Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Dark_Grey

US SC Approves Ban on Trans in Military

210 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MWoo7

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

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy

As long as they are physically and mentally sound, capable of the job, and not expecting any special treatment, they should be allowed IMO. 

There are plenty of people who get into the military for the wrong reasons. If LGBTIQYACDEFHJKMNOPRSUVWXZ’s want in for the right reasons, that’s okay with me.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'Walt' E. Kurtz
2 hours 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? 

Yes it does since im in Sweden and not in the us. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
2 hours 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.

I genuinely don’t understand how diversity is a strength. The very word implies division. Not the same, little to nothing in common. 

I’d argue that it’s the things that make us the same that give a community strength. When we have something in common to fight for or towards. And that’s regardless of culture. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
Just now, preacherman76 said:

I genuinely don’t understand how diversity is a strength. The very word implies division. Not the same, little to nothing in common. 

I’d argue that it’s the things that make us the same that give a community strength. When we have something in common to fight for or towards. And that’s regardless of culture. 

Diversity does not at all imply division. There is no reason why a diverse group could not fight as a cohesive and purposeful force, and that's already evidenced by our respective military forces. Diversity is more about the different strengths, experiences, ideas, etc., that individuals bring to a team; it's not about conflict and divisiveness.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Careful_perspective
3 hours ago, Timothy said:

As long as they are physically and mentally sound, capable of the job, and not expecting any special treatment, they should be allowed IMO. 

There are plenty of people who get into the military for the wrong reasons. If LGBTIQYACDEFHJKMNOPRSUVWXZ’s want in for the right reasons, that’s okay with me.

I really appreciate your point, and I agree. I think some trans people would probably make great Troop members, just like there are probably quite a few fat people who would make good troops, The point is, the Military is not a social program, being fair is not going to improve readiness. The military wants those who have their mental illnesses well managed and be able to serve without medication due to supply lines being targeted and disrupted in many situations. Almost all trans persons use hormone treatments, and their hormone usage being disrupted may cause mental imbalance. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
9 minutes ago, Careful_perspective said:

Almost all trans persons use hormone treatments, and their hormone usage being disrupted may cause mental imbalance. 

And therein lies the rub.

The folks that use viagra once or twice a week can certainly go without, it won't hurt them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
Quote

 

Price examples include The Philadelphia Center for Transgender Surgery, where basic male-to-female surgery that includes testicle removal, genital surgery and breast augmentation would cost a little over $30,000 while for basic female-to-male surgery that includes mastectomy, areolar reduction and genital surgery, would cost between $12,000 and $25,000 depending on the type of genital surgery chosen. Because different doctors offer different procedures, it is important to check to see exactly what is offered for a certain price.

https://health.costhelper.com/sex-reassignment-surgery.html

 

Quote


Additional costs:

Hormone therapy can cost $25 to $200 per month, depending on which hormones are prescribed.

https://health.costhelper.com/sex-reassignment-surgery.html

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
2 hours ago, Careful_perspective said:

Almost all trans persons use hormone treatments, and their hormone usage being disrupted may cause mental imbalance. 

Cite your source please.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
20 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Cite your source please.

Isn't PMS enough proof?

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
23 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Isn't PMS enough proof?

 

Wow. How 19th century of you.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
5 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

I genuinely don’t understand how diversity is a strength.

Then you don't understand diversity. 

Let me put this in "guy speak".

Do you have a tool box? Is it full of hammers? Or do you also have screwdrivers, wrenches, pliers and such?

Each tool has a purpose, right? The old saying "the right tool for the right job", yeah?

A box of hammers  may be perfect for pounding nails or breaking things, not so good at hanging a door.

So would you say that your tool box had a diversity of tools?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
3 hours ago, Careful_perspective said:

I really appreciate your point, and I agree. I think some trans people would probably make great Troop members, just like there are probably quite a few fat people who would make good troops, The point is, the Military is not a social program, being fair is not going to improve readiness. The military wants those who have their mental illnesses well managed and be able to serve without medication due to supply lines being targeted and disrupted in many situations. Almost all trans persons use hormone treatments, and their hormone usage being disrupted may cause mental imbalance. 

In other words, you don't think that at all.

Transgender people have already proved they can serve in the military, and the experience of those countries that allow transgender troops flies in the face of the assertions that you and others are making here.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
7 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Diversity does not at all imply division. There is no reason why a diverse group could not fight as a cohesive and purposeful force, and that's already evidenced by our respective military forces. Diversity is more about the different strengths, experiences, ideas, etc., that individuals bring to a team; it's not about conflict and divisiveness.

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Then you don't understand diversity. 

Let me put this in "guy speak".

Do you have a tool box? Is it full of hammers? Or do you also have screwdrivers, wrenches, pliers and such?

Each tool has a purpose, right? The old saying "the right tool for the right job", yeah?

A box of hammers  may be perfect for pounding nails or breaking things, not so good at hanging a door.

So would you say that your tool box had a diversity of tools?

A diverse set of skills is much different then diversity of people in general. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 1/23/2019 at 7:10 PM, 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 ?

I never meant to imply that any specific member was a detriment.  I simply qualified that if they were there for the mission, first, then they should be afforded the same respect as everyone else.  As for other members who are there with other motives, if they can do the job and WILL do the job without bellyaching then I say the same of them.  I don't look at "trans" people as a solid group.  They are just as apt to be polarized, selfish and unyielding as any other group of service members.  The poster child for this group IMO is Bradley, damned TRAITOR, Manning.  He should have been stood against a wall and shot, IMO.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing
2 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Then you don't understand diversity. 

Let me put this in "guy speak".

Do you have a tool box? Is it full of hammers? Or do you also have screwdrivers, wrenches, pliers and such?

Each tool has a purpose, right? The old saying "the right tool for the right job", yeah?

A box of hammers  may be perfect for pounding nails or breaking things, not so good at hanging a door.

So would you say that your tool box had a diversity of tools?

I really don't care if these people wanna serve or not,if they do,thanks for their service if they are qualified and don't require special treatment...

That said,"diversity" for the sake of diversity is nothing like a toolbox :lol:

What qualities does a woman in transition to become a male bring to the table that a male can't do?... :huh:

If it's all about fairness in ones opinion cool...but our culture is really starting to run away with this "diversity" shtick and use it where it doesn't really matter...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing
2 hours ago, Big Jim said:

Isn't PMS enough proof?

 

Dude...NOOOOO!!!... :lol:

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
3 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

In other words, you don't think that at all.

Transgender people have already proved they can serve in the military, and the experience of those countries that allow transgender troops flies in the face of the assertions that you and others are making here.

The Supreme Court disagrees :) 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 hour ago, and then said:

I never meant to imply that any specific member was a detriment.  I simply qualified that if they were there for the mission, first, then they should be afforded the same respect as everyone else.  As for other members who are there with other motives, if they can do the job and WILL do the job without bellyaching then I say the same of them.  I don't look at "trans" people as a solid group.  They are just as apt to be polarized, selfish and unyielding as any other group of service members.  The poster child for this group IMO is Bradley, damned TRAITOR, Manning.  He should have been stood against a wall and shot, IMO.  

Whaaaaat ? He/She was a candidate for the Democrat Party. Surely you're not suggesting that Democrats could be traitors ? :o:P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
5 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

The Supreme Court disagrees :) 

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the ban itself. They have ruled that it can stand temporarily while it works its way through the courts. 

Leaving aside that the US supreme court is beyond a joke. Having judges with explicit political leanings and appointed by a politician is pretty much unique to corrupt third world dictatorships and the US. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
4 hours ago, and then said:

I never meant to imply that any specific member was a detriment.  I simply qualified that if they were there for the mission, first, then they should be afforded the same respect as everyone else.  As for other members who are there with other motives, if they can do the job and WILL do the job without bellyaching then I say the same of them.  I don't look at "trans" people as a solid group.  They are just as apt to be polarized, selfish and unyielding as any other group of service members.  The poster child for this group IMO is Bradley, damned TRAITOR, Manning.  He should have been stood against a wall and shot, IMO.  

The poster child in my opinion is Kristin Beck, the first openly transgender former US Navy SEAL.

Not that I believe one individual necessarily epitomises an entire group, but she is a good example of what transgenders can accomplish in the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
3 hours ago, Setton said:

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the ban itself. They have ruled that it can stand temporarily while it works its way through the courts. 

Leaving aside that the US supreme court is beyond a joke. Having judges with explicit political leanings and appointed by a politician is pretty much unique to corrupt third world dictatorships and the US. 

.. and the UK. And most of Europe. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.