Transgender in military...or not

[IACOBVS]

You are entitled to your beliefs and your interpretations but so are we so if you dont like it then perhaps you should avoid the thread rather than calling people bigots. My stand is based on moral and biblical proncipals, personally I have no bone to pick with anyone until they try to force their beliefs down my throat whether I agree or not.

My stand is also based on moral an biblical principals, and I have no bone to pick with anyone until they try to force their beliefs down my throat, whether I agree or not. I find it extremely offensive that you would suggest that I stay way from homophobic threads. I will always stand up for what I believe.

 

[IACOBVS]

Hate? Seriously? Is it also some form of hate to disqualify people who are twice their ideal weight and people who can't shoot straight?

It really does nothing for a cause (any cause) to simply write off anything less than gushing approval as hatred and bigotry.

Weight and shooting straight are things that can be changed. One's sexuality cannot. Your post is asinine.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Weight and shooting straight are things that can be changed. One's sexuality cannot. ....

I agree. People can change their weight though it is said to be difficult and people can learn to shoot better with practise but I do not know of credible evidence for changes in sexual orientation.

 

[IACOBVS]

I agree. People can change their weight though it is said to be difficult and people can learn to shoot better with practise but I do not know of credible evidence for changes in sexual orientation.

Thank you. You're a good papist, even though we both know you are wicked.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Thank you. You're a good papist, even though we both know you are wicked.

We are all naughty that is why Jesus came to save us.

 

[IACOBVS]

We are all naughty that is why Jesus came to save us.

yep. I hope you are saved. What I'm really looking forward to is what happens after the "marriage supper of the Lamb". And what's going to happen to all of those straight boys on here. Teehee. (Oh, I am so wicked.)

 

[MoreCoffee]

yep. I hope you are saved. What I'm really looking forward to is what happens after the "marriage supper of the Lamb". And what's going to happen to all of those straight boys on here. Teehee. (Oh, I am so wicked.)

Indeed you are.

:smirk:

 

[Wilhemena]

Personally I agree with this decision. Why should the government pay for this? I dont have a problem with them serving so much as the taxpayer footing the bill for the surgeries

Indeed. The surgery to change sex is voluntary and not medically necessary as is all the other medicines that the transgenders prefer to have which are not medically necessary to keep them alive and this is what our government is trying to confer. Insisting that this is a hate based decision is neglect of the facts instead trying to sway the masses through a heartfelt cry and finger pointing rather than looking at the plain facts in front of them. The military realizes that if they offered to pay for surgeries and medical treatments to aid the transgenders that there would be a boost in enlistments and also a boost in expenses as well as continuous mental evaluations for those individuals which deflects from the purpose of our military which is to protect our country. It would be nice if our government could pay for the expenses of the medical issues of every single taxpayer and yet that is not the case and to expect the military to pay for voluntary surger is, in my humble opinion, absolute nonsense.

 

[Josiah]

I hate to break the news to everyone. But the truth is that the military is not equal opportunity. You cannot serve in the military if you are too old, too young, too fat, too skinny, too many tatoos, or if you have medical conditions or psychological disorders. If what progressives are saying is true, and being transgender is a legit medical condition, that medical condition should disqualify you from the military.

I largely agree.....

And I do NOT think the military (um, we taxpayers) should pay for multilation surgeries.

On the one hand, personally, I don't care much about people's orientations as long as they behave themselves (publicly anyway) and respect others (including their moralities - which may be contrary to their own; "tolerance" is a two way street).

On the other hand, IF the military declared that transgender folks are incapable of providing any service in the military (or even are poor in such performance) then I agree the military should be able to exclude them. For the same reason that they exclude 80 year old men or blind people or even Type One Diabetics. It doesn't mean that old men or blind folks are less human, only less qualified to perform military duties. And I agree, the military is not some social experiment or "PC" model: it exists for one reason: to kill people and break things - and discourage others from doing that to us. That's it, that's all.



- Josiah

 

[Lamb]

Sorry, Lady Lammikins. That doesn't work for me. Just because it's in the news and because some website(those are always true, we know) are talking about it, it does not make it okay to put red meat out there in front of LGBTQ haters to vent their ugly views. I will always stand against this and any other hate perpetrated against any of God's children.

Well, I gave my reason for starting this thread. You chose to think otherwise because of some of the responses. I haven't deceived you.

 

[tango]

Weight and shooting straight are things that can be changed. One's sexuality cannot. Your post is asinine.

People who are twice their ideal weight will be disqualified until such time that their weight is in line with what it should be. If someone can't shoot straight because they have bad vision they can't necessarily do anything about that either. Wearing glasses only works so far because if you lose your glasses in a combat situation it's not like you can just excuse yourself while you get a new pair. Sometimes people can't shoot straight because they are just not very well coordinated - you know, some people are just plain clumsy.

Sexuality isn't the same as gender identity.

The brutal truth is that the military is about combat effectiveness. Nothing more and nothing less. Anyone who requires special accommodation isn't going to fit in, whether that "special accommodation" is a daily shot of insulin (which can't be guaranteed in a war zone), daily hormone injections (likewise) or whatever else. If your presence diminishes combat effectiveness you can't be there. The military is there to fight, not to endlessly change and fit in this or that special case.

It doesn't work to say that asthmatics and diabetics can be excluded because of the special accommodations they might need but those in the process of changing gender are somehow special cases and have to be accommodated whatever the cost. There may be a case to be made for those who have completed a transition to be allowed to serve but if the presence of such a person would diminish the overall combat effectiveness

Edit: Not sure what happened to the last part, the final sentence should continue with "they must be excluded just like anyone else who diminished combat effectiveness".

 

[tango]

I agree. People can change their weight though it is said to be difficult and people can learn to shoot better with practise but I do not know of credible evidence for changes in sexual orientation.

When did sexual orientation come into it? I thought we were talking about the transgendered.

 

[hotrhymez]

I agree with Tango. Honestly I have nothing against trangendered, etc people..I know its who you are and you were born that way and i get it....but the military is supposed to be the best of the best in combat....and if allowing transgenders prevents that then dont let them in..the military disqualifies people for a ton of other things too..is the military bigoted towards people that are overweight or with bad eyesight?

and honestly..just because someone disagrees with you doesnt mean they are bigoted..i wish this attitude would go away in society..you have to agree or youre a bigot or a racist..sigh...

 

[MoreCoffee]

When did sexual orientation come into it? I thought we were talking about the transgendered.

Okay. I agree. People can change their weight though it is said to be difficult and people can learn to shoot better with practise but I do not know of credible evidence for changes in gender dysphoria.

 

[psalms 91]

Okay. I agree. People can change their weight though it is said to be difficult and people can learn to shoot better with practise but I do not know of credible evidence for changes in gender dysphoria.[/QUOTEsorry wrong quote

 

[psalms 91]

When did sexual orientation come into it? I thought we were talking about the transgendered.

Not surprising is it?

 

[tango]

Okay. I agree. People can change their weight though it is said to be difficult and people can learn to shoot better with practise but I do not know of credible evidence for changes in gender dysphoria.

The trouble is this still doesn't address the underlying issue.

If someone is too fat to serve nobody says the military hates fat people, merely that fat people reduce combat effectiveness. If asthmatics and diabetics aren't allowed to serve nobody says the military hates asthmatics or that the military hates diabetics, they merely note that people with those conditions reduce combat effectiveness. Yet as soon as something relates to gender identity all the rational talk goes away and it's suddenly about how people hate the transgendered.

People can't do much to change any number of other aspects of themselves (color blindness, general vision defects, some people have genetic predisposition to being fat, some are just naturally clumsy and can do little about it) but nobody talks as if there's some kind of bigotry against those who are blind or deaf because they aren't allowed on the front line.

It's sad that it gets so hard to have a sensible discussion about such things without anything less than gushing approval being labelled as hatred and bigotry. (To be clear, I know it wasn't you who went there, but I think the point is relevant to the thread)

 

[hedrick]

Being transgender isn't a mental health issue. People need to educate themselves about these things before they make hurtful comments. Cis-gender people also get PTSD, a whole lot more often actually, since most of the population is cis. Should that disqualify cis folks as well?

There's a common misunderstanding of the mental health issue. Psychiatrists consider gender dysphoria to be a problem. From that people conclude that being transgender is a mental health problem. However gender dysphoria is being unhappy with your gender. Living as a transgender isn't the problem, it's a way of dealing with the problem. There is evidence that it's reasonably successful for many people.

Incidentally, my understanding from a newspaper story is that some in the military had asked for a policy that they didn't have to pay for sex changes for troops, but not to ban them. That's not to say that many in the military aren't happy to ban them, of course.

 

[hedrick]

Wha..Trump has a moment of clarity?

I can't think of an easier way to introduce a type of cancer into the military than to allow transexuals and openly homosexual persons into it.

Wait...openly homosexual people been serving since 2011, and things have been just fine? According to the Family Research Council back in 2010 - they said we'd see a marked increase in male/male rape with the dropping of "don't ask don't tell".

And, that's actually what happened since it was abolished.

Well done, America.

Are you sure? The problem is that until recently the military didn’t study the issue. Indeed their policies on rape didn’t even acknowledge male victims. Now that people are concerned, social scientists are start to study it. No doubt they’re going to come up with larger numbers than when people weren’t looking for it. However a lot of headlines you’ll find on this subject seem to have come from one report, that was actually retracted. Lest you suspect it was retracted for political reasons, here’s a summary of some issues with it: http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/10/apa-retracts-shocking-military-male-rape-study/. The Federalist does not appear to be a left-wing publication.

 

[Cassia]

It seems to me that Isis deals with matters much simply. Shot them all. My thought is that it would be very confusing for the medics who would not be specially trained at helping parts unknown.
But happy to see that ya\ll are getting on down with business I'm enjoying the summer break from all you bad Balaam's kids, but really ... :wave:'s