US SC Approves Ban on Trans in Military

[+DieChecker]

I, myself, totally agree with those who say the President is the Commander-in-chief of the military and can set military requirements. 

Those who serve in the military basically sign away much of their rights when they do so. I saw people get loss of rank for stuff like getting a sleeve tattoo, and driving uninsured. I don't advise those with authority issues to join.

[+DieChecker]

As to diversity. The military, on the Enlisted side anyway, wants people with NO training. No skills. Because they want to train you their way. That's why they prefer 18 year olds.

The military wants people who will obey. And the leadership wants 99% of them to be hammers. The hammer is the tool they use to fix everything. The wrench, screwdriver, pliers... Those are the diplomats. The military is only hammers.

Those LGBQT people who are successful in the military are successful by being hammers. If they insist on being a screwdriver, they are going to do a lot of Front-Back-Go. 

Edited January 25, 2019 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

As to the injections, I myself, freak out when my blood pressure meds start to run out. Like, starting to be unreasonable. More then I am normally even.

So, I imagine there will be some who freak out and are super stressed, and some that are not. 

I imagine though if I, myself, was so dedicated to such permanent change, that it would be VERY important to me. Perhaps a study, or poll, of the general transgender population could be done to determine how important this would be?

If it is something you are not willing to give up, then it is more important to you then your service to the military.

[Kittens Are Jerks]

38 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Also, I think a lot of people believe this is a ban... outright tossing all transgender people. But go back to the OP links and that is not the case.

Here's the Pentagon's policy memo on it. Just a year earlier, the Pentagon had announced their new policy allowing transgender individuals to serve openly. All of the military services had been ordered to develop guidance and policies governing transgender personnel, including gender transition procedures and medical treatment. The new policy effectively put an end to all that. 

Furthermore, the new policy is not based on evaluations in new evidence, but on a distortion of the science on transgender health to support irrational discrimination. And that's the problem with it — it's irrational, it's discriminatory, and above all, it's hateful.

For anyone interested, here's a summary of all the anti-transgender and anti-LGBT actions undertaken by the Discrimination Adminsitration.

[Kittens Are Jerks]

7 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

But under the US military those people are given common goals. They are trained to accomplish common goals. Everyone is there with one common goal, to be in the US military. 

What do two or more groups of people who don’t even speak the same language and have completely different cultures have in common? Where is the strength in that?

This is exactly why many people say that if others want to migrate here, they should learn the language, and actually want to be Americans. It’s much easier to celebrate what we have in common, then what separates us. 

What do two or more groups of culturally different people who don't speak the same language have in common? Ask the people who built your country.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 hours ago, Robotic Jew said:

The US will get it's act together on this issue once a certain segment of the population finds a new target for their hatred and bigotry.

 

The liberals found the new target.  White men and  Trump supporters.  LOts of hate and bigotry there

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Here's the Pentagon's policy memo on it. Just a year earlier, the Pentagon had announced their new policy allowing transgender individuals to serve openly. All of the military services had been ordered to develop guidance and policies governing transgender personnel, including gender transition procedures and medical treatment. The new policy effectively put an end to all that. 

Furthermore, the new policy is not based on evaluations in new evidence, but on a distortion of the science on transgender health to support irrational discrimination. And that's the problem with it — it's irrational, it's discriminatory, and above all, it's hateful.

For anyone interested, here's a summary of all the anti-transgender and anti-LGBT actions undertaken by the Discrimination Adminsitration.

you see, Kittens, if you have to have separate treatment and separate policies for certain people, that *alone* is grounds not to want them in the military. The military wants all people to be maintenance FREE and interchangeable. 

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

43 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

What do two or more groups of culturally different people who don't speak the same language have in common? Ask the people who built your country.

Kittens, in your opinion, would it be "discrimination" for the military to refuse non-English speaking people?

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Here's the Pentagon's policy memo on it. Just a year earlier, the Pentagon had announced their new policy allowing transgender individuals to serve openly. All of the military services had been ordered to develop guidance and policies governing transgender personnel, including gender transition procedures and medical treatment. The new policy effectively put an end to all that. 

Furthermore, the new policy is not based on evaluations in new evidence, but on a distortion of the science on transgender health to support irrational discrimination. And that's the problem with it — it's irrational, it's discriminatory, and above all, it's hateful.

For anyone interested, here's a summary of all the anti-transgender and anti-LGBT actions undertaken by the Discrimination Adminsitration.

As true as all that is.... he is still the President. Next time be sure that the opponent isn't worse then who got elected.

Everyone that made Clinton the candidate, including former Pres. Obama, owns this, if indirectly.

Who requested that policy change? Maybe.... President Obama? The PRESIDENT....

Is there a law that says the President must have the facts on his side, and that he can not dispute opposition facts? I don't think so. Maybe there should be though?

Edited January 25, 2019 by DieChecker

[Kittens Are Jerks]

4 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Kittens, in your opinion, would it be "discrimination" for the military to refuse non-English speaking people?

No I would not. It is reasonable for the military to insist on the ability to speak and understand English.

The point that I and others are trying to make, however, is that language skills and cultural awareness are essential, not only to military missions, but also to strengthening partnerships. That's just one reason why diversity in the military is vital.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

3 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

No I would not. It is reasonable for the military to insist on the ability to speak and understand English.

The point that I and others are trying to make, however, is that language skills and cultural awareness are essential, not only to military missions, but also to strengthening partnerships. That's just one reason why diversity in the military is vital.

I)  Well, technically, it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of place of origin.  Some lawyer could make a case out of this.  But I do agree with you, if you can't speak the language, you are a complete impediment to the military.

II)  It is technically not vital at all to have "diversity" in order to have a successful military. Witness WWII.  

You think that the military was/is now, discriminating against transies because of their sexual dysfunctionality. it is not true. They are being shunned because they have to be treated differently than everyone else. High maintenance. Obama forced the military to be accepting to the transies but that does not mean the military welcomed it with open arms. The military has a problem with how to back out of it all. I suggest a grandfather clause, of course.

[Thanato]

18 hours ago, Big Jim said:

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?  

Because the US chose to do so. They didn't need US protection, the US Chose to be the big player on the block. It was the US nation interest to have Military bases the world over since 1945. Also, Canada is more protected by geography than the United States. 

[Kittens Are Jerks]

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

As true as all that is.... he is still the President. Next time be sure that the opponent isn't worse then who got elected.

Everyone that made Clinton the candidate, including former Pres. Obama, owns this, if indirectly.

Who requested that policy change? Maybe.... President Obama? The PRESIDENT....

It's unfortunate that Canadians aren't allowed to vote in the US. Probably just as well though. Conservatives would have one huge collective stroke.

Which policy change are you referring to? The one during Obama's administration? I believe he was the primary driver behind it. 

The divisiveness in your country is unfortunate. Because of it, some policies can never become well-entrenched enough to provide Americans with a semblance of security and stability. There is no way any Prime Minister here in Canada could upend our military transgender policy for whatever reason. You just don't do that to people.

[+DieChecker]

37 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

The liberals found the new target.  White men and  Trump supporters.  LOts of hate and bigotry there

Towards... The Trump supporters, I think you mean. The way your wrote could be viewed two ways.

[+DieChecker]

24 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

... is that language skills and cultural awareness ....

There are these in the military, but they are highly trained specialists. Trained by the military, for military purposes.

They would not specifically look for units with, say, Ukrainian speakers to send to Ukraine. They are not that organized.

Edited January 25, 2019 by DieChecker

[RoofGardener]

Traditionally, militaries work on uniformity, not diversity. Hence 'boot camp' and 'breaking people down' prior to making them into soldiers. 

[Kittens Are Jerks]

8 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I)  Well, technically, it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of place of origin.  Some lawyer could make a case out of this.  But I do agree with you, if you can't speak the language, you are a complete impediment to the military.

Discrimination is against the law, yes. The only situation whereby a lawyer could make a case in your English-speaking example is by demonstrating that an understanding of the language was not essential to the job or position.

10 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

II)  It is technically not vital at all to have "diversity" in order to have a successful military. Witness WWII.  

No it's not vital, but it doesn't hurt. If anything it provides numerous advantages and competitive advantage. So it's an asset, not a liability. WWII is not a good example by the way. The US military at that time was quite diverse and that diversity helped them a great deal fighting a war in Europe.

13 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

You think that the military was/is now, discriminating against transies because of their sexual dysfunctionality. it is not true. They are being shunned because they have to be treated differently than everyone else. High maintenance. Obama forced the military to be accepting to the transies but that does not mean the military welcomed it with open arms. The military has a problem with how to back out of it all. I suggest a grandfather clause, of course.

Transgender individuals are being discriminated against because of who they are. There is no evidence to support the idea that they are significantly more high maintenance. I don't dispute that there are unique challenges, but then again, so are the challenges of other men and women in the military.

[skrubby]

I'm pretty sure trans are allowed as long as they have spent a set amount of time in the gender and are comfortable with it.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

4 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Transgender individuals are being discriminated against because of who they are.

That is totally wrong, Kittens. They are being discriminated against because they are not interchangeable. Many need injections every day. You can't get around that, Kittens. The discrimination against them is just as understandable as discriminating against a non-English speaker.  "Special maintenance".

4 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

There is no evidence to support the idea that they are significantly more high maintenance. I don't dispute that there are unique challenges, but then again, so are the challenges of other men and women in the military.

What challenges do other men/women in the military face that the military has to make special note of, and treat differently? It is not supposed to happen that an elistee is an encumbrance on the military in some way.

You libs just want another cause de celebre so you can do protests and have a parade. It's a nothing burger, like the military refusing people with flat feet.

[Myles]

32 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

It's unfortunate that Canadians aren't allowed to vote in the US.

That's a silly thing to say.   

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

39 minutes ago, Myles said:

That's a silly thing to say.   

Well, she is liberal 

[preacherman76]

2 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

What do two or more groups of culturally different people who don't speak the same language have in common? Ask the people who built your country.

Most of them took the time to learn the language. All of them came here for the same hope, to become Americans. There was plenty that those folks had in common. 

Very different situation then what we see here today, and in Europe, with many of the people seeking to create the same situations, the same types of communities that they left. 

Its why people who come here legally, often become amazing citizens. They usually end up knowing more about this country and it’s history then many natural born citizens do. 

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

It's unfortunate that Canadians aren't allowed to vote in the US. Probably just as well though. Conservatives would have one huge collective stroke.

Which policy change are you referring to? The one during Obama's administration? I believe he was the primary driver behind it. 

The divisiveness in your country is unfortunate. Because of it, some policies can never become well-entrenched enough to provide Americans with a semblance of security and stability. There is no way any Prime Minister here in Canada could upend our military transgender policy for whatever reason. You just don't do that to people.

Perhaps Canada should be allowed to vote in US elections and US citizens are allowed to vote in Canadian elections? I think that might be a more then fair trade.

[Setton]

5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

.. and the UK. And most of Europe.  

Judges in the UK are appointed by the Queen (not a politician) and do not have an espoused political party. 

We keep a clear separation between politics and the running of the country. Even civil servants aren't allowed to express a public political opinion. In the US, it seems everything has to be linked to your party. Even basic science must be denied if it doesn't fit your party line. 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

13 minutes ago, Setton said:

Judges in the UK are appointed by the Queen (not a politician) and do not have an espoused political party. 

We keep a clear separation between politics and the running of the country. Even civil servants aren't allowed to express a public political opinion. In the US, it seems everything has to be linked to your party. Even basic science must be denied if it doesn't fit your party line. 

That's right.  And the libs want all the say. and for the most part, they are getting it.