"Should Transgender Persons Serve?" Topic

"In response to the 25 August 2017 presidential memorandum "Military Service by Transgender Individuals," the Department of Defense is developing an implementation plan that will address transgender individuals currently serving in the U.S. military, as well as the accession of transgender individuals into the military. With Secretary of Defense James Mattis's recommendation to the White House expected in the next few months, the department is rightly focused on developing a plan that will "promote military readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion, with due regard for budgetary constraints and consistent with applicable law."

The topic of transgender service sparks a wide array of passionate responses. For many people, who may never have (knowingly) interacted with a transgender person, this may be new and unfamiliar territory. Unfortunately, there are numerous myths, stereotypes, and even lies about transgender individuals intermingled with the facts, which can make this topic confusing. What information is accurate and what is "fake news"? What does it mean to be transgender? Are transgender members fit to serve? How does transition affect military service? What are the costs? How will this affect nontransgender members in a unit? Add the various cultural, social, political, media, and religious perspectives and the ability to make an impartial, fact-based assessment of the situation has become extremely difficult. This article aims to separate fact from fiction to assess whether transgender members should be allowed to serve in the military…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

No. We don't need people serving with obvious mental problems.

Oh, look at the nice dawghouse. Why don't I wander over there and stick my head in it and see what's inside.

Thank God for aspirin.

Dawg house bait. The only reason I opened this was to see if anyone was already on their way.

Depends on who you're asking.

Nobody has a right to serve. In my time recruiting officer cadets for ROTC I lost:
A 4.0 GPA state all state athlete due to partial hearing loss
A super involved highly successful young woman with a history of having seen a psychiatrist in the past due to cutting
Any number of students with undiagnosed asthma or eczema

I believe that trans people are in true psychic pain with deep discomfort with their body. I know that they have a vastly higher rate of suicide. Based on those two statements, my answer would be no. Do we really want to put people with a high incidence of suicide into situations where they are under extreme stress?

We don't need people serving with obvious mental problems.

Didn't you serve?

Being transgender is no longer defined by science as a mental illness.

I sometimes do not understand what Tango is thinking.

There are reasons that people are transgender other than 'mental issues'. Hormonal issues, birth defects, etc.

While I am not offended by this discussion, most people who visit this site do so because they are interested in miniatures and miniature related topics. There is a place for discussions like this -- it's called the Blue Fez.

Tango knows very well what he is thinking.
And if Dear Editor wanted it moved to the Blyue Fezzy, he would have said so.

There is a place for discussions like this -- it's called the Blue Fez.

Discussions of the contemporary military are relevant for this forum.

Is the difference noticeable in 15mm? Are there different modifiers in the rules? I am not sure if I get the point of the question for this site.

Considering the potential side effects of hormonal treatments (organ failure leading to death), I'd have to say no.

Combat is hazardous enough without your own body trying to kill you, too.

"Being transgender is no longer defined by science as a mental illness."

Well that is simply ridiculous!

Didn't you serve?

Bill, couldn't one consider that a "personal attack" on Irish Marine?
And since this is the weekend, shouldn't the Editorial Staff put member "Editor in Chief Bill" in the DH for 5 Days?
After all, standards should apply to everyone, and you would earn a lot of respect if you applied those to yourself.

What Scale?

Individuals who are statistically disproportionately likely to commit suicide or otherwise self-harm should be excluded from service as a matter of protecting the significant financial investments required to train military personnel.

Considering the potential side effects of hormonal treatments (organ failure leading to death), I'd have to say no.

Then let's ban those who smoke and drink, too.

Individuals who are statistically disproportionately likely to commit suicide or otherwise self-harm should be excluded from service as a matter of protecting the significant financial investments required to train military personnel.

Aren't the ones inclined to 'self-harm' the ones who don't have adequate medical care? Being in the military would provide excellent medical care.

The title of the post is ""Should Transgender Persons Serve?" Topic".

If I reply to the question with a simple "yes" or "no", will that get me in the "dawghouse"?

"…The topic of transgender service sparks a wide array of passionate responses…

Seems he was right…

Question: A Transgender cannot kill…?… because if you go to war you have to be good killing your enemy… why they cannot be good there?…

Amicalement
Armand

I'm appalled of the sheer level of stupidity displayed by some TMP members with a deep ignorance of transgender people and the difficulties they have to face.

Precisely the horrible, hideous attittude those TMP members show is the best argument to teach them that the problems transgender people have to face are exactly those ignorant attittudes and social stigmatization. The products of ignorance, fear and idiocy.

A transgender person could serve as well as any other if not better. There is no doubt to that except for the ignorant, the hater and the ignorant hater some people at TMP have exhibited. Shame on those fools.

No surprise here, since many believe that women also shouldn't fight: TMP link

Hatred? No.

I gave a specific reason. Any doctor who doesn't tell you that there is a significant chance of your liver dying on you during hormonal treatments, particularly during the first 6 months of treatment, needs to be charged with malpractice (if not with the depraved indifference homicides of any deaths of patients).

You can't be asthmatic and serve. You can't be diabetic and serve. If you have cirrhosis of the liver you can't serve. You can't have a pretty large number of allergies and serve (I'm not sure how I skated by with a latex allergy).

When your body may try to randomly kill you, you don't get to serve. That's all there is to it.

Then let's ban those who smoke and drink, too.

Smoke? Well, the Navy is working on it.

Drink? A little tough to blanket-rule that, since one-two drinks a day has a documented health benefit. But the military does kick out everyone with a drinking problem these days.

Aren't the ones inclined to 'self-harm' the ones who don't have adequate medical care? Being in the military would provide excellent medical care.

Not so much. I had 2 guys attempt suicide while I was in boot camp. In my platoon alone.

Having a corpsman, a clinic, and a full freaking Naval Hospital on hand didn't prevent the attempts. Just let them survive it. One guy only survived because he didn't cut an artery, the other only survived because the fire watch heard him spasming around and pulled him out of the noose before the damage was too much to heal.

Two words. Kristin Bell. Look her up.

70% of suicides are white males. They're a risk to the investment made in training. They shouldn't be allowed to serve.

What a stupid argument that would be.

Also what if they identify as transgender but don't take the hormones?

Yes, PeterX, exceptional individuals exist.

They can apply for a waiver of medical policy. Just like someone who hasn't had a seizure for more than 6 months and hasn't taken anti-seizure meds for more than a year.

But it's still a general NO because most people aren't exceptional.

Hell, I needed a waiver and I know I'm not exceptional!

A lot of my reasoning for saying no is because NCOs and Staff NCOs have to deal with this stuff and the officers don't, I certainly didn't join the Corp to be a social worker. I went from being a junior Corporal to being the PltSgt with in months of returning from a deployment because the senior Marines either transferred or got out and had a lot to deal with including having one Marine arrested and courts martial for being gay to another for using drugs and stealing from the Plt not counting the married Marines who were having trouble dealing with married life and serving in the FMF. All the while trying to maintain a training schedule and managing the Plt.

And it got worse as I progressed in rank, I loved helping my Marines but sometimes it was just too much. They don't send you to school to be a social worker, nor marriage counselor, nor a financial expert. You learn a lot by dealing with people and some things I could be sympathetic because I went through some of the experiences as well but not the transgender nonsense, nope.

I think it's about time that society realised that the average infantry soldier is a misogynistic, borderline casual racist, hater of anything out of the norm, often violent and drunk individual. But that's the point here, they aren't individuals they're part of a team. We serve society and to do that properly we shouldn't necessarily reflect society. I know most people who haven't been soldiers won't understand this and will no doubt comment on how bad it is, but it's reality.

My questions for those in favor is:
Are transgender people under additional stress?
Are transgender people more likely to commit suicide?
What is the additional economic cost of treating a transgender person?
What limitations will transgender treatment put on someone's ability to serve in an austere environment?

I think it is telling that the ad hominem name calling has been purely from proponents. To compare transgender treatment to alcohol use is like comparing apples to fish. I certainly saw the acceptance of alcohol drop in my time (1983-2003), although from my son's stories there is still drinking.
I needed a waiver for a arythmic heartbeat. NASA did not consider the condition to be disqualifying for space flight, but it was a blip that showed up during my commissioning physical. The USAF also ended up buying two titanium knees. When a condition arises during service the service is liable for that condition for life. A person could start trans treatment, serve 6 months before having a problem and the government would be on the hook for a lifetime of treatment. THat is an extreme case. Undoubtedly most trans people would go about their service with dedication and honor – as would most people with asthma.
Treat the concerns of people as real and we can have a discussion. Treat the concerns as bigotry worthy of false comparisons, and ad hominem attacks and it will seethe and fester.

"Being transgender is no longer defined by science as a mental illness."

Not exactly true.
No experiments were done to disprove the "gender dysphoria is a mental illness" hypothesis. Science is explanatory; it does not just categorize, it offers explanations. This was a purely political categorization, made for political reasons, with no experiment or scientific explanation offered. Purely to appease a political group who would scream and howl if not appeased. Much like the Catholic Church declaring beavers and capybaras, air breathing warm blooded fur bearing mammals, to be fish, to appease certain groups who insisted that they be.
Science is not public opinion.

You can't beat DNA!

You're right there. Some people are up to 5% Neanderthal.

Somewhat ironic, coming from the guy who's screen name means "kill them all" (as in, "kill them all, for God will know his own" more popularly spoken "kill them all and let God sort them out")

Huh? What's ironic?

To compare transgender treatment to alcohol use is like comparing apples to fish.

Are people who drink under additional stress?
Are people who drink more likely to commit suicide?
What is the additional economic cost of treating a drinking person?
What limitations will having a potential drinking problem put on someone's ability to serve in an austere environment?

Any doctor who doesn't tell you that there is a significant chance of your liver dying on you during hormonal treatments, particularly during the first 6 months of treatment, needs to be charged with malpractice (if not with the depraved indifference homicides of any deaths of patients).

Reportedly safe: link

Any doctor who doesn't tell you that there is a significant chance of your liver dying on you during hormonal treatments, particularly during the first 6 months of treatment, needs to be charged with malpractice (if not with the depraved indifference homicides of any deaths of patients).

Same as using any of the many cholesterol lowering drugs. Or any of a host of steroids commonly used for any number of conditions (HRT, HGH for impaired growth, endocrine complications, etc…).

Are you suggesting that anyone on a cholesterol lowering RX should be cashiered out of the military? Because that's what it sounds like…

As for your liver dying…. You have a higher risk of DVT than that by a very wide margin.

@Bill the Editor: But you're still on monthly liver function tests when undergoing HRT (monthly at the start, if you're tolerating things well I think it stretches out to every 2-3 months, but never more than 6 months between tests). And someone undergoing gender reassignment HRT needs to take their hormones for the rest of their life.

If you're on Statins for cholesterol, you don't need monthly LFTs, you get one annually as part of your regular physical.

Pretty sure that someone on HGH for impaired growth or taking steroids for endocrine complications isn't allowed to serve. Not because they're taking the HGH or steroids, but because of the underlying condition.

As far as drinking goes, one of the sailors I served with had the shakes for the first 2-3 weeks of underway as he went cold turkey on alcohol. He was still functional, though we pointed and laughed at him for it. He never drove, though. Always got a ride with someone else. Because at 5am his BAC was still well above the legal limit.

There are lots of ways for transgender individuals to serve.

Military service is not the best way for them to serve.

Transgender individuals are not well suited for military service.

Military service (and associated combat deployments) are not well suited to transgender individuals.

Adding transgender individuals will not make any single unit more ready or combat effective.

This is a political issue that well intentioned people are trying to solve by forcing the military to allow them to serve. I think it's likely to be counterproductive to long term health and well being of individuals, as well as the cause, because it's not likely to prove successful. A LOT of money and training time (which means BIG money) will be spent and achieve nothing.