http://www.duffelblog.com/2017/07/f...uch+the+military+spends+on+transgender+troops
Duffleblog is savage
Duffleblog is savage
Trump: No Trannys in My Army!
- Thread starter CommuterBob
- Start date
it's literally less than a rounding error, and the benefit is we get to increase our manning that was slashed under Obama.
Sorry I apologize for taking this too seriously, for offending anyone in anyway, and for using logic in the water cooler.
^standard response I need to attach to all my posts so I don't send special snowflake 85 into a roid rage after my every post.
Why are you so obsessed with me? Involving me in yet another post for no reason. For your sake I hope you return to reality soon!
Wow so many anti-Americans on here crapping on US veterans. Transgender troops have died for the US. There are over 100,000 transgender US veterans dating back to at least WWII. And an estimated 6,000 active duty right now.
Sad there is so much hate for soldiers and veterans that have sacrificed for our God given country. I hope in the future you can find peace and ask for forgiveness for denegrating our greatest citizens.
At least the Joint Chiefs of Staff emphatically rejected Trump's child like declaration on Twitter. Maybe for once Trump will act like an adult and put forth actual relevant details on his tantrums.
Sad there is so much hate for soldiers and veterans that have sacrificed for our God given country. I hope in the future you can find peace and ask for forgiveness for denegrating our greatest citizens.
At least the Joint Chiefs of Staff emphatically rejected Trump's child like declaration on Twitter. Maybe for once Trump will act like an adult and put forth actual relevant details on his tantrums.
the very next libtard sjw commie president will reverse this, of course. But it is nice to see.
What he should do is bring back the standards that existed before clinton's meddling in 1993 with his 'don't ask, don't tell' BS. No sexual deviants, no females in combat MOSs. The military has a very serious responsibility in safeguarding our nation, and it is no place for the monkey business of social experimentation on a helpless hostage population of servicemen. A future democrat attempting to reverse all of Trump's changes will find it time consuming, and possibly unpopular all over again.
What he should do is bring back the standards that existed before clinton's meddling in 1993 with his 'don't ask, don't tell' BS. No sexual deviants, no females in combat MOSs. The military has a very serious responsibility in safeguarding our nation, and it is no place for the monkey business of social experimentation on a helpless hostage population of servicemen. A future democrat attempting to reverse all of Trump's changes will find it time consuming, and possibly unpopular all over again.
He guy who jokes about dead cops is now suddenly a patriot.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/22/politics/scotus-transgender-ban/index.html
Supreme Court allows transgender military ban to go into effect
Supreme Court allows transgender military ban to go into effect
The SCOTUS didn't rule on the Transgender ban. It only ruled the partial ban can remain while the Appeals Court reviews it, noting it does not affect existing service men and women. The SCOTUS doesn't like to take up cases, prior to the Appeals Court.
At this time, I recommend people review what the actual Trump administration DoD is saying. It looks like they are taking issue with the Obama administration's Rand study.
https://media.defense.gov/2018/Mar/...LITARY-SERVICE-BY-TRANSGENDER-INDIVIDUALS.PDF
Most specifically:
- Transgender soldiers can serve, but under the new policy, they cannot undergo specific procedures, namely ...
- Those with a 25% rate of complications, resulting in ...
- Unavailability, of which I can see various arguments pro/con in the Rand, but more pertinent ...
- Life-long issues and costs, which they feel the Rand study did not focus on
Especially since...
- 10X more are now serving, than during the Rand Study
- There weren't many that had gone through the procedure prior, but many are now or have been
- The medical costs and complications are similar to physical ailments that preclude people from being able to join in the first place
It's important to recognize where the Trump administration, or should I say, the Mattis DoD review, is taking issue. It's an interesting read, agree or disagree.
I often do this because I cannot stand how the US media 'dumbs down' things to the point of pure inaccuracy and partisanship.
At this time, I recommend people review what the actual Trump administration DoD is saying. It looks like they are taking issue with the Obama administration's Rand study.
https://media.defense.gov/2018/Mar/...LITARY-SERVICE-BY-TRANSGENDER-INDIVIDUALS.PDF
Most specifically:
- Transgender soldiers can serve, but under the new policy, they cannot undergo specific procedures, namely ...
- Those with a 25% rate of complications, resulting in ...
- Unavailability, of which I can see various arguments pro/con in the Rand, but more pertinent ...
- Life-long issues and costs, which they feel the Rand study did not focus on
Especially since...
- 10X more are now serving, than during the Rand Study
- There weren't many that had gone through the procedure prior, but many are now or have been
- The medical costs and complications are similar to physical ailments that preclude people from being able to join in the first place
It's important to recognize where the Trump administration, or should I say, the Mattis DoD review, is taking issue. It's an interesting read, agree or disagree.
I often do this because I cannot stand how the US media 'dumbs down' things to the point of pure inaccuracy and partisanship.
No, this isn't correct either. I'm fine with Transgender service.
But what I do have to recognize is that the Obama Era Rand study is woefully outta date.
What were talking about here are medical procedures that result in physical ailments preventing readiness, which are no different than those that result in not just discharges, but can be argued as 'pre-existing conditions' that prevent people serving in the first place.
I.e., the new ban prevents transgender service people from undergoing those procedures. Those who have already undergone them are not affected.
As far as women, I've defended the USMC... a lot. And what other armies do is not always relevant. E.g., from a post I made, responding to a woman...
'But I take issue with how several, foreign militaries do many things, compared to the US.
Take the Swiss, for example. I usually like the Swiss for both Healthcare and Environment. But their Air Force is 8x5, and that's not a joke.
The US Air Force, Army, Navy and - - definitely Marines - - and select, NATO ally units (often very few, hence why the US is 85%+ the bulk of deployments) provide readiness for too many EU countries. So that's not a very good argument.
That's one thing the Rand study did a poor job of, and is easily disproven. I.e., if we want to bring down US military readiness, such as the USMC 'Expeditionary Forces,' to typical EU ally Army levels, then we can.
That's currently why women have their issues in the USMC when it comes to combat roles, especially officer level, especially Expeditionary deployments. Don't get me started.
HINT: USMC officer physical requirements exceed enlisted, the opposite of any other force. And despite lowering requirements for women, and many enlisted women meeting them, so few pass the even lowered, , but still higher than enlisted, USMC officer requirements.
E.g., Lifting a 155mm shell, even with assistance, has been a staple issue for women in USMC Expeditionary combat roles. There is a huge debate in the USMC about this, as the Marines really do want women in combat roles, and even more so, officer leadership.
The US media would tell you they are just a bunch of sexist a-holes. The Marines have many womem, but it's these forward deploy combat roles that are the most troublesome to meet, even with reduced requirements.'
I agree that the US military/taxpayers should not pay for gender change surgeries, but you can outlaw that without this bigoted policy.
To the person who said "trannies are mentally ill," if they are so are alcoholics, compulsive gamblers, any type of compulsive behavior etc. Should they also be banned from military service? How do you prove it?
If someone is willing to sign up and risk their lives for our country and are fit to do so, they should be allowed. I look forward to the day my fellow Republicans stop making LGBT issues a thing, who cares?
This has nothing to do with my personal views on it, I do personally think it is unnatural and a little weird, and I can't help that I feel that way. However, those are my personal views and it is not the role of the gov't to regulate or legislate something that literally affects no one elses lives.
EDIT: Sorry, I didn't realize some of these posts were 1.5 years old when responding at first. It's late. Go Knights
To the person who said "trannies are mentally ill," if they are so are alcoholics, compulsive gamblers, any type of compulsive behavior etc. Should they also be banned from military service? How do you prove it?
If someone is willing to sign up and risk their lives for our country and are fit to do so, they should be allowed. I look forward to the day my fellow Republicans stop making LGBT issues a thing, who cares?
This has nothing to do with my personal views on it, I do personally think it is unnatural and a little weird, and I can't help that I feel that way. However, those are my personal views and it is not the role of the gov't to regulate or legislate something that literally affects no one elses lives.
EDIT: Sorry, I didn't realize some of these posts were 1.5 years old when responding at first. It's late. Go Knights
Last edited:
Actually, that is the new policy. Transgender servicepeople are allowed to serve. They just cannot undergo specific surgeries now or in the future, if they have not already begun.
The problem with the prior policy is that it was ex-post-facto, because it affected those who had already undergone the specific procedures now outlawed. This is not. It only affects those going forward, who have yet to undergo specific procedures.
I invite everyone to read the new policy. Now Trump has come under fire for trying to enforce it before the new study is done. But I understand the military's view that a new study is required ... irrespective of Trump.
The prior Rand study was gone with 1/4th the period and 1/10th as many transgender service personnel, hence why the military wanted it updated.
Now that all said ... I do fully admit Manning has 'lit a fire' under the right on this.
