Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

The title says it all. If you ask me, if people want to fight for their country's protection, then they should. I admire all members of our armed service, for they have sacrificed so much for this beautiful nation.

It's weird that you are barring people from serving, if someone passes the tests should be able to serve.

The reasoning sounds bad, if you worried about medical expenses, the solution should be "enlist after transitioning".

I've expressed as much as the following in the comment section of the entry, but:

If this is indeed more than pandering to the base in a time of needing a ratings boost, I can understand why this would be considered. The reason, I find, is pretty simple: people with gender dysphoria have a mental disorder. Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder-- if it isn't, it's a neurological disorder. Either way, it still causes grave distress to the sufferer, which is to be expected when you persistently feel like you should be in the body of the opposite sex but you aren't. You don't know if that'll get exacerbated in a wartime environment, particularly if they haven't received anything in the way of remedy for it-- perhaps in spite of them receiving remedy. To my knowledge, we already discriminate against applicants who have diagnosed mental/neurological disorders except maybe Asperger's. I'm actually surprised that this was able to become an issue in the first place.

On the other hand, if anybody demonstrates themselves to be physically and mentally capable for service, then perhaps it doesn't matter. But, nonetheless, I still see a viable reason as to why this would be considered.

But I still find it very likely that this was a pandering move, unless this has been a conversation that's been had for years and I just wasn't aware of it. I say that because this wasn't a discussed campaign promise.

If you are found to be physically and mentally fit enough to serve then you should be allowed to serve. The fact that there are already trans veterans proves that being trans doesn't hinder one's ability to fight. To deny them the right to fight for their country simply because of who they are goes against what America stands for, or atleast what it should stand for.

What Donald Trump did was transphobic.

I'll paraphrase what I posted in Politics General: it is justifiable to restrict trans people from combat roles, but the way Trump went about this is stunningly inept. The Joint Chiefs say they can't implement the ban because they never actually received an official directive from the president. It looks like he thought he could set a new policy just by…tweeting it. Y'know, like a king making a proclamation?

Just…I mean…fuck.

I'll keep it brief myself, but I generally agree

While the Action was transphobic, I do doubt trump is transphobic himself, but what he did was without a doubt still a cheap as fuck move, which is ironic because in his campaign he said he was going to increase military spending, but eh, obama also wanted 'change' and look how 'greatly' he 'changed' the US

I have many friends who are trans, If someone who was trans wished to enter the fucking military, serve and defend our country against the threats we have against us, help contribute greatly and be likely remembered as a hero. they're no different than any other good ol' patriot that wants to join, I could perhaps understand a 'don't join until you got your transistion'. I'm not sure how the ban completely works, but truly patriots of all kind in this nation truly should be able to serve regardless.

My personal thoughts are more or less: if they are fit to serve, then let them serve in the military. Granted, my thoughts could be a naive view. If the reason they are barred is due to medical cost, KYFPMM brought up a good point "enlist after transitioning". Then again, I hear medical help for veterans isn't too well but I could be wrong (and I hope I'm wrong but I could just optimistic on that).

On that same note, I really like to see a good argument from both sides if simply to see if we can have a discussion that doesn't end in REEEEE from either or both.

Copying and pasting from the politics thread:

For the record, I don’t believe for a second that this is a cost cutting measure.
The estimated cost of treating transgender soldiers is 2.4 million to 8.4 million dollars.
For comparison the DoD spends 84 million a year on erectile dysfunction medication. Only 7.67 million of that (less than 10%) goes to active duty personnel.
Now I’m not suggesting they cut erectile dysfunction medication, I’m just demonstrating that the cost of treating transgender soldiers is minuscule compared to what they already spend treating soldiers.

Two ways to look at this IMO

1) Transpeople as """ill"""

A rather disparaging way to look at the scenario and a huge misconstruement of what gender dysphoria is. This view is often the last remnants of one's former transphobia masked as fake-ass pity, but whatever, that's another discussion. It's how I used to feel before meeting and befriending real transpeople IRL. Even so, the only real known """cure""" is transitioning. After transitioning, the transperson is "cured" but also still a transperson. Therefore on this basis, restricting them would be discriminatory.

2) Transpeople as an orientation

IMO the correct way to view the situation. It's a neurological difference but not necessarily a disorder. With an accepting, supportive group of friends and family, fully-transitioned people will recover from their dysphoria. Since they were born this way and can't control it, provided they can pass all necessary requirements re: mental health, they should be able to serve. Restriction on grounds of orientation would be discriminatory.

What people need to realise is that gender dysphoria will cause major depression, but as with any case, one can bounce back from that depression with a good support network. Lots of soldiers have mental health issues. Before we see labels of "male" or "female", we need to look at transpeople as "another soldier" and see what help that specific soldier requires in order to be able to return to service.

I can't say that I fully accept transgender people, but if one wanted to join the military then they should AFTER transistioning, not before or during.

Understandable?

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1530.html

Food for thought

TL;DR It might not be too expensive

Have you met any transpeople IRL? Because it really seems like you don't personally know any transpeople nor have you made an effort to understand the condition. I do have such friends, and I gotta be blunt, the way you say this, it's kind of like you're going "haha you're ILL!" It makes you come over as kind of a dick and since we've spoken briefly in the past I really did expect better of you tbh. Disappointing.

Gender dysphoria is even officially classified as a disorder. The only thing here that's disappointing is you lack of reading comprehension. I've never made fun of trans people, here or irl. But I did applaud your impressive mental gymnastics abilities.

To consider the word "disorder" offensive is ridiculous, given how even a major depression is classified as a disorder, even though it has far less severe implications.

> an effort to understand the condition

i.e. I'm wrong, and they don't have a psychological need to maim themselves?

"Psychological need to maim oneself" Is the insulting part. It's clear you don't really understand gender dysphoria at all really. Also, homosexuality was also officially a mental disorder at one point, what people label as a mental disorder matters very little, especially seeing as having an extreme personality is a mental disorder nowadays.

Having a depression because of the body you're born with even though it's physically healthy, to the extent of needing to self harm. If this is not a mental disorder nothing is a mental disorder. So let's just create a more politically correct word for all mental disorders that sounds more pleasant. I don't mind.

> “Psychological need to maim oneself” Is the insulting part.

Taking hormones that will sterilize you is maiming yourself. Undergoing surgeries which render your previously physically healthy genitals useless is maiming yourself. And nothing will change this. What is insulting about it?

>Having a depression because of the body you’re born with even though it’s physically healthy, to the extent of needing to self harm. If this is not a mental disorder nothing is a mental disorder.

Again, clear that you don't understand gender dysphoria. Believe it or not, not all Transgender people even have surgery, the idea that transsexualism is defined by the need to change ones body is a common misunderstanding.

>Taking hormones that will sterilize you is maiming yourself. Undergoing surgeries which render your previously physically healthy genitals useless is maiming yourself. And nothing will change this. What is insulting about it?

Surgery to fix a problem is not "maiming oneself" Maybe look up what Gender Dysphoria is, what causes it and what it pertains to before decrying or judging it at face value.

> Again, clear that you don’t understand gender dysphoria

Don't worry, I do

> Believe it or not, not all Transgender people even have surgery

You're right on this one, but I never claimed that either. But if you read more on the topic you'd find out that "transitioning" is the only "cure". By the way, this is what Eglamore has said as well, seriously, go read it. So the only "cure" for being depressed by your body is "transitioning" i.e. maiming it.
I suggest you stop being so unnecessarily smug, that way you won't make such silly mistakes next time.

> Surgery to fix a problem is not “maiming oneself”

Your healthy body being your problem is not a sign of great mental health.

>Don’t worry, I do

(X) Doubt

>You’re right on this one, but I never claimed that either

You just claimed that transsexualism is the psychological need to maim oneself. That implies that the desire to get transition surgery is required to classify as gender dysphoria.

>But if you read more on the topic you’d find out that “transitioning” is the only “cure”

That is far from the truth, many transsexuals get by with just hormone treatment

>By the way, this is what Eglamore has said as well, seriously, go read it. So the only “cure” for being depressed by your body is “transitioning” i.e. maiming it.

Using the word "cure" is misleading, it's closer to "treatment", since a cure would be ridding gender dysphoria from the person without transitioning. Seeing how there are Transexuals who get along fine without transitioning, it would seem that isn't the only treatment.

>Your healthy body being your problem is not a sign of great mental health.

Your physical body and brain chemistry not lining up is not what I would call healthy.

I mean when I really read into it, it makes sense to me, women transitioning into men are still weaker by default and the other way just means they're becoming weaker… It's basic biology, it may suck but that's how it works… The military is not some college club, it's super serious business…
For the record, I am very supportive of trans issues that are actually issues and not complaints made by trans-trenders, this ban is kind of a non-issue that's been made into a big deal by people that want to complain about Trump for the sake of complaining about Trump…

Women have been officially a part of the United States military since 1917.

And I'm sure they're a lot more mentally balanced… My point is this a non-issue being blown out of proportion by virtue signallers and trans-trenders for the sake of opposing Trump in some pathetic "resistance" movement… I'm sure people would be against it if Trump said something along the lines of trans people being able to be drafted…
Trump listened to generals and made the choice on their advice, I'm sure those people are far more knowledgeable and qualified to make the call than us…

I’m sure people would be against it if Trump said something along the lines of trans people being able to be drafted

I recall that around the time women were permitted to join the Marines, a Californian congressman proposed making women eligible for the draft. He opposed his own proposal, as his intention was apparently to force Democrats to make an embarrassing vote against drafting women, in order to demonstrate that their push to let women into the Marines had cynical ulterior motives and was not really about equality. Democrats responded by calling his bluff and voting for the proposal, paving the way for draft eligibility for women.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-quiet-steady-progress-of-women-in-the-military/481056/

I don't see any reason why it would be different with transgender people.

Again my point goes over your head, these people will go against literally anything Trump says just so they can act like they're a resistance… It's a bunch of people virtue-signaling…

And I’m sure they’re a lot more mentally balanced

Vetting exists. If people are deemed unfit mentally or physically, they are not recruited. This includes trans people. There was no need for a blanket ban.

My point is this a non-issue

It's an issue that effects several thousand trans military members, the people who will have to replace them, and any new potential trans recruits. Or at least it would if Trump had given, or if he decides to give official notice to the Pentagon instead of just making declarations on twittter.

Trump listened to generals and made the choice on their advice, I’m sure those people are far more knowledgeable and qualified to make the call than us…

He claims he did. That doesn't seem to line up with the fact that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were completely blindsided by his announcement. It ignores the actual study that was done on the subject and it subverts the review process that was being carried out by the Defense Secretary .

Who are "these people"? Do you mean the ACLU and friends? Or LGBT lobbying groups? The people opposed to this have a wide variety of agendas.

I think they mean liberals in general.

I wouldn't classify organizations like the ACLU as liberal so much as civil libertarian.