SJWs sue Trump for Transgender ban
According to The Hill, the ACLU is suing the Trump Administration and the American taxpayers for the Transgender ban that the President re-instituted last Friday.
BREAKING: We're taking @realDonaldTrump to court to challenge the unconstitutional transgender military ban. pic.twitter.com/udV6P1hIJh
— ACLU National (@ACLU) August 28, 2017
My inbox is jam-packed with heartbreaking stories of transgender people who were banned from military last year and now they are banned once again. The Human Rights Campaign claims that they are represented in a law suit against American tax payers by Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN.
“This ban not only wrongfully prevents patriotic, talented Americans from serving, it also compromises the safety and security of our country,” Lambda Legal Senior Attorney Peter Renn said. “Thousands of current service members are transgender, and many have been serving openly, courageously and successfully in the U.S. military for more than a year—not to mention the previous decades when many were forced to serve in silence. Once again attacking a vulnerable population based on bias, political opportunism and demonstrably untrue ‘alternative facts,’ President Trump is denying brave men and women the opportunity to serve our country without any legitimate justification whatsoever.”
“We promised that we would sue if the president took this action. The law is on our side; justice is on our side,” said Peter Perkowski, Legal Director for OutServe-SLDN. “And we are on the side of every single transgender service member and those who want to serve. The nation’s courts exist to protect the people whom tyrants would otherwise abuse. Trump can’t tweet his way out of this one.”
Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN filed the lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The individual plaintiffs, all of whom are transgender, include: Ryan Karnoski, a 22-year-old Seattle man who currently works as a social worker and wishes to become an officer doing social work for the military; Staff Sergeant Cathrine (“Katie”) Schmid, a 33-year-old woman and 12-year member of the U.S. Army currently serving in Joint Base Lewis-McChord near Tacoma, Washington, who has applied to become an Army Warrant Officer; and Drew Layne, a high-school student from Corpus Christi, Texas, who is about to turn 17 and, with parental support, wants to join the Air Force. HRC and Gender Justice League have joined the lawsuit on behalf of their transgender members who are harmed by the ban.
They keep using that word “uncontitutional” but I don’t think they know what it means.
Of course others are piling on;
Soon after, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders filed a lawsuit on behalf of five transgender service members, arguing the policy change violates the equal protection component of the due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment.
The 39-page complaint, filed by the ACLU’s Maryland Chapter on behalf of six military service members in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, is embedded with Trump’s tweets and claims the ban not only violates the Fifth Amendment but is invalid on its face.
I didn’t know that the Fifth Amendment allows for people with diagnosed mental illness to serve in the military. The Fifth Amendment says;
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Nothing to do with military service. I guess I should sue the government to allow me to back in the service – the fact that I’m too old and in a wheelchair shouldn’t affect my eligibility.
Of course, it’s not about service – they could all serve as contractors to the Defense Department, or DoD employees – they want the medical benefits that would accompany uniformed service, for their genital alterations.
Category: Dumbass Bullshit
This was inevitable.
And in truth the courts are a much better adjudicator of facts concerning the impact of transgender folks in the military balanced against notion of equal treatment under the law than the political arena.
Politics is a terrible arena for these kinds of much more complex issues to be handled. Too much partisanship, rhetoric, emotive dog whistling, and other manipulative nonsense interferes with making just decision in politics. Particularly over the recent years.
Unlike sexual preference, gender;including gender identity, is a protected class in the US and has greater standing with respect to legal leverage for equal treatment under the law.
That being said the military also gets special dispensation in the courts because the public good of a cohesive and effective military is usually given far more weight than the rights of the individual.
So we will see how this all turns out.
I suspect that it will end up being decided that medical fitness standards will need to be drafted that allows for transgender applicants on a case by case basis with a waiver after a service medical professional determines that their gender identity disorder and current gender status will not negatively impact military operations.
There are a lot of medical conditions that make someone unfit to serve through not fault of their own. And there is a lot of conditions that do not meet medical fitness standards but can be waived on a case by case basis.
As for retention of currently serving transgender folks; it would be very difficult to remove them if they are currently serving honorably. And if their legal identity has been changed the military is likely going to be ordered to respect that legal status.
Ultimately we should just go full Starship Troopers with respect to gender and then none of this would matter.
Gender identity…? Like what is annotated on your birth certificate?
Hey Lars did you figure out the urinalyses test is gonna work for chicks with dic$s and guys with t*ts yet? Do we have gender neutral/fluid person observe them? Has this become a distracter to finding and killing bad people?
Not exactly a difficult issue. You use their legally recognized gender. Which is not the one on their birth certificate.
Why is this complicated for you?
It seems to be more of a distractor for you than for the the person taking the urinalysis.
Who gives a flying fuck what the gender of the person watching you pee is?
Whatever you feel comparable with.
So if they identify as an attack helicopter do we have find a fellow gendered attack helicopter, so they can fill the cup. The gender/alphabet community is now pushing about 170 different genders at the free word.
So reality does not matter in this debate at all to you?
A person can identify as anything they want to, correct? Can an 18 year old troop change their age on their birth certificate and become a 65 year old? Why/Why note.
Sorry, hit “Report” accidentally.
Anyway:
You’re coming from the standpoint that the military has some kind of duty to provide positions for mentally ill folks who feel they need highly expensive medical treatment, including major mutilating surgery, to feel “normal”. A certain number of these badly maladjusted people will have access to weapons. Other people’s lives will be depending upon them.
Is that ‘reality’ in this debate?
One time when I was a kid, I identified as a Fire Truck. That didn’t work so well in Urinalysis. the UPL was pissed off because the cup was so pissed on. “Hey fucker, I’m a firetruck. I spray hard n’ heavy, respect!”
I’m pretty sure I don’t want anyone with a vagina staring at my crank while I’m pissing, especially during a mandated urinalysis.
Before you go on making comments, I’ve told multiple chicks that they couldn’t watch to include girl friends and an ex-wife.
I don’t know what wrong with chicks (or the ones that are attracted to me anyway)
It’s creepy.
You phony ass, which gender will Almighty God use on Judgment Day?
“Ultimately we should just go full Starship Troopers with respect to gender and then none of this would matter.” The problem here (which I assume you to mean treat everyone the exact same) is that if there were one set of standards, the males would outperform the females by quite a bit. The USMC standards (the only ones for which I can speak) are tailored so that men and women of average strength will get roughly the same PFT score. NO ONE thinks, however, that means that a 230 score female is as strong as a 230 score male. Going to one set of scores would make the females scores tank or the men’s scores to rocket up, depending how the retooling of the scores was done. The result would be that women would have a disadvantage at any event where strength is required and thus would suffer in promotions. Right now, there is no problem with the differing standards for men and women – at least when women are excluded from jobs where strength and endurance counts. I don’t care about my tiny females that get a second class PFT in the Admin shop. I do care about the high scoring female who breaks herself trying to keep up with the guys in the infantry. Now let’s work in the folks with APA diagnosed Gender Dysphoria. Aside from the cost of having them around. . . Aside from any social issues that might arise. . . let’s assume one was completely altered to have the physical exterior of the sex they are not – you would either have a strong “woman” or a not quite as strong as a man “man”. Yes, you can give them hormone treatment, but it just isn’t quite the same. And I tried to leave the snark and biting comments out of this post. I will not, however, call someone who has undergone the sex change surgery (remember when they called it that?) the sex they aren’t. My lying to make the feel better won’t change the truth. If they get in a motor… Read more »
Gender assignment at birth is not perfect and even when assigned based on blood test and genitalia it can be unclear.
Often the tests do not match the genitalia.
This notion that is absolutely rigidly binary is denying science.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031022062408.htm
if you get into the realm of things like Swyer syndrome, CAID, etc were you have a phenotypic female with 46XYgenotype.
The majority of those people identify with their phenotype and have an incidence of about 1:80,000
Darn chromosomes always getting in the way.
But, gender based on chromosomes can’t be denied.
For instance, Bradley Manning is a male, he was born a male, he is a male, he’ll die a male. It doesn’t matter if he identifies as an Abrams tank or an Apache helicopter, he’s a male. Nor does it matter what he calls himself, or gets other disturbed people to call him.
But, gender based on chromosomes can’t be denied.
Occasionally, yes it becomes gray.
You can have a person with male chromosomes (46XY)that looks every bit a female in all respects….like I said above…and example called Swyer Syndrome has an incidence of about 1:80,000.
XY females happen because the Y chromosome causes a cascade of chemical mediators which trigger the formation of male structures and obliterates the female. Call these chemicals broadly, androgens.
If the embryo is insensitive to androgens the development proceeds as a female, but the chromosomes are still XY.
stfu you dumbass weirdo-hey what about a prostate ,uterus, oh and that other rib matter? also you do not have a right to be in the service got that? TG/TS She-Male whatever even being a hump ranger is a mental disorder-b. 22 year 5x combat/CIB Infantry NCO.
No need to be an asshole.
Other rib? What the hell are you talking about?
Define what you mean by “often” with regard to genital mismatch. Only 0.005% to 0.014% of people assigned male at birth and 0.002% to 0.003% of people assigned female at birth. A fraction of a fraction does not = often. Do you know how many troops are med-boarded out of the service every day due to any number of mental disorders or non-evasive medical conditions that are easily controlled with medication? Is it fair to them?
I have no problem with people being who or whatever they want to be. But there are a host of other ways they can still serve through civil service via DoD, Federal LE, or with the any number of agencies within the National Intelligence Community.
Same thing for the Army, Sit-ups is still the same (even the Marines were smart enough to stop doing sit-ups decades ago, which says how dumb people in the upper ranks of the Army are).
Female 17-21 push-up requirement is 17 for 60% (minimum passing) For a male, same age, is 42. For run times, females have a couple minutes more as well. When I first joined, females had to do far less sit-ups than males as well, EVEN THOUGH women have stronger hips than males due to that whole childbirth thing.
For my last PT test, I would just about “max” on the female chart, but only do in the 70%s for the male chart.
The difference between situps and pushups in regards to men and women, a man’s center of gravity is in his chest, while women’s center of gravity is in their hips, so men are able to do more pushups and women can do more situps because of their balance.
Men who think they are women can’t do more sit ups just because they say they’re women.
Yeah, a couple of male troops have tried the “I identify as a woman who can max this PT test!” thing and it didn’t work out so well for them. A for Affort though!
I’ve known many female Soldiers who could do 70+ sit-ups like it was no big deal. So I concur with your input.
You just referenced the “Starship Troopers” movie. You must have been talking about the movie, because the Mobile Infantry *wasn’t* co-ed in the book. If you had any credibility to begin with, you would’ve pissed it away right there.
Bullshit.
The book was explicit. Females have 100% the same exact legal rights to service and to earn citizenship through service.
Which job you do was determined by mental and physical abilities so women tended NOT to be in the Mobile Infantry.
No where in the book does it say that women were not permitted in the Mobile Infantry.
There is only three branches even discussed in any detail and none are said to be exclusive to a gender. The fact that there is not female characters for a branch does not make it true that the branch has no females given how few named characters there actually are.
The branches discussed in detail with named characters;
Fleet
Marines (Mobile Infantry)
MI
However, Major Rojas is a FEMALE and her rank indicates she is NOT fleet, she is also not MI.
The implication is she is Mobile Infantry.
So you’re going to argue about literature now?
I didn’t actually want to. But he brought it up.
And Starship Troopers was the first science fiction book I ever read.
So, proglodyte dufusses (or is it dufi) like you think we should set policy for who is medically and mentally qualified to serve in the military based on a sci-fi movie/book? Have I got that right, sparklepony?
No.
I was saying that until we do gender transition will not be compatible with service.
The original publication date of ‘Starship Troopers’ was 1959. The novel was originally published in a sci-fi magazine in two parts as ‘Starship Soldier’.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here, that the story has to do with politics when in fact, it was derived from Heinlein’s concept that man is a wild animal with no moral compass other than the will to survive, and in meeting another species with the same immorality, the result is warfare.
If it isn’t obvious that he also took into consideration the fact that primates are predators and make war on their own kind in all species of primates, then perhaps that is too subtle a concept for some people to absorb.
The business about people age 18 and over enlisting, regardless of gender, has nothing to do with Screeching Social Justice Warrior Howler Monkeys and their lawsuit, because they would whine and threaten to sue someone if they tripped over their own feet on a sidewalk.
You keep claiming “gender is a protected category”. As I’ve previously requested on at least 3 separate occasions, each of which you seem to have ignored: cite the specific Federal law or Federal court decision you believe supports your POV – including your claim above that “gender identity is a part of gender”.
I don’t believe you can. So prove me wrong.
And remember: an EEOC decision isn’t a court decision or a law. So an EEOC decision doesn’t prove your point.
Because Berkley says it is, so it must be!
Yeah, I’m thinking he’s got nothing. And based on the fact that he’s commented on this article since I posted the above, I’m also thinking he’s deliberately avoiding answering the question.
No I just did not see your post until a little while ago.
I get so much noise on my posts that I have developed the habit of just skimming responses. So sometimes I do not always notice when someone has something more substantive to say.
In other words, you conveniently weren’t paying attention. You can never admit when you’re not wrong, you just make up some excuse for not responding. The pattern has been noticed before.
That should say “when you’re wrong.” I hate smart phones…
Avoidance is a is a maladaptive coping mechanism characterized by the effort to avoid dealing with a stressor. Coping refers to behaviors that attempt to protect oneself from psychological damage. So if someone doesn’t answer Hondo, it’s because he’s in avoidance as an escape route.
To be fair, I do the same. Sometimes I can go for several days without needing my internet fix. And some threads are just too long to do anything other than skim. Formats also make a difference.
So I looked.
I was wrong.
It hasn’t been resolved by the courts.
The legal logic is that because gender can be assigned through a legal ruling by a court after evaluating medical evidence, including evidence of a gender assignment…
that the court when determining whether transgender folks are protected would FIRST need to make a determination on the gender the court wold recognize and since many transgender folks do get court rulings recognizing their gender the court would then legally treat them as that gender.
Thus, since GENDER is a protected category once the court recognizes the gender legally it would then be protected.
That seems to be true.
However, courts have no necessarily gone through that process.
They never make a ruling about the gender of the person in question; instead merely rule about whether “transgender” itself is a protected class.
And in that case the courts have come down on both sides of the issue.
So the question about whether transgender it a protected class is unclear.
However, if someone is able to get a court to RULE that the gender they transitioned to is their legally recognized gender than that GENDER would be protected.
So the question about whether transgender it a protected class is unclear.
No, it is clear.
The issue is the law, not the creation of a law by the Courts.. The Civil Rights Act does not make transgendered people a protected class. Period. End of sentence. End of discussion.
If you want to argue that the Courts have the right to write new laws, that is your right, but you would be wrong.
Correct. The Civil Rights Act only addresses sex discrimination in a male/female context. Provided both males and females are treated equally, there is no civil rights issue. And last time I checked, both male and female transgenders were treated exactly the same by the previous (and now again operative) DoD policy.
I’m still waiting for a citation to a specific Federal court case that declares “Gender identity” or “Gender” to be a protected class for civil rights purposes. I’m still not convinced that one exists.
Well, Commissar? You seem sure that one exists. How about enlightening us regarding that case by proving that fact?
Avoidance, avoidance, avoidance, Hondo. You’re right. Someone else is wrong, unwilling to admit it. Avoidance, avoidance, avoidance.
The other thing is unlike many statutes, the Act doesn’t allow for the EEOC to interpret or promulgate new interpretations of the Act.
Furthermore, the term “because of sex” is defined in the Act as:
(k) The terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this title [section 703(h)] shall be interpreted to permit otherwise.
(emphasis mine.)
The law strictly prohibits the expansion of term and yet Lars wants us to think the EEOC allowing the change is cool despite being against the law.
If that were true there would be no need for a bill on congress to make it true.
Right now courts are falling on both sides on the issue.
So, like I said; it is unclear.
Obviously, you fail to comprehend the concept of preemtive action. Congress could easily be looking to prevent court-created law in this case.
Really? Then I’m sure you’ll have no problems citing cases from multiple Federal courts showing that.
If you can, of course. Oh, and remember: state court cases pertain only to questions of state law. They are irrelevant to Federal law.
There is a proposed bill in congress that would make it so that transgender is only a protected class if the federal law specifically says it is.
It is an interesting political response to try to take the decision away from the judicial process.
I doubt it will work. But it might.
SCOTUS is very conservative right now.
Actually, it would work perfectly, provided Congress words the law correctly. Under the Constitution, the Congress has the power to define the jurisdiction of Federal courts – including defining certain matters as being outside Federal court jurisdiction entirely.
See Article III, Section 2, Clause 2.
Very conservative?
Explain that one.
No they aren’t, not in any way. A court has absolutely nothing to do with military operations. And unless a gender bender has been denied enlistment, none of the rest of the deviants has any legitimate claim to sue on. You must be able to demonstrate how you were actually hurt or discriminated against, and if you were not, you have no legal grounds to sue.
According to the constitution the courts are.
Pesky constitution.
Bet you think our country would work much better if we didn’t have it.
The Constitution says nothing about any Tranny’s right to serve in the military or anybodies for that matter. Get a grip, asshole
Not true. The court decides whether a law or government policy, or executive order etc is constitutional.
Why do so many “patriots” not understand that?
You are correct about the need to be denied enlistment. It is called standing. And it means the federal courts do not have to hear a case from some fruitcake who never served, never intended to serve, and is merely looking for his/her/xits or whatzits fifteen minutes of notoriety.
good luck with this one. SCOTUS has long been deferential to military courts and the military in general not wanting to wade into that entire thing recognizing the military is distinct from society in general and has it’s own rules for good reason.
This will do nothing but get some headlines and raise a few bucks for the ACLU. It will go nowhere
“And in truth the courts are a much better adjudicator of facts concerning the impact of transgender folks in the military balanced against notion of equal treatment under the law than the political arena.”
Letting the courts do this??? With the number of judges that feel that it’s their right to legislate from the bench instead of interpreting existing laws? Just look at the crap that comes out of the 9th Circuit (aka: 9th Circus) on a regular basis that the SCOTUS has to overturn.
If the courts were LESS political – yes, I’d let them handle it.
When are you scheduled for your operation fruitboy?
“Ultimately we should just go full Starship Troopers with respect to gender and then none of this would matter.”
As much as I love Heinlein, sometimes his imagination went too far. There just ain’t that much saltpeter in the world. Biology beats ideology, every time.
Where is the damage? They can serve, they just have to meet the standards of medical fitness for being a man or a woman, just like everyone else.
“they want the medical benefits that would accompany uniformed service, for their genital alterations”.
Bingo! And when it all goes south they will claim the PTSD because chopping off your weanie can be stressful.
“chopping off your weanie”
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!
Yep. Just thinking about it is stressfull. Call it “genital alteration” or whatever, it’s still weenie chopping, and I am coming down with a case of the PTSD.
This can be addressed by not banning them from service.
Just make it something that is not covered or an 80% copay or something. Try-Care has plenty medical procedures that are not covered.
“Try-Care has plenty medical procedures that are not covered”
Never heard of them.
Covered or not it remains PTSD bait.
I believe “non service-connected” covers that.
Say what you will, but the ACLU is consistent about pissing off both the left and the right.
Here is the ACLU defending the KKK at Charlottesville:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/17/aclu-condemned-for-defending-charlottesville-white-nationalist-protest.html
And here is the ACLU opposing Obama-era gun laws:
http://www.range365.com/aclu-speaks-out-against-social-security-gun-grabd
Except, they’ve already said they will stop representing “hate” groups that carry firearms in demonstrations. That includes those demonstrating in Charlottesville, like the KKK and Neo-Nazis. But, since Antifa shows up with bricks, M80s, and bats I’m sure the ACLU will be happy to represent them.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/charlottesville-violence-prompts-aclu-change-policy-hate-groups-protesting-guns/
ACLU defends civil and constitutional rights.
Typically that means defending minority groups which is why the right seems to hate the ACLU.
“ACLU defends civil and constitutional rights”
As they interpret them.
Your second comment is just plain silly.
ACLU cherry picks the cases/clients that the are willing to defend.
Yep, those pesky minority groups, like Nambla:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20000831/aponline171914_000.htm
Nothing like supporting the causes of pedophiles, is there? Yeah, that’s a REAL protected group…not.
BULLSHYT! ACLU picks who they will sue so they can recoup all expenses..they weaseled in a law whereby any fed, city, state, county they sue, that agency has to pay the ACLU’s expenses! communist pricks! They all need to hang from trees like grapes! imho
Read about Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU. He admitted to his crew (commie lawers) that the sole reason for its existence was to defend Communists from prosecution; but, that they would have to take some other cases to show that they were concerned about the rights of non-commies. As Roger once said: Keep your eyes on the prize, “Communism is our goal.” If you think the ACLU gives a shit about anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights (other than other crypto-commies), you need to put down the bong.
It’s even better than that, rgr769. One of the 10 founding members of the ACLU later became the Chairwoman of the CPUSA, died while visiting Moscow in 1964 – and received a Soviet state funeral in Red Square.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Gurley_Flynn
“Aging Commie Leftover Union”
That explains much.
How would having transgendered personnel in uniform help the U.S. win a war?
I won’t be expecting an answer that doesn’t include, “I feel…”, or “The right thing to do is…”.
You asked. Having transgender serve is allowing people who are capable and willing to defend this country even to go as far as putting themselves between a bullet and an innocent person. Not like the person who is President who got 5 deferments so he didn’t drafted to serve and protect the people of this country. Saying that transgender can’t step up to the job is pure BS and just being hateful toward a group of people based on ones own prejudices. I am a transgender and I served for 12 years receiving honorable discharges for the 3 enlistments. I also have Combat action and a letter of Commendation from the Admiral for service in the Persian Gulf.
Prejudice, that’s cute. I don’t care about what someone is, or thinks they are. I care about military bearing, mission accomplishment, unit cohesion, putting money/training/opportunity where it will make the greatest impact. How is an arbitrary thing like ‘gender I don’t know what’s between my legs’ syndrome enhance any of the above?
Why does this guy always give us his resume in every comment? We all get it. You spent time in the Navy & you got some fruit salad for your blues. I guess nobody else posting here has that background, right?
You put on a dress and act like a girl, so you think it’s a great idea. Of course, you don’t give a shit about the needs of anybody else, do you? What about the 50 plus women in your berthing compartment that don’t want to see your swinging dick in the shower? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know you don’t give a fuck about anybody else’s needs but your own. I guess you didn’t learn a damn thing in the Navy.
I’m still waiting to hear what command this histrionic clown was attached to when “it” was supposedly handed a CAR.
Did you transition before, during, or after your service?
Marci you’re full of shit and we know it. This isn’t your first time posting about yourself and your “claims” of service. Good luck with that, I’m sure HuffPo or Slate would hire you as an expert military analyst though….
Bullshyt! give the necessary names, numbers and dates to Jonn and let him do some research, maybe then we won’t have to listen to your drivel!
I got a better idea.
Let’s let blind people serve. Or diabetics. Or the elderly. Or folks with felony records.
I mean, they **WANT** to serve, and isn’t that enough?
careful whatcha wish for. lol
But, we let blind people serve. They’re called Second Lieutenants. Eventually their site returns though….
If the transgender soldier is a better soldier than the one we would recruit if we banned the transgender soldier based entirely on the fact that they are transgender….
then “yes”, it does help us win a war.
Yes, let’s not forget what a “fabulous” soldier Manning was. I am sure he would be one hell of an infantryman now that he no longer “confused” about his gender. Too bad we can’t make him your ranger buddy and send you through the course together. He already has a nifty new suit for the swimming qual test.
There is ALSO a ban on Diabetics, Epileptics, Asthmatics and Amputees as well as those diagnosed as Mentally Ill from Enlisting, is THAT prejudicial as well?
I knew a guy who could do the splits, was a Tae Kwon Do practitioner who was in fantastic shape and could kick 6-8 feet in the air even standing. He had a little kink in one hip and was denied service just because of that “kink” that wasn’t ever a problem for him.
It bugged him a bit when he did duckwalks for the MEPS Doc and the doc said, “Nope, sorry. You’re a nogo.” and that was it, no discussion. Even 20 years later there’s nothing wrong with his hip.
There is also a ban on people with anaphylaxis, bad credit, AIDS, cancer, eating disorders, and on and on.
Kommissar: WTF are you smoking susie? Did you remove all mirrors from your house so you can look down without being embarrassed?
By better, do you mean the nearly 50 percent of TG persons 18-24 who admit they’ve attempted suicide, not to mention the ones who have considered it?
Been a while since I was recruiting, but last time I checked, attempts at or idealization of suicide was a permanent disqualifier.
So how does trying to off yourself make you a better soldier?
Nope, not a violation of the 5th Amendment, which is specific in its content. Self-incrimination is illegal. And no one has the right to serve.
Anyone wonder what would happen if the draft were reinstated? My guess is that the noise from that corner of the room would quickly die out.
Like that bill making women registering for the draft so combat arms could be staffed by the same.
Equality ain’t equal.
I did approve of that idea, Roh-Dog. I think I said so. Fair is fair, you know. If we gals could volunteer, starting back in WWI and going forward, then what’s the holdup?
Oh, yeah – that ‘but women weren’t drafted before!’ whine. I forgot about that.
Yes you did! You are the exception, not the rule.
Women will go stage 5 apoplectic when given the privilege of registering.
Yup, Ex is definitely the exception….;-)
I’m waiting for the howling. Deafening, it would be.
If the draft was reinstated you probable see a lot more people like Trump getting 5 deferments so they won’t has to go protect this country it people and the Constitution
Not everyone can, or should, serve. What’s your point?
Do you also object so vehemently and mockingly to the deferments sought by Bill Clinton, or just the ones of Trump? Are you cheering the service of the two Bush presidents, then?
You are not actually helping yourself much this way. Try again maybe?
You seem to respond with “what aboutisms” literally with every post you make on a political issue.
So because someone is fucked up it means it is ok for another person to be fucked up?
How far did that get you in the military?
Adults try to maintain consistency in thought and opinion, using pattern recognition when dealing with novel situations.
Bro.
Apparently Commissar also doesn’t understand the concept of “a rhetorical question asked to point out hypocrisy”.
Pointing out a hypocrisy without actually addressing the substance of the issue is just pulling a logical fallacy as a distraction.
This “what aboutism” tactic is the primary rhetorical means people are shielding Trump from LEGITIMATE criticism.
They never actually address the issue at hand just deflect attention toward some other fucked up person.
And with Trump that literally have to bring up dozens of different fucked up people to justify the personality of ONE MAN.
You declare him guilty, and then all must fit that template. You are about as unbiased as the Red Queen, and nowhere near as entertaining.
I didn’t -like- Trump in November, but he and Obama share my eternal gratitude for keeping that evil psycho and her perv husband out of the White House.
Start with ONE fucked up person…der Kommissar!!
When someone whips out the “whataboutism” meme it’s a sure sign they’re a progressive. It’s a very popular go-to for them.
Why do I bring this up? The resort to “whataboutism” is a sign of prejudice on the part of the commenter.
For instance, Hondo…
If I were to detail how cost the taxpayer almost as much on travel in one year as Obama did in 8.
And how every weekend he golfs costs taxpayers $3M. $65K on golf cart rentals at his own resort.
Or the obscene about of money the Secret Service was spending to rent from Trump’s own company to operate in Trump tower, to protect Trump’s family.
And then pointed out that despite the fact the your posted a half a dozen articles critical of Obama’s travel costs; you have not indicated you give a damn about the costs Trump’s family is generating and PROFITING from.
That would be pointing out a hypocrisy without actually addressing the substance of you criticism of the costs Obama’s travel cost the taxpayer and whether they were reasonable.
What has Obama and that horse face corporate lawyer paid in taxes? A tenth of jack shit is still jack shit comparatively. Trump has paid way more in taxes, if he wants a larger bite at the apple, so fcking be it. I bet that Trump’s properties have taken a huge hit on this whole security thing. Not to mention the uptick in violence and violent threats directed at the President, but he deserves then right? He’s a fassssshhhh.
Besides, that’s justifying a government system to redistribute wealth that favors those who are not necessarily fit to receive financial assistance, aka theft, aka income tax.
YMMV.
Stay classy, communist prick.
From what I see and hear Trump’s security costs more at least in part because of more threats and disruptions, not because he wants to spend more.
In any case, the amount of security around the Pres. has been absurd for years.
I was told I did rather well in my little contribution. I also rather enjoyed it. Someone thought enough of my work to get me a neat little wall-hanger with signatures on the back. Kinda cool.
I seem to be doing rather well in my current profession.
You wanted to have a point there, but you seem to be wide of the mark.
Why should I not point out someone’s hypocrisy or blatant double-standards? Because you find it inconvenient?
What are you going to criticize next, my typos?
Marci, you’re supposed to call him “draft dodger”. Didn’t you read the updated DNC talking points for that?
Further more, a study done a few years ago indicated that only 20% of 18 year olds are physically and mentally capable to serve in the military.
At that, selective service is ACTUAL Gender discrimination because now that women can fill combat roles, SS only REQUIRES males to register. Congress is basically supporting gender discrimination.
Transgenders serving is not a gender issue. It is a medical, budgetary, and man-hours issue. That study indicating over 40% of post-ops are suicidal doesn’t help either.
The fact you are allegedly post-op transgender and allegedly served in the military (pre-op) doesn’t make your opinion on the matter any more significant than anyone else’s.
Technically it does from the principle of “been there done that.”
been there suppressed that is more accurate
More likely ‘Been there, hid that.” DADT didn’t exist during that period, and as I recall both homosexuality and being transgender were at the time disqualifying conditions for military service.
Not until Marci provides bona fides that aren’t filled with red flags it doesn’t.
I’m sure Jonn would be happy to take your information and do a FOIA and tell us one way or the other though, Marci.
The only red flag Marci didn’t have in her previous explanations was about the time she was a part of a crack commando unit convicted of a crime they didn’t commit. Now she hides in the Los Angeles underground helping people who can’t get help from the police…..
Isn’t it “what about me-ing” I know you hate what about me’s.
So only gay people can talk about gay issues, black people and black issues, ad nauseum.
Or do you claim it gives them greater “moral authority?” Same problem; that means (for example) black people have by definition greater moral authority to speak on race than do white people. This is self-evidently not true, so disproving the argument.
I’ll also note that Marci’s argument is really a warmed-over “chickenhawk” slur. The truth is that there were quite a few reputable leaders who never served, not to mention those who served with valor but turned out to be utter rat bastards. It’s a lame argument.
“Trump getting 5 deferments”
Oh give it a rest honey. The deferment card has been played for decades. Nobody gives a shit. Now bring me a country fleeing draft dodger and we can talk.
It actually should matter.
It is kind of revolting that it does not.
Somebody who would do everything they can to avoid service to their country is not fit to be the commander in chief.
And that includes Clinton.
I am pretty damn sure it mattered to you before Trump.
President Trump never sent a letter disparaging the US Military while studying overseas, “Blowjob Willie” Clinton DID.
No, it didn’t. They were legal.
I got one. My brother got one.
All kinds of people got one or more for all kinds of reasons. Claim you are gay and kiss the doctor.
Cut your finger and bleed into the urine. Have your senator dad handle it. I was happy that some of my friends got them no matter how.
It is the sonofabitch that fled the country and waited out a pardon to come back that boils my blood.
I take it you were not around then so don’t be so damn sure of yourself.
I believe you said “Somebody who would do everything they can to avoid service to their country is not fit to be the commander in chief.”
Avoiding service matters to you? Did Bernie Sanders, by any chance, obtain any draft deferments or apply for CO status?
Was he thus unfit by your standard, or is that something we should not be asking about?
Like Bill Clinton?
Are you responding to me?
If so try reading what I wrote next time.
Well, last time I checked there were two Clintoons who’ve run for POTUS within the last 20 years. Perhaps he was simply asking which of the two you meant?
My guess is the one who was actually Commander in Chief and a real draft-dodger.
If I was responding to you, I would’ve hit your comment’s “reply” button, leaving it stacked accordingly, you narcissistic dickhead. The only exception being if the reply stack was sufficiently long that it no longer accepts any reply extensions, and it clearly isn’t that long yet. So, since it stacked in 26L’s reply column, the answer is no, I wasn’t talking to you, jackass.
How about the darling of the left, Dick Blumenthal, who got deferments and then hooked up into a DC area USMCR unit that handled Toys for Tots drives?
I think Jonn’s opinion on Trump’s “service” is close enough to mine for me to post this;
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=61759
Awesome find. Serious mental gymnastics on that thread from some of your Fave’s. The then and now are astounding how many sell-outs there are.
The potato shooter could not stand the Donald.
Keep up the good work
Like clockwork the seditious leftist trying to subvert our representative republic by invalidating lawful orders by judge shopping via the courts.
I wouldn’t have expected anything different. President Trump could cure cancer tomorrow and leftists would sue claiming it is unconstitutional.
Oh come on, “judge shopping” is so not a thing. That’s why they did this in the US District Court in Texas……
Wait, what do you mean they did it in the People’s Democratic Republic of Maryland? Well, shit….
WTF are you taking about?
Ruling on the constitutionality of a law IS EXPLICITLY THE ROLE OF THE COURT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
It is not “subverting” our government. It government functioning as it is CONSTITUTIONALLY CONSTRUCTED to function.
The judicial branch is a branch of our government.
It is downright scary that you would prefer our country be one where the executive can make unchallenged unilateral decisions that must be honored or the person challenging it is “subverting” the government.
I bet you didn’t feel that way when Obama was in office.
So this is not really about “subverting” the government. This is about defying your Trumpenfuhrer.
Oh, please. King Obama the Magnificent treated the Constitution like a weaving road obstacle. How many damn times did that prick decide to play Executive Order to tell agencies NOT to enforce the law?
Lars,
Incorrect. Determining the constitutionality of laws was a power the court claimed for itself in Marbury vs. Madison. There is no explicit grant of that power in the Constitution.
Um, no.
Article makes no mention of judicial review. That principle derived from Marbury v. Madison.
You might want a medic to take a look at that huge hole you just shot into your own foot.
…Or maybe you’ll “accidentally” “skim over” this reply so you can conveniently ignore it?
Sedition even?
Holy crap you are nuts.
Do the other Demokratic Socialists in the communal crash pad get pissed when you scream at the computer screen?
Yes, by all means lets allow a group of people with an exponentially higher suicide rate into the armed services…that will make America safer (eye roll).
Barry & his globalists want to eliminate the last remaining super power and this is how it starts.
It be safer then letting people like Trump serve cause they would have to be force seeing people like him are draft dodgers who gets 5 deferments to avoid being enlisted( 4 deferments for education and the last one was for shin splints the miraculously disappeared after the draft was stopped. (So roll your eyes all you want)
12 years and only an E5, why? Then I read your rambling, incoherent, and run-on sentence that answers the question. Carry on, rock.
Well, a bar to reenlistment (4 x 3 years or 3 x 4 years) or an ADSEP could explain someone leaving between 11 and 13 years. I won’t speculate on possible reasons for the latter.
I think Navy HYT for E5 was a bit later than 12 years in 1991. But I could be wrong.
An E-5 in the Navy could do 20 years…they started cutting them back to 14 years in 2005 and completed it by 2009. In my time from 81-2005 I saw quite a few PO2s with Gold stripes.
I remember Adm Boorda referring to the career PO2s as “cheap labor” and saying he had no problem with them.
Thanks. I thought it had been higher, but didn’t know that 14 was that recent.
If I recall correctly, the Army’s min enlisted grade for retirement (barring a reduction immediately prior to retirement) has been E6 for a looooong time.
Active Army yes, E6. Though, in the National Guard you can be an E4 for 40 years and still get waivers to hang around until after 60, 65ish, whenever you fall and can’t get up I guess.
I seem to remember a statutory limit of age 64 for enlisted National Guard service. I could be wrong about that, and would have to look it up to be sure.
HT2 79-91, that was just painful to read. I hope that you’ll return to school, whoever passed you on to the 3rd grade did you no favors.
3rd grade is the only thing that was long and hard on Marci now.
So what command was that CAR from, again?
Maybe the fact that he didn’t have to exercise heavily to stay in shape for anything, like the military, is the reason his shin splints “disappeared”?
See, you and Marci should’ve hooked up prior to this. you’re throwing the “draft dodger” talking point and she isn’t. You all have to get together on this stuff as a united front!
Studies indicated a significant increase in men attending college to receive education deferments for Viet Nam. So, there were quite a lot of men getting deferments. Even Bill, though Hillary served in the Marines because she talked to a Marine Recruiter one time, just ask her.
“Studies indicated a significant increase in men attending college to receive education deferments for Viet Nam”
I got one. Lots of friends did too.
I gave mine up and went RA for three.
It happens.
Yeah, as I recall a draft deferment was automatic for anyone enrolled in college throughout the Vietnam War. So anyone who went to college between 1960 and the end of the draft in the early 1970s got one or more deferments.
Getting 5 is no where near normal and by any measure was outright draft avoidance.
There is no defense of Trump on this point.
No member of his family has ever served a single day in the military going back more than 100 years.
Actually, as I recall Vietnam college draft deferments were annual deferments, renewed at the beginning of an academic year. So anyone who went to a 4-year program during the same time that Trump did got a minimum of 4. If they were in college longer than 4 years, they got 5 or more.
Trump’s last deferment was medical, and it’s the only one that’s even remotely questionable. The first four were the same automatic deferments that anyone else going to college all four years from 1964 to 1968 received.
You could also drag it out further if a course or two had to be repeated due to illness cough cough.
Yep, I even read a study posted at Berkley (go figure) about that. There were also college students that received “graduate” deferments which ended up putting them at 25 or 26 years old. The study claimed that there were virtually zero draftees over 25? So that pretty much resulted in some not having to serve for Nam at all.
And yes, what I read was deferments were “annual” so being in college for 4 years got you 4 deferments, at least.
I also had shin splints in high school when I ran track, but they didn’t bother me a couple years later when I joined the Army.
Graduate deferments were done away with in the Selective Service act of 1967(?). I claim to be the only person in the US to actually research the subject when Clinton’s draft dodging was exposed.
Bill Clinton received his first(!) induction notice while attending Oxford on a Rhodes scholarship. He was allowed to complete the term, after which he received a second notice, but never did report for induction.
He was a phony POS in ’68, and he is still a phony POS.
If I was graduating from an Ivy League school in 1968 with a very lucrative real estate career in front of me, I’d take as many deferments as I could…as many privileged kids were doing.
Slick Willie got deferments…Barry from Honolulu would never put his skinny neck on the line for this country…so why is Trump not serving such a big deal?
Yeah, Harry Reid took his basic load of deferments, too, and there wasn’t even a war going on at the time.
Ahh, but that doesn’t count, cuz he has a (D) after his name.
I seem to have read somewhere that a guy named Sanders had some deferments, and a CO application too.
Same here, 26.
Well Trump is now the Commander in Chief…talk about a rate grabber….beats the heck out of a 12 year PO2.
Look at how many Donks got deferments, Marci… open your eyes to that fact, toots.
BTW – I made CPO in 11 1/2…
1) Who is damaged?
2) Do they realize that military service is a privilege and not a right?
3) Why didn’t they sue any previous administrations during the previous trans ban?
#3 is the most important question, Flagwaver.
Because so many of them were lined up trying to give Bill Clinton blowjobs?
It’s a minor point, but being transgender isn’t considered a mental illness. Gender dysphoria is a mental illness some transgender people have, but being transgender alone isn’t considered an illness.
Either way, it’s gonna be interesting to see this flip back in a few years with the next Democratic President. This back-and-forth is probably costing more than the lawsuits or the support costs.
“This back-and-forth is probably costing more than the lawsuits or the support costs.”
Hey, the needs of the 0.00001% of the citizens in this country are much more important than the other 99.9999%!
0.3%
Though I think the notion that someone cannot serve based entirely on them being transgender it kind of nonsense.
Source.
The 0.3 percent number has been widely quoted, but has also been questioned due to confirmation bias. IIRC, according to the Williams Institute, it originated the “primary data source for the estimates of transgender military service is the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, which was conducted by the Nationa Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the National Center for Transgender Equality.”
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Transgender-Military-Service-May-2014.pdf
Once again, Lars has either ignored context or chooses to cherry pick numbers to fit his agenda.
Take choice #2, Perry.
My comment was in reference to the US population as a whole, 320 Million. Not just the 0.3% of the military population.
Why? Because “the they” are making this about all Transgenders in the US, not just the ones in the military, if there are even THAT many.
which is why I said “citizens in this country”.
Here’s the numbers according to the DSM-V: pg454
Males: 0.005% – 0.014%
Females: 0.002% – 0.003%
0.014 percent of 1.28 million.
IOW, 180 people.
Just about enough to man (person?) ONE Trident submarine.
Yah. Readiness problem solved!
Or they could make one Infantry company.
Call it Transformer Company!
sounds more like a PsyOp 🙂
But what would the movie be called? I’m thinking “The Boys of Company T” just wouldn’t fly. (smile)
Two questions, IDC SARC:
1. Are those percentages the prevalence of transgender or gender dysphoria?
2. If the former, do you have any idea what the demographic distribution within gender is for each? I’d be willing to bet that, like many conditions, manifestation later in life is more common.
Is anyone getting banner ads for gay cruises on this site?
I’m honored for the compliment Mr or Mrs Algorithm, but I’m boringly straight.
I get ads for Dress Barn and LLBean jeans, and sometimes Danner Boots. Obviously, my money belongs with them.
I use an ad blocker…but donate munniez occasionally to the site to make up for it
I’m just thinking it’s what I deserve with clicking through the ACLU’s twitter.
Curiosity has consequences…
Try going to websites that advertising guns or hunting equipment or manly stuff. It might work. The ads seem to be related to your window shopping parameters. I looked at cars for a while and kept seeing Carmax ads, and got rid of them.
Well, Roh-Dog, I’m sure if you go on one of those cruises there will be someone there to satisfy your curiosity. IYKWIM.
I bet. I had my, er, ‘fill’ in the Infantry.
Every once in a while I click on the banner ads because it helps give a few cents to Jonn. I have to give my $0.02 somehow.
Probably a result of your “research”…
Roh-Dog,
If you are (or were) viewing this site over a shared connection, like an open WiFI, your shared IP may be contributing.
If the person who used the IP before you went shopping for Portuguese language Sci-Fi T-shirts, or other oddities, you might see the weirdest ads.
The military does not need to be concerned with the issues and problems of, “a vulnerable population”. That is not their mission, never has been and hopefully never will be. The rest of the nation can delve into the transgender quagmire to their hearts content. But our Armed Forces have too specific a purpose to try to parse out who is a what on any given day.
Despite the rhetoric of the right it is not the left making this an issue.
The right has been obsessed with this and the coverage is FAR FAR FAR greater in right wing media and blogs than on the left.
um, what? Did you see the approved propagands television show, Comrade? The glorious egalitarian psyop (aka the MTV awards) was all about pushing this bullshit.
This is very much a left wing attempt at polarizing people, have you read an antifa sign?
I’ve been watching Fox News the last two days and I’ve seen this issue talked about maybe twice. The rest is mostly about Harvey and Texas. So, I’m not sure what you’re referring to specifically.
May be just perception since I spend most of my time on right wing websites.
However, transgender folks have been using the restrooms of their gender identity for decades, since at least the 1950s, and it only gained national attention when the right made it a political football.
So I am certain is was a bigger issue of outrage and attention by the right than on the left. The left’s attitude was simply “WTF is their problem?”
Living in the bay area I run into transgender folks pretty much every time I leave the house. Two are neighbors. It never even occurred to me that someone would argue that they should be using the restroom that fits their gender identity.
And then I saw the same sudden outrage on the right when Obama ordered the Pentagon to look work toward accommodating transgender folks.
On the left most people were just; “makes sense, they are already serving, they need to figure out a way to make it official, let’s see what happens…”
But the right lost their minds over it.
The biggest surprise to me is the plan to accurate and cover gender transition surgery and the process within the military.
That surprised me. But it also made it clear that the Pentagon had decided the best way of dealing with this question was approaching gender identity disorder as simply a medical issue and like many medical issues that effect a soldiers ability to function it just needed to be accommodated in a way that minimized the impact on the mission while providing proper medical care to the soldier.
When the right made it a political football?? Really?
Don’t you mean when the Left made it a political agenda with Obama’s transgender directive?
Oh, and please tell me what permanent medical condition the military make adjustments and accommodations for if you are required to take daily medications?
Why should it be accommodated at all? When my son finished BCT an E-5 broke his foot, an army podiatrist sent him home on the spurious claim he had “hammer toes” as a prior disqualifying medical condition because they didn’t want to let his fractured metatarsal heal. I might add he has been a farrier (horse shoer) for over 20 years and he doesn’t have hammer toes. Somehow, I think that believing you should be the other sex/gender is a bit more of a reason not to enlist someone than because they have “hammer toes.”
“However, transgender folks have been using the restrooms of their gender identity for decades…”
Not openly. The fuss started when they wanted everyone to know and approve.
The entire media coverage is on Harvey and the oncoming threat of Irma, or the money-money-money issues that always concern any state government that is in the clutches of selfish, control freak Democraps. There’s not much reference to anything else, aside from the daily body count for neighborhood shootings, right now.
DEPLOYABILITY is key, especially during times like these along with Combat Readiness. So SOMEBODY TELL ME just how deployable a TG Service member will be while undergoing “reansition”, I’, waiting. Hormone Therapy, time before and after surgery,… What about their deployability before, during and after? What about the facilities for them, will there be “His, “Hers” and “Its” billeting and latrines? OH, and all the expenses borne as well. Last time I checked the United States Military exists for one main purpose and that’s TO GO TO WAR in times of necessity and stay ready to when there isn’t one going on, IT DOES NOT exist to be a Social Engineering Laboratory.
Not. But according to the rules that were implemented originally (and suspended by Mattis) a person was not allowed to begin the transition process without permission from the chain of command who would make a determination whether transitioning at the time would impact the mission.
It was not a perfect solution but was a “close enough” policy to accommodate gender transition in the military.
However, I honestly do not think gender transition is compatible with military service.
Gender identity is a different question.
yeah, but if you read the guidance you know full well the best thing to do to stay off the skyline would be to receive the preop, count him as a non-player and just let the process take over, or otherwise face violating the member’s rights. That means everybody else has to take up the slack while little PVT Snuffy becomes all he wants, hopes, dreams, to be.
statistically though about 70% of TGs never actually complete the surgery, preferring instead to dress and feel pretty doing the fruit basket tuck while listening to “Goodbye Horses”
How doe these threads get so off the rails?
Yes, and the male TGs still want to have sex with women. Kristin Beck has admitted to that in an interview some place. No, I am not going to go digging for it.
lol…yeah in a British prison they had to move a TG back into the male cellblock, because he was shagging all the female prisoners
Dumbass, he ruined it for any of the rest of us who might try that tactic if we go to prison…
Well here’s hoping the courts can actually sort this shit out for everyone once and for all.
I remain unconvinced there is any benefit at all to having transgendered members of the military for the military. I understand there are benefits for the transgendered, but that should hardly be the criteria.
The fact they did it in Maryland doesn’t help the “sorting this shit out” portion of this. Until, of course, it ends up at the Supreme Court.
It is the 4th Circuit though, so I’m guessing the Supremes will be reviewing it.
I think gender identity disorder is generally not compatible with military service.
I absolutely do not think the gender transition process is compatible with military service.
I do think that like many other medical conditions that do not meet medical fitness standards; gender identity disorder could be a waiverable condition on a case by case basis depending on the circumstances of the individual applicant’s gender identity.
This is particularly true with respect to the question of retaining those already serving honorably.
Questions about who will watch who pee during a urinalysis issues to bring up to argue against the rights of transgender service members are nonsense and nothing that is not easily handled at unit level.
This is not as big an issue as it is being made out to be politically. It effect a tiny fraction of the population and transgender folks.
Transgender folks have been serving for a long time in the US military. Before their status was a political issue.
This is particularly true for female solders that have essentially psychologically identified themselves as men and lived as men despite the gender the military recognized. In fact the military has a long history as a place for women who want to be accepted as men to find a community that essentially does that as part of its culture of treating service members equally and expected them each to function as equal members of the team.
Do you still a Bernie 2016 sticker on your Pries?
Fine. Then let the waiver process also include the following:
(1) a written acknowledgement by the individual that they were “transgender” prior to enlistment/commissioning, and requesting an exception to policy to serve in the military despite an otherwise-disqualifying condition;
(2) a written agreement by the individual to serve in their biological birth sex;
(3) a written acknowledgement that seeking outside treatment for their transgender treatment is disallowed while serving;
(4) a written acknowledgement that they will receive no military medical treatment for their transgender condition while serving;
(5) a written acknowledgement that any violations of 2 or 3 above will be considered grounds for immediate administrative separation, including during the period between 18 and 20 years of active service (“sanctuary”); and
(6)a written waiver by the individual of any entitlement to post-service VA treatment (or compensation) of any type for their transgender condition or complications relating to same that might arise due to military service. This includes any alleged “worsening” of the condition during or due to military service.
Somehow I doubt you’ll have many takers.
That pretty much covers it, Hondo.
http://www.businessinsider.com/kristin-beck-trump-transgender-ban-2017-7
Kristin Beck never served in the military. Christopher Beck served for 20 years. Kristin Beck still has a weiner from what I understand. So, there isn’t a need for hormone/medication therapy. But I don’t care because the military budget isn’t paying for it, nor did they pay for anything to do with Chris becoming Kris.
Kristin Beck is also acting like a DoD budgetary expert by saying “the money is negligible” and “you’re talking about .000001% of the budget”.
That doesn’t count manhours (biggest budgetary cost that they won’t account for), leave time, and especially other personnel performing the tasks that Soldier isn’t there to do because they’re on convalescent leave or at an appointment, or getting their shots/medication. It isn’t just about the medication Beck, it’s about a multitude of things. Again, if they do the exact same plan as he does, wait until they are out to do operations, get cut up, etc., then no one cares. That’s not what will happen though.
As far as the “command issue” thing. Yeah, the Navy is firing a ship/boat Captain at about the rate of one per week for the last couple years so transgenders serving is about the last thing they’d be worried about, and/or need added to the plate right now. Even though there are already lost hours spent on “mandatory training” about TGs and acceptance and tolerance, for that “1300 to 6600” Rand is supposedly statistically counting out of the roughly 2 million people serving across all branches and components. (2 million personnel spending 1-2 hours a year about 0.2%-estimated of military personnel)
By the way, that .000001% of the budget would be about 6,000 dollars. Which, is a lot less than even potential estimates provide for whether he’s being melodramatic about it or not.
If being transgender (whatever the current definition is)doesn’t matter, why did he wait 20 years to mention it? Why can’t others do the same?
Beck;
“A very professional unit with great leadership wouldn’t have a problem,…”
Evidently Beck thinks Seal Team 6 is an unprofessional unit with bad leadership.
I suspect there is more than a little narcissism involved with those folks. They seem to feel it necessary to flaunt their deviance and have the rest of us notice and approve and affirm how wonderful they are.
The rest of us are expected to keep our personal life personal at work. Wear a cross or post a Bible verse? Crimethink! Wear a well-stuffed bra and advertise “diversity”? Doubleplusgoodthink!
Here’s an interesting and informative website concerning about being trans-gendered, having the surgery and a number of years after, regretting that decision.
The web-master is an actual trans-gender who had the surgery and is AGAINST allowing trans-gendered folks being able to serve in the military for a number of reasons.
My guess is that this person is probably not too popular with the the folks pushing the agenda to allow a trans-gender to serve. A good read!
sexchangeregret.com
SJW’s have stomped and whined and went to great lengths to have the people and government believe that wanting to be the opposite of what their birth sex is as “Gender Dystopia” and is a medical condition. A medical condition that needs surgery, treatment, medication and lots of therapy to successfully complete the change.
Any other medical condition like that is a disqualifying factor.
I discharged shit loads of recruits for either undiagnosed or fraudulently hidden medical conditions a lot less severe than that because Uncle Sam considers it a bad investment to try to take in damaged goods.
I would really love to hear how many true transgenders ( meaning people who have had had reassignment surgery, therapy and mental health counseling and made the change) and are otherwise qualified to serve actually WANT to enlist.
What I see is Lesbians and Gays who want to crossdress trying to do it in the military.
All you have to do, Old Dog, is reinstate the draft. Then sit back and watch them run away as fast as they can.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5555352718001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips
Boy, that is a real violation of free speech, never mind the lawsuits in the offing.
Diagnostic Statistical Manual-IV (Amer. Psychiatric Association) Section: Sexual and Identity Disorders 302.85 (Adolescent/Adult)
Primary manifestation is “belief” he/she was born the wrong sex with their symptoms seen as preoccupation of getting rid of primary and secondary sexual sex characteristics (hormones, surgery..etc) to physically alter their genetically biologically defined gender.
Gender dysphoria is not a defined physical “intersex” condition
This mental disorder causes a legion of disturbing social & occupational impairments , not excluding a statistically high rate of suicide .
Any wonder why transgenders should not be in in the military ?
CAPT “Bones” USN (ret)
None on my part, Doc.
Can’t use that Captain, the DSM-IV is two editions behind the current DSM-V (DSM-IV, DSM IV-TR preceded it)
The DSM-V criteria was significantly revised.
COMMISAR, whoever you are, why are you here? Are you here just to be a troll?
Your military experience is what?
Mine is light infantry assignments:
B Co.,3/7 Inf, 197th Bde
C Co.,4/10 Inf, 193rd Bde[became 1/187]
E Trp,1/9 Cav[LRS], 1st Cav Div
101st Pathfinder Co., 101st Avn Bde, 101st etc.
Recruiter, Brooklyn Co.
C Co.,4/27 Inf, 25th ID[L]
A Co.,4/325 AIR, 82nd AB
C Co.,1/279 Inf, 45th Inf Bde
So?
No D Co.?