Help support TMP


"Transgender military" Topic


61 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2006-present) Message Board



2,201 hits since 26 Jul 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

Personal logo Great War Ace Supporting Member of TMP26 Jul 2017 10:19 a.m. PST

link
Yeah, I know, I know, Bluey Fezzy territory! But, it is also apropos of modern military composition. Seriously, you cannot talk about "ultra modern" militaries without also discussing what the troops are.

I've said it from the moment I heard about this advocacy to allow under "don't ask don't tell": confusion will result in any mixing of genders in military units. Now we are supposed to allow some woman, for example, to change her gender and enter infantry service as a male. WTH? How does that work to promote ultimate efficiency in battle? I'm not saying that women should not serve in the military. But there is no way that any woman can outperform a man across the spectrum. Yes, exceptions will occur. But you don't form a "come join the infantry" policy on the basis of exceptions.

Transgenders are simply outside consideration. Where this has been leading, until this announcement, is allowing "don't ask don't tell" to hide the true gender of a woman who wants to pass herself off as a man.

I don't see men pretending to themselves that they are women being a big problem, Manning forming no exception. If a man decides to be a woman, and he's military, he will simply be relegated to non combat duties.

This is all about having as lean and tough a military as possible. And you don't get anywhere near that by going all "PC"………..

Personal logo Private Matter Supporting Member of TMP26 Jul 2017 11:14 a.m. PST

I have no issues with women in combat provided that they can meet the same physical strength and stamina requirements as men. This means that it may be only 10% of the women can meet the requirements whereas 80% of the men can then so be it; but at least it's equal opportunity. As for transgender, the same holds true for me in regards to acceptance if they can pass the requirement then so be it. I do have issues with the military paying for the operations to complete gender reassignment but this is more for budgetary purposes than anything. It costs a great deal and money is tight for the military. If a person pays for it themselves, and still meets the requirements then again so be it.

I know women who are combat veterans who have performed admirably under fire. I would've been comfortable having them serve along side of me in my day. There are physical requirements for each of the jobs in the military and provided those requirements are not compromised anyone should have the opportunity and honor to serve their nation provided they can meet those requirements. I know a young lady who was knocked out of the turret of her MRAP when it was hit by an RPG in Afghanistan. Under fire, she ran back into the burning MRAP to drag the injured driver out of the vehicle while the other soldiers who got out stayed under cover providing covering fire. She was 19 at the time and was all of 5'4" tall. That driver was glad that woman was in combat that day. I She may have been one of the "10%" that could've passed the requirements but she did her bit. More so than many that will post their opinions here.

Having said all that, you will get many of the same faces on here bemoaning the fact that women shouldn't be in combat and it will be even louder complaining regarding transgender persons. So I'll say it now; most arguments will be based upon either sexism, ignorance or a combination of both. They will cite examples of behavior of both genders which is a discipline issue and not a gender issue. Or they will cite changing standards to permit women in combat and that is a leadership issue not a gender issue.

Personal logo Great War Ace Supporting Member of TMP26 Jul 2017 11:24 a.m. PST

Changes of so sweeping a nature are a cultural issue first, functional last.

Women can fight. Who said they can't? Guns are easy to use. That isn't the sole consideration. Bravery "under fire" isn't the issue either.

Core issues are all about living side by side in war, and preparing to do so. Expensive, distracting, unnecessary, and ultimately internally weakening. There is NO advantage to any of these changes. They are all motivated by a modern mindset of inclusivity and acceptance running amok. We should see it for what it is and put the kibosh on it yesterday. Acceptance, inclusivity, should not enter into the military just because it permeates private life.

But we have rotted out to such a degree that the military is occupied by too many minds that twist protocol and agenda into a private world view, corrupting the military with it and justifying it as somehow a good thing.

USAFpilot26 Jul 2017 11:32 a.m. PST

The job of our military is to defend the nation. If they fail, the nation is destroyed. All other considerations are of secondary importance.

Personal logo Private Matter Supporting Member of TMP26 Jul 2017 11:32 a.m. PST

Great War Ace I respectfully disagree. I deal with members of the military almost everyday and there is nothing 'rotted' about the men and women who serve. A military should reflect the nation it fights for. There is nothing wrong with inclusiveness and acceptance, provided standards are not weakened. Society's weakness does not come from inclusion or acceptance but rather the me first mentality. And those who serve in the military, male or female, generally are not of that mindset.

The issues you mention about distracting, expensive, etc. are the 'discipline' issues that to which I was referring. You should go back and read the issues raised by folks trying to block blacks from being integrated or given combat roles in the first half of the 20th century. Such excuses were used as they were not capable of understanding complex weapon systems such as tanks or airplanes; that the white troops would never be willing to work alongside of the blacks; that blacks wouldn't handle the psychological strain of combat. All very similar to the arguments against women.

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian26 Jul 2017 11:38 a.m. PST

Now we are supposed to allow some woman, for example, to change her gender and enter infantry service as a male.

If the person can do the job, what does it matter?

Transgenders are simply outside consideration.

Why?

…to hide the true gender of a woman who wants to pass herself off as a man.

In real life, you don't get to take DNA tests of everyone you meet. You don't know anyone's gender, really…

…men pretending to themselves that they are women…

That's a bit ignorant. Maybe you should get some education on this subject, or meet some actual transpeople.

If a man decides to be a woman, and he's military, he will simply be relegated to non combat duties.

Why? They suddenly can't do the job any more???

Pan Marek Supporting Member of TMP26 Jul 2017 12:14 p.m. PST

Private and Bill- +1

Personal logo Private Matter Supporting Member of TMP26 Jul 2017 12:23 p.m. PST

USAF Pilot you are correct which is why real and appropriate physical and mental standards must be maintained; for all genders. Reduced standards does everyone a disservice and puts people at risk. However, standards should be set by what is truly needed to perform the job and not by what a person has or doesn't have between their legs. As a pilot (going by your handle) you must agree that some women are just as capable as handling an aircraft as a man as has been demonstrated by LtCol Malachowski. Not all people are physically capable of performing the jobs performed by our service members, especially the combat arms roles. However, if they are capable of meeting the physical and mental requirements to do the job, then let them.

Mitochondria26 Jul 2017 12:44 p.m. PST

Introducing transgender policy uses resources best utilized training and equipping the military for war.

Raynman Supporting Member of TMP26 Jul 2017 12:44 p.m. PST

My concern with this, is the medical aspect. I see many transgenders using the military as a way to get their surgeries for free. Why should the taxpayer and the military be liable for these costs? Also, after the transition is made, don't they need to take hormones to keep the appropriate qualities in place? If the soldier has transitioned, and is in a combat zone, how long can they go without the appropriate hormone therapies they require?

Personal logo Private Matter Supporting Member of TMP26 Jul 2017 1:24 p.m. PST

Actually Sgt Dutch is correct.

martin goddard Sponsoring Member of TMP26 Jul 2017 1:50 p.m. PST

I do not see transgender in the military as a problem at all.

basileus6626 Jul 2017 1:55 p.m. PST

It is a trap!

Personal logo DColtman Supporting Member of TMP26 Jul 2017 2:14 p.m. PST

18 countries allow openly transgender individuals to be members of their armed forces: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. [CBC]

Queen Catherine26 Jul 2017 2:49 p.m. PST

sure, let'm serve.

However, let them pay for all their optional surgery on their own. It isn't medically necessary, and it is a fiction that they were "born in the wrong body". Psychological help is what is really needed.

Having read the official statement, it is a lengthy process that will take about 4 years, and pretty much relegate them to a non-deployment and nearly non-functional status. And the tax payers will pay for their surgery, hormones, the works.

When you look at it as a total budget, yes, we are spending money on transgender surgery at the expense of bullets.

Dwindling Gravitas In the TMP Dawghouse26 Jul 2017 3:05 p.m. PST

A fiction? Really?

LMFAO @ your total ignorance :-)

Irish Marine Supporting Member of TMP26 Jul 2017 4:26 p.m. PST

If you can't figure out what your gender is you don't belong in the service.

Personal logo Private Matter Supporting Member of TMP26 Jul 2017 4:32 p.m. PST

+1 Queen Catherine.

Dwindling Gravitas In the TMP Dawghouse26 Jul 2017 5:11 p.m. PST

Stealth editing by any chance?

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian26 Jul 2017 5:18 p.m. PST

Introducing transgender policy uses resources best utilized training and equipping the military for war.

Was it a waste of resources when the armed forces were racially integrated?

I see many transgenders using the military as a way to get their surgeries for free. Why should the taxpayer and the military be liable for these costs?

Really a separate question, isn't it? That's a government policy.

Also, after the transition is made, don't they need to take hormones to keep the appropriate qualities in place?

Some do, some don't, depends on what the individual wants.

If the soldier has transitioned, and is in a combat zone, how long can they go without the appropriate hormone therapies they require?

Indefinitely, if they have to.

Irish Marine Supporting Member of TMP26 Jul 2017 5:23 p.m. PST

We don't need people with mental problems, and that's what this nonsense transgender stuff is.

tookey2326 Jul 2017 6:04 p.m. PST

From the domestic violence news pieces, shootings. alchololism etc I would imagine the current\ex military already has a good chunk of mental health problems.

I can't see any issue with transgender people being in the US army like so many international forces allow.

Sobieski26 Jul 2017 6:28 p.m. PST

Private Matter – I wish more posters on this site saw things as rationally as you. Keep it up.

Mitochondria26 Jul 2017 7:15 p.m. PST

The military disqualfies you for a plethora of physical and psychological criteria.

Flat feet, diabetes, muscular sclerosis, psychosis, heart murmur, high blood pressure, bipolar….don't all of the sufferers of these ailments deserve the chance to serve their country?

Irish, transgenderism is a mental illness, but the treatment is to allow theses individuals to live and be treated as the gender they feel they are. So all of the transitions and whatnot are not the ailement, but the treatment. When you "go along" with their perceptions you are positivley engaging in the treatment process.

whitejamest26 Jul 2017 7:54 p.m. PST

It was going to destroy the combat effectiveness of the army when it was racially integrated. Except it didn't.

It was going to destroy unit integrity when women were allowed on the front lines. Except it didn't.

Allowing openly homosexual individuals to serve was going to be a catastrophic distraction from the military's mission. Except it wasn't.

My mother put up with a lot of this type of BS when she was an army officer. She shook it off and did her job.

None of this is about military effectiveness. It's just about people not liking certain types of people.

Personal logo Great War Ace Supporting Member of TMP26 Jul 2017 8:15 p.m. PST

To me it is all about military effectiveness. To some it is more complicated by prejudices. I don't care if a person IDs as the opposite gender. I do care if tax money for the military is spent to pay for their desired operations and subsequent medical expenses. That is totally wrong and unnecessary. It is a waste of money earmarked for the military. It is inefficient.

A combat unit must adhere to minimum standards. Lowering standards is immoral because it reduces national defense capability by reducing combat effectiveness.

Women as a group will not perform as well in physical demands, minimal standards, as men do as a group. That some women can outperform some men is not a reason to change policy.

If you can get a unit of buff women together as a combat unit without it costing more to train and equip than a male unit, have at it. But that isn't how this works. Cost is ignored, in order to prove a point.

Serving your country isn't about rating some jobs above other jobs. A combat unit needs to be as efficient as possible. Anything that detracts from that is immoral because it reduces combat effectiveness and thus national defense capability.

Transgenders should be discounted as a group for medical and psychological reasons. If a person privately pays for his or her sexual change, applies as their ID gender, passes the entry exams, passes basic training, passes all requirements as their gender ID, and nobody knows anything, this would not be an issue.

But if a man had his penis removed, joined the military as a woman, passed all the requirements to be a combat soldier, and then joined a male unit as a woman, because this is how it is done these days, how, exactly is any of this resulting confusion not a distraction to the entire system at each step along the way? Multiply it by thousands, and the whole military is dealing with distracting issues constantly, and all because of sex. It's the most ludicrous mess we've ever faced as a nation. The Blacks in the military arguments pale by comparison……….

Irish Marine Supporting Member of TMP26 Jul 2017 8:27 p.m. PST

While in the Marine Corps I had three Marines kicked out; one for drugs and two for being gay and yes it did present tons of problems and still is no one in the news is bothered reporting it.

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian26 Jul 2017 9:09 p.m. PST

We don't need people with mental problems, and that's what this nonsense transgender stuff is.

The psychologists disagree with you…

SouthernPhantom26 Jul 2017 10:02 p.m. PST

SOME psychologists, Bill. Others have not drank the politically-correct Kool-Aid and recognize that an individual who wishes to have themselves surgically mutilated to resemble the opposite sex has deep-seated mental problems.

It's akin to a person claiming to be a cat. It doesn't matter if they wear cat ears or a costume or have cosmetic surgery to appear more catlike- they are and always will be a human, not a cat. Would that person not be considered mentally ill?

Likewise for those claiming to "identify" as the opposite sex. They may feel that they are "born in the wrong body" or somesuch, but it does not change the reality. Surgery, hormone therapy, et al. is merely enabling their condition, not treating it.

If flat feet or ADHD are considered disqualifiers (a close friend of mine was rejected by the USAF due to a childhood ADHD diagnosis; he later joined the Army), so too should be a desire to have oneself surgically mutilated. Likewise, paying to enable this is not a proper use of defense funds which, need I remind you, come out of our tax dollars. In no way does this contribute to readiness, combat effectiveness, or anything other than fleecing the taxpayer to further the desires of a vanishingly small segment of the population.

Charlie 1226 Jul 2017 10:40 p.m. PST

SOME psychologists, Bill. Others have not drank the politically-correct Kool-Aid and recognize that an individual who wishes to have themselves surgically mutilated to resemble the opposite sex has deep-seated mental problems.

Dead wrong. The American Psychological Association, for one, disagrees with you. As do the overwhelming majority of studies on the issue.

And not all transgenders go through the full reassignment surgery. It all depends on the individual.

People, its 2017. Not 1917. Or 1817. Things change and this is just one of them.

SouthernPhantom26 Jul 2017 10:54 p.m. PST

A field with repeated blatant disregard for physical reality is deserving of nothing but pity and ridicule. That is the predicament in which psychology finds itself, respected by few but its own, after decades of advancing fatally-flawed claptrap supporting whichever cause is popular that month.

"It's the current year!"

That argument has grown amusingly old and tired as the world rejects political correctness as an outdated relic of 20th-century liberal democracy (may THAT failure be consigned to the dunpster!).

PMC31727 Jul 2017 2:04 a.m. PST

Being a transgender person is not "having a mental illness". Gender is a spectrum, not a binary: link

To prevent physically capable people who can meet or exceed all physical requirements to do the relevant jobs within the US military simply because of a prejudice against their gender is both wrong and foolish.

As the Washington Post pointed out, the US military spends more on Viagra than on medical support for its transgender personnel: link

Irish Marine Supporting Member of TMP27 Jul 2017 3:39 a.m. PST

You can't beat DNA.

greatpatton27 Jul 2017 4:37 a.m. PST

Seems that your knowledge of DNA and chromosomes is very limited…

PVT64127 Jul 2017 5:24 a.m. PST

The military is not all about me.

Lion in the Stars27 Jul 2017 5:45 a.m. PST

It was going to destroy unit integrity when women were allowed on the front lines. Except it didn't.

Funny, the Israelis stopped doing gender-integrated combat units, they're back to all-women platoons or companies.

Because men have this major psychological thing about making sure that women don't have to fight. Historically, when women have to be in combat, it is kill or be raped and then killed for them. So psychologically, women are wired differently and have a much harder time not taking a fight to it's ultimate conclusion (the death of the other person), which is a bad thing if the other person has surrendered.

Ask any junior high teacher: when two boys are fighting, you get between them and send them to the vice principal's office; but when two girls are fighting, if you value your life you let them finish it and send the survivor to the nurse's office!

As the Washington Post pointed out, the US military spends more on Viagra than on medical support for its transgender personnel

Yeah, because the military uses Viagra for it's original purpose, lowering blood pressure!

Viagra is a very effective vasodilator, which has a well-known side effect. For some reason, most of the military has a problem with high blood pressure.

The phrase that pays here is "prejudicial to good order and discipline". When someone isn't making who or what they have sex with the central pillar of their identity, it's not a problem. But someone does make who or what they're having sex with the central pillar of their identity it's a HUGE problem, usually because they're flirting with members of their own unit.

Having a sexual relationship with members of your own unit is disastrous to the unit. That's why it's banned under the UCMJ under Fraternization.

In the overwhelming majority of transgender individuals, getting their surgery or getting treated as the other gender doesn't fix the underlying problem. When someone is profoundly unhappy with themselves, sometimes that comes out as 'I wish I wasn't a boy/girl'. You need to get past the 'I think I'm actually a boy/girl' to the underlying issue. It could be a hormonal imbalance. Or it could be that they were molested at age 5.

I don't care who you are or who you screw. If you can't do the job, get out of my submarine. If you can do the job, welcome aboard. That's all there is to it.

greatpatton27 Jul 2017 6:29 a.m. PST

The only official indication for Viagra/Sildenafil is erectile dysfunction (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2010/020895s033lbl.pdf). People can use it off label, but that would be quite silly given the dozens of efficient drugs to manage blood pressure… (Sildenafil can also be used to treat Pulmonary Hypertension but the formulation is different).

Khusrau27 Jul 2017 7:04 a.m. PST

I read somewhere that the cost of treatment for erectile dysfunction in the US military far exceeded the costs of gender reassignment surgery. Does anyone have the figures to hand?

Queen Catherine27 Jul 2017 7:20 a.m. PST

@ dwindling gravitas
yep, "a fiction"
The hilarious thing will be when someone wants to get preferential treatment for being a certain race, because they happen to "be born in the wrong body" but they self-identify with [insert race which they clearly are not and don't resemble].

If we don't accept that people's birth as a race, sex or other unalterable reality is, in fact, a reality that can't be changed, things that are considered "good" by lots of people, like affirmative action, are going to be seriously undermined, and in fact, will become non-sensical.

Surgically altering yourself doesn't make you the other sex, or another race, or YOUNGER [Hollywood actresses]. It just gives you the APPEARANCE of being the other sex [that you aren't], or race, or younger, and all we're doing is encouraging people to make life-threatening decisions.

Yes, that's right, life-threatening decisions.

Any time you have surgery, especially if you go under general aenestesia, you can die, or get infections that are so bad you may die. Hell, just going to the hospital can give you MERSA.

Go ask a surgeon the only ethical statement they can make about the use of their profession is "it is the last resort if all other alternatives have failed".

I have serious degradation in my cervical spine. My doctor said "you are 50, but you have the spine of a 75 year old". He sent me to physical therapy and a spine specialist. After I did physical therapy, much of the numbness went away from my left index and middle fingers. I still have numbness in my left index finger.

The spinal specialist took the ethical approach: As my condition is not life-threatening, and doesn't result in the loss of my life or occupation, he doesn't want to subject me to spinal surgery [which he thinks would be 99% effective] until all alternatives have been thoroughly explored. As I haven't used up the typical timeline for healing of nerves after an episode [6-9 months] he is NOT PERFORMING SURGERY on me. He said "we'll see how you're doing in September".

If I have another episode of burning pain shooting up and down my arm, severe muscular weakness, and additional numbness in my fingers, then we will certainly re-visit the surgery as those conditions can be permanent if not treated, and would result in me being partially disabled and losing my present job.

That's worth going under the knife and accepting the risk of dying.

So instead of giving drugs to the druggie, or booze to an alcoholic, or surgery to someone who will never really be "the other sex", let's give them what they really nead – sympathy and treatment and hope they get well.

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian27 Jul 2017 9:03 a.m. PST

So instead of giving drugs to the druggie, or booze to an alcoholic, or surgery to someone who will never really be "the other sex", let's give them what they really nead sympathy and treatment and hope they get well.

Or maybe you are wrong, and surgery is exactly what they need.

After all, this is just your opinion vs their opinion…

doug redshirt27 Jul 2017 12:08 p.m. PST

I remember the 60's, I remember the 70's, and every decade since then. The bigotry and hatred and narrow minded views, saddened me. I had so much hope as I grew older and I saw more forgiveness and understanding, then this past election showed me that everything was just laying under the skin ready to erupt again in hate and anger. Nothing changes in human nature does it.

Just the other year I discovered my youngest child, my daughter wanted to transition. At first all I could think of was why? I wanted her to marry and have children. I wanted it to be just like it should be. it's complicated to be honest. But a year later and hormone shots every 2 weeks and to be honest,
she is still my baby girl to me, but she is happier and in the end that is all that matters to be truthful. My only wish is that finds someone that makes her happy, oh and moves out of the house someday, I am not going to live forever after all.

I can't ever see her wanting to do it, but if she wants to serve in the military, why not. I did for 20 years, her older brother did too doing 3 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So please don't tell me or anyone in my family what we can or can't do, now or ever.

Irish Marine Supporting Member of TMP27 Jul 2017 12:36 p.m. PST

I'm sorry Dough but yeah society can and will tell you, me everyone what to do it's called Laws and Rules and Regulations. You did time in the service only recently have we admitted people with mental problems into the military before we did not. It's not bigotry or hate it's common sense.

Secsesh Supporting Member of TMP27 Jul 2017 12:42 p.m. PST

I too am the parent of a trans child so am not surprised by the displays of ignorance or underlying contempt demonstrated in this thread. I have learned that often there is little point in attempting to explain or persuade – I have had close family shut down so expect no more from posters on a miniatures website. I have struggled myself at times. This is the world my child, my family navigates. Most people are well meaning and even if they don't understand will nonetheless be kind and begin to see layers of complexity from which empathy and understanding begins. There are however those pockets of people who will set themselves up in judgement and reduce the complex to simple statements about "mental problems" and stigmatize individuals who are different. They feel their world is better if the "other" is dismissed, blamed, banned, hurt. Human nature.

The US military does have problems with bloat and creaks under the burden of the generous medical coverage offered to current and former personnel. And I am sure that there are some military personnel of all genders that have sought to milk the system – that too is human nature! There is a legitimate policy discussion to be had, whether it is on medical support for transgender personnel or the mission rationale for Viagra, but instead of that discussion there has been a reach to the darkest impulse that does not solve budget pressures but does hurt a community and the 1000s of patriotic transgender Americans who serve or have served honorably. These men and women deserve better.

I will not post again on this thread. My contributions to TMP will revert to a focus on topics related to tiny metal soldiers – of all genders – who serve in my miniature armies.

Pan Marek Supporting Member of TMP27 Jul 2017 1:13 p.m. PST

Secsesh- thank you for bringing some real perspective to this discussion.

Irish Marine Supporting Member of TMP27 Jul 2017 2:08 p.m. PST

Look, I am going to say this one last thing and then I'm done with this post. You can say all you want but being transgender is a mental disorder. We don't let people in the military with obvious mental problems , should we start letting people with psychosis, bipolar, depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, autism and other mental disorders in the military because if we didn't then the military is denying them the right to serve, so which mental disorder if ok and which is not.

tookey2327 Jul 2017 2:46 p.m. PST

Plenty of people in and ex US Military have mental heath issues, some clearly more than other. Luckily

eg:

link

The STARRS report is interesting reading.

So much for not letting them in or even looking for undiagnosed conditions ?

Queen Catherine27 Jul 2017 4:55 p.m. PST

Well, anyone who is sub-par will eventually get weeded out of the system…even if it is just by failing to promote, the famous "up or out" method.

So we aren't talking about Soldiers who are deficient – if someone says they are transgender, and they can't pass their PT test, they will get kicked out [eventually]. People who are erratic in their performance and behavior will be out-performed and end up sidelined and ultimately unpromotable.

So I think that the issue of performance for the military is a pretty moot point – Soldiers will get kicked out for sub-par performance regardless of the underlying issue, whether medical, psychological, sexual, or substance abuse related, etc.

Personally, if someone can do the job right and not make waves, I really don't care who they [legally] hump, as long as it isn't a child or a sheep [c.f. legally, right?]. And lots of people in the military feel like that, so strong performers and various heroes who are rapists, wife-beaters and alcoholics will stay in as long as they can perform – and they may even get promoted quickly depending on HOW hot their performance is and if they get in trouble / caught for their particular problem. Then they will get kicked out, also.

The question is really should their cosmetic surgery be billed to the taxpayer – I say no, because it isn't essential to life or health, and surgery is dangerous – a medical fact beyond anyone's contrary opinion.

the rest is a done deal.

Lion in the Stars27 Jul 2017 6:04 p.m. PST

Had another critical point pop up in a discussion on another forum.

Hormonal treatments require monthly liver function tests to make sure that the hormones aren't trying to kill you. Those tests make a person pretty much non-deployable. and you need to have LFTs for the rest of your life (albeit not monthly after the first 6ish months).

If you cannot deploy, you cannot do the job. That's official word from the US Navy. Because I couldn't deploy anymore, I couldn't stay in.

Nick Bowler27 Jul 2017 6:31 p.m. PST

Thank you Secsech.

Personal logo brass1 Supporting Member of TMP27 Jul 2017 8:09 p.m. PST

I served in Vietnam with people who were gay, people who were crazy, and people who were too stupid to be allowed outside their hooch without adult supervision. Guess which group gave me the least trouble.

As an aside, anybody who thinks you can't get into the armed forces if you have mental problems hasn't been serving in the same armed forces I served in. All it takes is a recruiter who's short on his quota.

LT

Pages: 1 2