The military has no great need for transgendered people so they are exploiting the medical provisions offered to all members for their own benefit alone.  They are subverting a benefit meant to cover emergencies and medical necessities into a means to cover their own elective surgery.

Or you could see the medical benefits as another incentive to attract motivated, intellegent, recuirts. 

It's a cheaper incentive then college is lol

[Farmer77]

14 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And who leads the military?  The Commander in Chief.   THat was Commander Obama that let the transes in

Absolutely. My post was simply saying just dont go quoting facts and statistics relevant to the military as some sort of argument for banning trans as if they were the ones who chose to do so. The commander in chief made a political decision thats all. Hey I dont even know that I necessarily disagree with the end result, but the idea's genesis and implementation via twitter are classic charlie foxtrots from political folks.

 

[Kittens Are Jerks]

14 hours ago, Big Jim said:

The leaders of the military get to decide which criteria to use.  If the criteria states that you must be the gender you were born as without modification would that suit you?  You seem to be looking for rational reasons from what has always been a somewhat irrational organization.  There are so many things about the military that don't make sense it seems futile to focus on just one.  Excluding people with gender dysphoria is not much different than selecting them by the date they were born but the draft did that for many years.  

Let's see what the courts decide, shall we.

[Big Jim]

1 hour ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Let's see what the courts decide, shall we.

Sure.  The courts are always rational.  Frankly, I don't care either way.  I don't have a dog in this fight as far as gender is concerned.  My position was just that organizations ought to be able to decide for themselves which criteria their members should meet.  No matter what the game is, to be on the team you have to make the cut.  

[Kittens Are Jerks]

1 hour ago, Big Jim said:

Sure.  The courts are always rational.  Frankly, I don't care either way.  I don't have a dog in this fight as far as gender is concerned.  My position was just that organizations ought to be able to decide for themselves which criteria their members should meet.  No matter what the game is, to be on the team you have to make the cut.  

No one is arguing against the rights of an organisation to determine hiring criteria. However, criteria is one thing, discrimination another.

[Big Jim]

8 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

No one is arguing against the rights of an organisation to determine hiring criteria. However, criteria is one thing, discrimination another.

Where is the line?  Does the NBA discriminate against dwarves?

[Kittens Are Jerks]

Just now, Big Jim said:

Where is the line?  Does the NBA discriminate against dwarves?

If a dwarf could demonstrate that he was as outstanding as any other player, and not a liability to those players, then yes, it would be discrimination.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

17 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Where is the line?  Does the NBA discriminate against dwarves?

Come to think of it,  I don't see too many old, bald, white guys on the court either!  

[Setton]

22 hours ago, MWoo7 said:

 

I don't get why the BRIT twits jump on the mighty orange trumpet so much 

Because his policies affect his allies? 

Because removing 2% of his military makes us less secure? 

.... 

.... 

Because he's just a bit of a ****? 

21 hours ago, Impedancer said:

Trump is not being very tactical here, I think they should be allowed in the US army. I would definitely run if i saw an army of trans !!!! That is indeed a very scary tought  but hey what ever rows your boat . OK now im going to be serious anyone who has the physical and psycological plus the intelligense which they require should be able to join even if you like to dress up in drag...

Pretty much rules you out. 

22 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Where is the line?  Does the NBA discriminate against dwarves?

Not sure about the US but in the UK the line is drawn at Protected Characteristics. 

These are specified in law and include age, sex, gender, disability, religion and others. An organisation can be exempt if the characteristic severely impairs an individual's ability to do the job. 

So the real question is does the military (not the president) think transgender people are inherently incapable of doing the job? 

Or is the US so backwards it doesn't have adequate discrimination laws? 

[Kittens Are Jerks]

10 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Come to think of it,  I don't see too many old, bald, white guys on the court either!  

That's because they're off trying to join the military for free Viagra.

[Big Jim]

15 minutes ago, Setton said:

Because his policies affect his allies? 

Because removing 2% of his military makes us less secure? 

.... 

.... 

Because he's just a bit of a ****? 

Pretty much rules you out. 

Not sure about the US but in the UK the line is drawn at Protected Characteristics. 

These are specified in law and include age, sex, gender, disability, religion and others. An organisation can be exempt if the characteristic severely impairs an individual's ability to do the job. 

So the real question is does the military (not the president) think transgender people are inherently incapable of doing the job? 

Or is the US so backwards it doesn't have adequate discrimination laws? 

We also have a list of specific things that can't be excluded or discriminated against.  Gender is on the list and the military accepts both men and women.  I'm not sure where transgendered persons fall.  Maybe the military isn't either.

Regarding the bolded part of your statement, since the President is the Commander in Chief of all military forces, it is impossible to distinguish between them.  Being the hierarchical organization that it is, if the President thinks transgender people are incompatible with their mission then the military does as well.

Just as an afterthought, when rereading (I'm not sure where transgendered persons fall) it occurred to me that neither do they.

[Big Jim]

37 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Come to think of it,  I don't see too many old, bald, white guys on the court either!  

That does it, I'm calling my lawyer.

 

[Setton]

12 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

 

Regarding the bolded part of your statement, since the President is the Commander in Chief of all military forces, it is impossible to distinguish between them.  Being the hierarchical organization that it is, if the President thinks transgender people are incompatible with their mission then the military does as well..

Ah yes, I forgot the extensive military credentials of Captain Bonespurs. 

P.S. Under UK law, gender reassignment is a protected characteristic in its own right. I'm sure you'll catch up soon enough. 

[Kittens Are Jerks]

19 minutes ago, Setton said:

P.S. Under UK law, gender reassignment is a protected characteristic in its own right. I'm sure you'll catch up soon enough. 

Meanwhile in Canada...

While the Trump administration is trying to banish transgender individuals from the military, our government is taking steps to recruit more gay, lesbian and trans troops. LGBT individuals have openly served in our armed forces since 1992 and a transgender policy was established in 2012. When Trump's transgender ban was first announced, our Canadian Forces tweeted: We welcome (Canadians) of all sexual orientations and gender identities. Join us!

I don't know when the US will catch up with countries such as Canada, the UK, France, Australia and others, but hopefully one day they'll realise that diversity is an asset, not a liability and their one step forward will not again result in two steps back.

[Big Jim]

10 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Meanwhile in Canada...

While the Trump administration is trying to banish transgender individuals from the military, our government is taking steps to recruit more gay, lesbian and trans troops. LGBT individuals have openly served in our armed forces since 1992 and a transgender policy was established in 2012. When Trump's transgender ban was first announced, our Canadian Forces tweeted: We welcome (Canadians) of all sexual orientations and gender identities. Join us!

I don't know when the US will catch up with countries such as Canada, the UK, France, Australia and others, but hopefully one day they'll realise that diversity is an asset, not a liability and their one step forward will not again result in two steps back.

The military is not a social program.  If the countries you mention are so advanced why have they needed the US to protect them all these years?  

[MWoo7]

Don't know about other countries but Canada can release the wrath of a couple mounties and a canoe at any! time !