2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: robtmc on July 26, 2017, 11:03:09 AM
-
Here we go, the sound of liberal heads exploding is like popcorn.
http://fox6now.com/2017/07/26/pres-trump-transgender-people-will-not-be-allowed-to-serve-in-any-capacity-in-the-us-military/ (http://fox6now.com/2017/07/26/pres-trump-transgender-people-will-not-be-allowed-to-serve-in-any-capacity-in-the-us-military/)
Sorry if already posted, did not see it.
-
Here we go, the sound of liberal heads exploding is like popcorn.
http://fox6now.com/2017/07/26/pres-trump-transgender-people-will-not-be-allowed-to-serve-in-any-capacity-in-the-us-military/ (http://fox6now.com/2017/07/26/pres-trump-transgender-people-will-not-be-allowed-to-serve-in-any-capacity-in-the-us-military/)
Sorry if already posted, did not see it.
You mean some one with a mental disorder can't serve in the military ??? Who would of thought
-
Was reading some of the comments on HNN. Talk about :facepalm:
-
I had a friend ask me about this because all he read was "transgender banned" and never thought more. So I asked him the following questions if they were allowed:
1) What standard will they be held to (male or female)
2) If above standard is chosen, and they choose to ID differently, are they re-tested
3) Certain jobs don't allow certain genders, so what then
4) Who will person live with if in the barracks and use restrooms
5) What happens if person went MIA and you need to ID remains. DNA is either male or female depending what you're born with.
6) Regarding above, what do you put on medical records
7) Same situation as above but person is hostage, intel will tell people to look for 1 sex due to medical records, but opposite will be present.
8 ) We paid for Chelsea Mannings treatments and he was convicted of a crime, do we have to pay for all others
9) Will people take advantage of the lower standard to pass certain schools (female standard), then change ID back to male
10) Can hormone treatments continue if deployed, and if yes, what happens if individual needs to go on a 2 week mission while in the middle of a treatment
11) AND FINALLY, ACLU WILL SUE GOVERNMENT IF ANY OF THE ABOVE ARE VIOLATED. SO THAT'S OUR TAX DOLLARS
Then my friend said "oh, I never thought that far ahead about the issue". Now he supports Trumps decision.
-
Slippery slope.
Goods points Change.
Is he continuing what Obama did ?
Divide the Country ?
Obama drove in the wedge ( one way but but started the log to split nonetheless)
Is Trump driving in the wedge even further ? (heartwood (old growth) fighting back but sapwood (younger and still growing) has leverage)
Both being split. Wedge being driven deeper.
How is this resolved?
Transgender units ? (Segregation)
Note: I believe being in the Military is a privilege not a right. God bless our folks who volunteer.
But if a draft came along, would the Canadian flee'ers just claim transgender ?
On another note more on point:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/kristin-beck-transgender-navy-seal-144339198.html
""Let's meet face to face and you tell me I'm not worthy," Kristin Beck, a 20-year veteran of the Navy SEALs, told Business Insider on Wednesday. "Transgender doesn't matter. Do your service."
Beck said Trump's abrupt change in policy could negatively affect many currently or wanting to serve in the military. The RAND Corporation estimated in 2016 that there were between 1,320 and 6,630 transgender people serving. Many of them just want to serve their country like everyone else, Beck said.
"Being transgender doesn't affect anyone else," Beck said. "We are liberty's light. If you can't defend that for everyone that's an American citizen, that's not right.""
In a series of tweets, Trump said the decision was based on the costs of medical services that transgender service members could use. But "the money is negligible," Beck said.
http://fox6now.com/2017/07/26/pres-trump-transgender-people-will-not-be-allowed-to-serve-in-any-capacity-in-the-us-military/
John McCain, the Arizona Republican and Vietnam War hero, said Trump was simply wrong.
“Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving,” he said. “There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train and deploy to leave the military — regardless of their gender identity.”
Not everyone at the Capitol agreed.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said, “The president’s decision was the absolute right decision. … It’s about time that a decision is made to restore the warrior culture and allow the U.S. military to get back to business.”
Shane Ortega, a 30-year-old retired staff sergeant in Los Angeles, said he’s concerned more for civilians than transgender troops.
Ortega, who transitioned to male while serving in the Army and served combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, said, “When Donald Trump attacks what America calls its heroes or its warrior class, it means it’s only a matter of time before he starts attacking and disassembling the American public, and that’s what I have the most fear of.”
-
The Democrats ran on transgender "rights" the last 5 elections and lost all 5 times at every level of government.
Transgenders have an extremely high rate of suicide, and now we want to add them to the high rate of military suicides, too?
Transgenders often change their minds and transition back to their biological gender. Is the tax payer supposed to cover the medical costs for hormonal therapy, psychological counseling, and surgery? Twice?
How many people thinking of transitioning will join the military in a non-combat unit to get free medical to pay for the process?
Talk about a slippery slope. Should the military throw all standards out the window so anyone wanting free medical treatment for existing conditions can join?
-
Here we go, the sound of liberal heads exploding is like popcorn.
LOL. I almost had to spit my drink out. I think that's the best part of this whole thing is the Killary crowd losing their minds.
-
And many Republicans:
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said on CNN’s “Newsroom” Wednesday that he believes everyone should be able to serve, but added that he wanted to look into the policy further before making a final judgment.
“I think you ought to treat everybody fairly and you ought to give everybody a chance to serve,” said Shelby, who serves on the Senate Defense Appropriations Committee.
Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., told a Vox reporter, “I don’t agree with the president” about transgender people in the military.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, also came out against the ban, stating, “I don’t think we should be discriminating against anyone.”
Hatch continued: “Transgender people are people, and deserve the best we can do for them. I look forward to getting much more information and clarity from our military leaders about the policy the President tweeted today.”
Joni Ernst, R-Iowa,
She believes what is most important is making sure service members can meet the physical training standards, and the willingness to defend our freedoms and way of life,” Ernst’s spokesperson told the Des Moines Register. “While she believes taxpayers shouldn’t cover the costs associated with a gender reassignment surgery, Americans who are qualified and can meet the standards to serve in the military should be afforded that opportunity.”
-
Note : none of the above are my words.
I only said: (Oh and that many Republican heads are also exploding)
Slippery slope.
Goods points Change.
Is he continuing what Obama did ?
Divide the Country ?
Obama drove in the wedge ( one way but but started the log to split nonetheless)
Is Trump driving in the wedge even further ? (heartwood (old growth) fighting back but sapwood (younger and still growing) has leverage)
Both being split. Wedge being driven deeper.
How is this resolved?
Transgender units ? (Segregation)
Note: I believe being in the Military is a privilege not a right. God bless our folks who volunteer.
But if a draft came along, would the Canadian flee'ers just claim transgender ?
-
(http://i.imgur.com/5VXJWOI.jpg?1)
-
Anyone ever have teeth (other than wisdom teeth) pulled by a military doctor? They will pull the teeth for free, but if you want a prosthetic replacement tooth, it's considered elective. They don't cover elective procedures unless the condition is "significant", such as being unable to eat. A single missing tooth near the front is a cosmetic condition, and therefore not covered. Active duty must pay out of pocket for the replacement tooth.
So, unless someone can explain how transitioning to the opposite gender is medically necessary due to some significant medical condition, then Trump is correct. As long as what you currently have installed works, I can't see where the government should be forced to continue paying for a self-induced medical treatment.
-
I don't have the numbers in front of me but transgender individuals suffer significantly higher rates of suicide IIRC and even having sex changes does not solve their problem. Because of these unfortunate mental health issues (outside of whether gender dysphoria itself is a mental disorder) I think there is valid concern in having a transgender person in a combat role.
-
I don't have the numbers in front of me but transgender individuals suffer significantly higher rates of suicide IIRC and even having sex changes does not solve their problem. Because of these unfortunate mental health issues (outside of whether gender dysphoria itself is a mental disorder) I think there is valid concern in having a transgender person in a combat role.
It's not just about combat roles. it's about allowing someone to go on active duty with full medical coverage, knowing they are, or are planning to, transition to another gender. The cost, time away from work, and unit team building is impacted if you bring on a member knowing they want an elective medical procedure.
How does having a transgender enlist benefit the government? I think the cost would be greater than the benefit compared to enlisting someone without significant self-image issues.
-
It's not just about combat roles. it's about allowing someone to go on active duty with full medical coverage, knowing they are, or are planning to, transition to another gender. The cost, time away from work, and unit team building is impacted if you bring on a member knowing they want an elective medical procedure.
You are drawing a hard lone that trannys are committed to having their junk carved up.
Dunno about the spectrum of this mental illness, but suspect it runs from cross-dressers that have no interest in homo-sex, to the truly disturbed that like to role play as the opposite sex (typical male homosexual?), and finally to those that are itching to be mutilated.
The last are very disturbed and should in no way be put in a position of trust. They are clearly very ill and unpredictable. the suicide rates show this. They could easily take other troops with them. Look at the chaos and death Bergdahl caused.
Basic homos should just keep it in the closet and carry on without disruption to the unit. They have been doing that far ages until "acting out" became approved by Obozo.
-
You are drawing a hard lone that trannys are committed to having their junk carved up.
Dunno about the spectrum of this mental illness, but suspect it runs from cross-dressers that have no interest in homo-sex, to the truly disturbed that like to role play as the opposite sex (typical male homosexual?), and finally to those that are itching to be mutilated.
The last are very disturbed and should in no way be put in a position of trust. They are clearly very ill and unpredictable. the suicide rates show this. They could easily take other troops with them. Look at the chaos and death Bergdahl caused.
Basic homos should just keep it in the closet and carry on without disruption to the unit. They have been doing that far ages until "acting out" became approved by Obozo.
You're drawing a hard line that I'm only referring to males transitioning to females. Surgery can include breast augmentation, plastic surgery to reduce an Adam's Apple, increase cheekbones, etc. Transitioning to male can include beast reductions/mastectomies and other plastic surgeries to remove feminine features.
(http://i.imgur.com/E8s4IWj.jpg?1)
I always refer back to Bill Clinton as an example of "what people believe" versus "what people know."
Bill Clinton campaigned on the issue of gays serving openly in the military. He was adamant that there's no reason for gays to have to stay "hidden" while serving. Then he was elected and signed an EO to allow gays to openly serve.
After a few weeks passed, and several active duty gays "came out" officially, President Clinton went on a tour of an aircraft carrier. He visited the bunk area, and was suddenly aware of one of the issues first hand how being openly gay in the Navy might not be a good thing.
He immediately modified his EO to, "don't ask, don't tell," which screwed over the ones who jumped the gun and made their orientation formally known.
What people believe about Transgender rights in a military setting might not fly in realty.
(http://i.imgur.com/rzsIc5o.jpg?1)
-
You are drawing a hard lone that trannys are committed to having their junk carved up.
Dunno about the spectrum of this mental illness, but suspect it runs from cross-dressers that have no interest in homo-sex, to the truly disturbed that like to role play as the opposite sex (typical male homosexual?), and finally to those that are itching to be mutilated.
The last are very disturbed and should in no way be put in a position of trust. They are clearly very ill and unpredictable. the suicide rates show this.
That kind of explains the suicide rate. And I'm not trying to be antagonistic. Just think about it.
Good article:
http://dailysignal.com/2017/07/26/why-forcing-the-military-to-pay-for-sex-changes-would-be-disastrous/
"
In July, the House of Representatives voted down Missouri Republican Rep. Vicky Hartzler’s amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which would have banned the military from funding such treatments.
Paying for transition-related surgeries for military service members and their families is beyond comprehensible.
Perhaps they have forgotten that our military was forged to be the world’s strongest fighting force, not a government-funded, politically correct, medical sex change clinic for people with gender dysphoria."
Isn't the House Republican majority ?
I agree, it's elective treatment/surgery and the government shouldn't fund it.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/ULXIdSv.png)
-
I don't have the numbers in front of me but transgender individuals suffer significantly higher rates of suicide IIRC and even having sex changes does not solve their problem. Because of these unfortunate mental health issues (outside of whether gender dysphoria itself is a mental disorder) I think there is valid concern in having a transgender person in a combat role.
Ben Shapiro says the suicide rate is 40% in transexuals. Here is a video where Shapiro argues against transgender and abortion. While I don't agree with his views regarding abortion, he has a very strong argument against being transgendered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkONHNXGfaM
-
(http://i.imgur.com/ULXIdSv.png)
Klinger was the best character on MASH IMHO. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
I see all these comments on HNN, social media, etc about having empathy for people's feelings. Yeah, I certainly have empathy for people's feelings, but IMO, there's a time and a place for that. What is the primary purpose/mission for the military? Is it to provide a safe haven for folks to "fine themselves" or "express themselves"?
Like when it came to the election, it's not about D vs R. It's not about men vs women. It's not about Color A vs Color B. To me, it's about what you think is right for America and what will give you the best opportunity to live the life you want to live. Will this decision make the US Military better able to fulfill it's mission? I believe yes, but that is just my opinion.
-
I don't care about transgenders or gays in the military...if they can fight and meet the standards without causing trouble then I'll fight with them. If someone causes trouble and mentally ill whether straight, gay or transgender, kick em out and keep them out.
-
I don't care about transgenders or gays in the military...if they can fight and meet the standards without causing trouble then I'll fight with them. If someone causes trouble and mentally ill whether straight, gay or transgender, kick em out and keep them out.
it's not about meeting standards or their patriotism
it's the cost of maintaining themselves.
A person who was born one sex who wishes to transition to another faces a lifelong dependence on hormone treatments and other factors to maintain their existence in the other sex. Is it a valid personal health concern?
Doctors and related professionals of course are supporting them. Why? Lifelong customers. Who's paying for all this while they serve in the military?
-
it's not about meeting standards or their patriotism
it's the cost of maintaining themselves.
A person who was born one sex who wishes to transition to another faces a lifelong dependence on hormone treatments and other factors to maintain their existence in the other sex. Is it a valid personal health concern?
Doctors and related professionals of course are supporting them. Why? Lifelong customers. Who's paying for all this while they serve in the military?
I agree, they should not make it mandatory that insurance covers that types of treatment, should be paid out of pocket. Health insurance should be like any other type of insurance like for cars, homes, etc, just cover catastrophic injuries and unforseen high cost problems. Everything else is out of pocket.
-
it's not about meeting standards or their patriotism
it's the cost of maintaining themselves.
A person who was born one sex who wishes to transition to another faces a lifelong dependence on hormone treatments and other factors to maintain their existence in the other sex. Is it a valid personal health concern?
Doctors and related professionals of course are supporting them. Why? Lifelong customers. Who's paying for all this while they serve in the military?
Exactly. Apparently there are many who view the military as a way to pay for their transition, which otherwise would be thousands upon thousands. Not to mention the practical aspect of providing the lifetime of treatments that go along with all of that.
I am personally not against transgender. You, they or anyone is free to do what they please with their own self. Just don't have the taxpayers have to pick up the bill.
-
I agree, they should not make it mandatory that insurance covers that types of treatment, should be paid out of pocket. Health insurance should be like any other type of insurance like for cars, homes, etc, just cover catastrophic injuries and unforseen high cost problems. Everything else is out of pocket.
the argument is that health insurance SHOULD cover it because they don't belong in that gender "assignment". If they stay in that gender it will cause them undue mental harm, anguish etc.
The issue is compounded when you rally them in with gay and lesbian rights. Then the whole LGBT community takes it as an issue or attack on their entire community.
-
I think it is a shame that a former member of DevGru who transitioned called out our President. The Left would call the act bullying.
-
.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/anVloJq.jpg)
-
Hmmmm, "Deviant sexual behavior will disqualify you"
Of course, other than liberals like one here, most would consider what male homosexuals do to each other to be rather deviant.
Somehow, the Brave New World overlooks that.
-
Hmmmm, "Deviant sexual behavior will disqualify you"
Of course, other than liberals like one here, most would consider what male homosexuals do to each other to be rather deviant.
Somehow, the Brave New World overlooks that.
in the past decade or longer, deviant is the new norm
liberal / progressive groups were successful in changing our moral fabric
they dismantle our churches (Mitch Kahle) and pave the roads with drugs and circus acts
-
https://youtu.be/iD_t4JxHabY
-
(http://i.imgur.com/3G6V1np.png?1)
-
it's not about meeting standards or their patriotism
it's the cost of maintaining themselves.
A person who was born one sex who wishes to transition to another faces a lifelong dependence on hormone treatments and other factors to maintain their existence in the other sex. Is it a valid personal health concern?
Doctors and related professionals of course are supporting them. Why? Lifelong customers. Who's paying for all this while they serve in the military?
I think that this issue can be addressed by simply making a policy that military health insurance will not pay for sex changes or hormone treatments. I think that if a gay person can serve then so can one who identifies as the other gender, just that we still treat them as the sex they are born and they provide for their own treatments if they so want.
-
Right on cue, Dougy boy chin joins in the love fest...
https://ag.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/News-Release-2017-100.pdf
I watched the first 5 minutes of Colbert on Wednesday. He was almost out of breath berating Trump.
It sounded like the entire audience was ready to grab pitchforks and torches.
-
Is this a ban on being categorized as a TG? As in, you can ID as what ever you want outside of work, but on your medical records it will state what you're born as (M or F).
I know a girl who's a dude. She had her boobs removed and entered a men's bodybuilding competition. But felt embarrassed to have to still wear the female uniform (Class A). So her records state F, even though she ID's and looks like a M (she's bigger than me).
-
Is this a ban on being categorized as a TG? As in, you can ID as what ever you want outside of work, but on your medical records it will state what you're born as (M or F).
I know a girl who's a dude. She had her boobs removed and entered a men's bodybuilding competition. But felt embarrassed to have to still wear the female uniform (Class A). So her records state F, even though she ID's and looks like a M (she's bigger than me).
From my reading, the current Pentagon policy is TGs can join if they have completed transition 18 months or more prior to joining the military. That excludes anyone trying to transition while on active duty.
I assume if you can get a new birth certificate with the new gender on it, the military would likely use that as the "official" gender, even though your medical records would contain the facts of your transition.
-
I can see enforcing a rule that someone be treated as their biological gender (or enforcing a rule that someone be treated as whatever gender they claim to be, it's not necessary for me to take a side on that here). But I have difficulty acknowledging a rule banning someone who claims to be a gender they are not. If a guy suddenly says "Tee hee I a woman. Nah brah I jus kidding" does this mean they can suddenly be kicked out because they became transgender for two seconds (potential free speech violation aside)? Would you kick out this guy (http://pm1.narvii.com/5789/23ea8cf6abf03e43af05727339b9c5907d168cbb_hq.jpg) because he has long hair and wears pink?
I still believe that most mental disorders are fake and subjective, so that's not a way to excuse this ban. The maintenance argument only works if they ask the government to pay extra for their transgender stuff (I have no idea what that may be).
I have no problem with sneakily banning people from the military if they cannot do their duties, and wearing pink clothes could be factored into this, but explicitly targeting transgender individuals seems to have legal difficulties. Also, we allow women in the military (at least in some capacities) and if they want to become more butch and manly I'd imagine that would only improve their capabilities.
-
Make gender identity similar to a name change where you need the LT Governor's approval or court order to officially change it. Then simplify the physical fitness test requirements to one standard score depending on the job they are in (how every other employer does it), regardless of age and sex.
-
I can see.....
I still believe.....
I have no problem.......................
Noticeably missing among your "feelings" about this was any mention of the troops that these disordered characters would be mixed in with. No interest in what they might think or how it might affect unit cohesion? Hussein did not give a damn what they think, either.
That tells me you are not a former military service type, are you?
-
Noticeably missing among your "feelings" about this was any mention of the troops that these disordered characters would be mixed in with. No interest in what they might think or how it might affect unit cohesion? Hussein did not give a damn what they think, either.
That tells me you are not a former military service type, are you?
I think peashooter is questioning whether it can be legally justified. Operational difficulties are a serious concern but the question still remains of whether it can be legally justified.
-
I think peashooter is questioning whether it can be legally justified. Operational difficulties are a serious concern but the question still remains of whether it can be legally justified.
It's a pre-existing medical and psychological condition, no different than any other pre-existing conditions over which the military rejects recruits. Diabetes can be managed with diet, weight control, and medications, but the military rejects diabetics.
There's nothing about being Transgender that is different than Gays in the military. "Don't ask, Don't Tell" won't work when their birth certificates say one thing, and they identify as the opposite gender.
Then there is the security clearance issue. Anything in a person's background they don't want disclosed publicly can be used as leverage by a foreign agent.
Plenty of precedence for the DoD to exclude them LEGALLY.
-
Operational difficulties are a serious concern but the question still remains of whether it can be legally justified.
If true, your concern for legalities and ignoring the safety, morale, and welfare of the troops tells me more about you than I really want to know.
I had to serve under politicians concerned about legalities. Micromanaged ROE, etc. 50,000+ of my brothers died, many of them needlessly due to "legalities"
Do not shoot back, unknown if friendlies in the area.
Operational difficulties are a serious concern
Excuse the F out of me, if your ass is in the grass, what the F else is there?
-
If true, your concern for legalities and ignoring the safety, morale, and welfare of the troops tells me more about you than I really want to know.
I had to serve under politicians concerned about legalities. Micromanaged ROE, etc. 50,000+ of my brothers died, many of them needlessly due to "legalities"
Do not shoot back, unknown if friendlies in the area.
The decision should to be justified beyond just someone saying "we don't know if group X can handle the stress." Nowhere did I say we should ignore safety nor did I even imply such, don't over reach in my comments.
Excuse the F out of me, if your ass is in the grass, what the F else is there?
We have this little thing called a constitution.
-
The decision should to be justified beyond just someone saying "we don't know if group X can handle the stress." Nowhere did I say we should ignore safety nor did I even imply such, don't over reach in my comments.
We have this little thing called a constitution.
Please cite the portion of the Constitution which says the people have a right to serve in the military without discrimination based on medical or psychological standards.
Then show me where it says the Pentagon and White House can't decide those standards on their own without public input.
-
Please cite the portion of the Constitution which says the people have a right to serve in the military without discrimination based on medical or psychological standards.
Then show me where it says the Pentagon and White House can't decide those standards on their own without public input.
Medical standards can be made but they cannot just be arbitrary, someone has to justify that the medical condition would create a problem.
People used to think that flat footed people couldn't be soldiers and they used to think black soldiers couldn't fight together with white soldiers.
The case has to be made that transgender people create too much of a problem to be in the military. I didn't say they have to have public input. .
-
Medical standards can be made but they cannot just be arbitrary, someone has to justify that the medical condition would create a problem.
People used to think that flat footed people couldn't be soldiers and they used to think black soldiers couldn't fight together with white soldiers.
The case has to be made that transgender people create too much of a problem to be in the military. I didn't say they have to have public input. .
You totally ignored the question.
WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY WHAT YOU JUST SAID??? You made it a point by bringing the Constitution into this discussion. Show me which part you are referring to....
We have this little thing called a constitution.
-
Would that be the 14th and the 5th ? (The 5th via Bolling v. Sharpe)
Equal protection and due process ?
They didn't even kick Klinger out. :rofl:
-
Would that be the 14th and the 5th ? (The 5th via Bolling v. Sharpe)
Equal protection and due process ?
They didn't even kick Klinger out. :rofl:
Are you speaking for EEF now?
I'm sure you two think alike, but please let him answer for himself instead of trying to stir the pot.
Thanks.
-
Did you guys check the linked picture in my previous post? You shouldn't have any worries with him fighting on your side.
(http://www.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ultimate-warrior-death.jpg)
-
Did you guys check the linked picture in my previous post? You shouldn't have any worries with him fighting on your side.
Steroid use to that degree is considered illegal drug use and can be the basis for rejecting a military application.
I went to school with a guy that looked like Lou Ferrigno from "The Incredible Hulk" TV show. He was a pilot candidate and required a waiver because his weight exceeded the max for a fighter pilot.
There are standards, and there are exceptions. We get wrapped around the axel on here too many times arguing hypothetical exceptions to the rule.
The rule should be based on the needs of the military, and the exceptions approved or rejected on a case by case basis taking all factors into account.
As a former military officer, I dealt with standards and regulations everyday. I have firsthand knowledge of the system and how it works (or at least how it's intended to work).
-
People used to think that flat footed people couldn't be soldiers
Side story since you brought this up. A while ago I had served in the military for 10 years and I look through my medical records during a routine screening. It said I had a foot disorder. I'm thinking to myself I'm perfectly fine and in good health, must be a mistake. My boss overhears my mumbling and says do you have flat feet (yes)...then you have a foot disorder. I always thought flat feet was just a cosmetic thing. I went in to see the military doctor a couple years later for screening and he comments that he's never seen feet flatter than mine (and he looks likes he's 80 years old). Never gave me problems running marathons and road marches. I think there was also a medical waiver for it in my enlistment documents too.
I think it relates to transgenders, you can't just ban a category of people cause some of them can perform well. Screen out the ones that can't do well.
-
Side story since you brought this up. A while ago I had served in the military for 10 years and I look through my medical records during a routine screening. It said I had a foot disorder. I'm thinking to myself I'm perfectly fine and in good health, must be a mistake. My boss overhears my mumbling and says do you have flat feet (yes)...then you have a foot disorder. I always thought flat feet was just a cosmetic thing. I went in to see the military doctor a couple years later for screening and he comments that he's never seen feet flatter than mine (and he looks likes he's 80 years old). Never gave me problems running marathons and road marches. I think there was also a medical waiver for it in my enlistment documents too.
I think it relates to transgenders, you can't just ban a category of people cause some of them can perform well. Screen out the ones that can't do well.
Having flat feet, or fallen arches, is considered a deformity. Only 20-30% of people have the problem in either one or both feet.
There is a functional relationship between the structure of the arch of the foot and the biomechanics of the lower leg. The arch provides an elastic,
springy connection between the forefoot and the hind foot. This association safeguards so that a majority of the forces incurred during weight
bearing of the foot can be dissipated before the force reaches the long bones of the leg and thigh.
Three studies of military recruits have shown no evidence of later increased injury, or foot problems, due to flat feet, in a population of people
who reach military service age without prior foot problems. However, these studies cannot be used to judge possible future damage from this
condition when diagnosed at younger ages. They also cannot be applied to persons whose flat feet are associated with foot symptoms, or
certain symptoms in other parts of the body (such as the leg or back) possibly referable to the foot.
I have a curved spine in excess of the DoD maximum standard. It kept me from starting college under my previously awarded AFROTC 4-year scholarship. I was able to obtain a waiver based on X-Rays, chiropractor evaluations, my health and medical history, and a review by the Department of Defense Medical Evaluation Review Board (DoDMERB).
Flat footed applicants for service can also seek waivers. Lots of factors involved, but it comes down to whether they need you enough to take a chance on your medical condition.
-
You totally ignored the question.
WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY WHAT YOU JUST SAID??? You made it a point by bringing the Constitution into this discussion. Show me which part you are referring to....
Aiea beat me to it but that is what I was going to cite.
-
Aiea beat me to it but that is what I was going to cite.
Then you'd BOTH be wrong.
The DoD has TWO equal opportunity polices:
1. Military Equal Opportunity, and
2. Equal Employment Opportunity.
Number 1 is for those entering active military service.
Unlike many civilian employers, the military is allowed to discriminate in some areas based on the nature of its work.
For example, it doesn't hire or retain those who, because of their age, disability, or physical fitness are unable to
perform military duties, which can take place in harsh environments including combat zones. However while the
military may be able to engage in these forms of lawful discrimination, it is prohibited by law from discriminating
on the basis of:
- Race
- Color
- Religion
- National origin
- Gender (note that some direct combat positions have historically been off-limits to women, but these policies may be changing).
Under the EO program, service members who believe they have experienced discrimination have the option of
submitting two types of EO complaints: (1) informal; and (2) formal. Informal complaints do not have to be written
and are not subject to any reporting deadlines. However, formal complaints must be written and typically involve
a sworn statement from the service member. The Army, for example, uses the Equal Opportunity Complaint Form
which includes an oath and affidavit.
Formal complaints also have strict reporting deadlines and normally trigger an administrative investigation which
also has set deadlines. Some services, such as the Army, also require commanders to prepare a written reprisal
plan showing steps taken to protect the complainant, any witnesses and the alleged perpetrator.
With either an informal or formal complaint, service members are encouraged to first use their chain of command
to resolve complaints of discrimination or sexual harassment. Most units will have a designated, full-time EO officer
who is the point of contact for all EO complaints and who is responsible for conducting unit-wide training. However,
if the complaint involves the chain of command, a service member can also use alternate reporting channels such
as a chaplain, a judge advocate (a military lawyer) or the DoD's Inspector General.
Also, it's important to note that, while incidents of sexual harassment are addressed through the EO process, those
involving sexual assault are addressed through the UCMJ and will involve criminal investigations.
The other (#2) process is for civilian hires and pretty much mirror any other company governed by Federal EEO laws.
Civilians who work for the DoD have access to the EEO complaint system to address any incidents of
discrimination or unfair treatment. Since DoD civilians do not face the same workplace requirements as service
members, more categories of prohibited discrimination apply, These categories include:
- Race
- Color
- Sex
- Religion
- National Origin
- Age
- Disability
- Workplace reprisals
http://military.findlaw.com/administrative-issues-benefits/equal-opportunity-policies-in-the-military.html
Unless and until "Transgender" becomes a separate protected class under the law for hiring practices in the military, the services and Commander in Chief can set the policy as they see fit.
The "little thing called the Constitution" is not a catch-all for every extreme exception in the country. If you're looking for fair treatment for what is regarded as a psychological disorder by most, then the military is not for you.
If you're looking to be abused equally along with other recruits, you should run, don't walk, to your nearest recruiter!
-
Side story since you brought this up. A while ago I had served in the military for 10 years and I look through my medical records during a routine screening. It said I had a foot disorder. I'm thinking to myself I'm perfectly fine and in good health, must be a mistake. My boss overhears my mumbling and says do you have flat feet (yes)...then you have a foot disorder. I always thought flat feet was just a cosmetic thing. I went in to see the military doctor a couple years later for screening and he comments that he's never seen feet flatter than mine (and he looks likes he's 80 years old). Never gave me problems running marathons and road marches. I think there was also a medical waiver for it in my enlistment documents too.
I think it relates to transgenders, you can't just ban a category of people cause some of them can perform well. Screen out the ones that can't do well.
On my records it states that I am of Asian descent. I don't agree with that. I am pan-racial, non-polynomial, of no-color skin. I don't know how to explain it but I don't identify with the Asian culture. I don't like rice, my parents didn't own a laundromat and I think Chinese people are obnoxiously loud talkers especially when speaking Cantonese.
I refused to be categorized into a specific racial identity.
I'm fine and I want to continue to serve my country not as Asian but as a poly-racial being that self identifies regularly.
-
I think it relates to transgenders, you can't just ban a category of people cause some of them can perform well. Screen out the ones that can't do well.
Explain the process for screening out the transgenders who fall in the 45-50% range who will attempt suicide. What's the test like for identifying those TGs who are fully adjusted to living a "normal life" while being born in the "wrong body"?
Then there's the other viewpoint -- that of the other soldiers. How does a well adjusted recruit out of high school deal with the fact the guy in the bunk next to or above his wears make-up and Victoria's Secret under his uniform.
Better yet, how about the female recruits required to shower with a male TG?
Unless we are ready to make the decision there is no difference between males and females in how we billet them in the military, throwing another "gender" or two in the mix just makes for a logistical nightmare, not to mention keeping morale and sexual harassment under control.
-
I also don't like rice, my parents didn't own a laundromat and I too think Chinese people are obnoxiously loud talkers especially when speaking Cantonese. But be careful saying you aren't an Asian. I once said, as a somewhat similar joke, that I came from outer space, and the US government used this and other alleged statements (including some in support of firearms, and others questioning the validity of the mental health professions) against me and kicked me out of an unnamed state program, which was upheld in federal court.
-
I also don't like rice, my parents didn't own a laundromat and I too think Chinese people are obnoxiously loud talkers especially when speaking Cantonese. But be careful saying you aren't an Asian. I once said, as a somewhat similar joke, that I came from outer space, and the US government used this and other alleged statements (including some in support of firearms, and others questioning the validity of the mental health professions) against me and kicked me out of an unnamed state program, which was upheld in federal court.
Why would the US government have to defend their decision in Federal Court for a STATE program kicking you out?
That makes no sense.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/8AVtcd8.jpg?1)
-
I believe you can file in either state or federal court. Baker, Peruta, and most firearms cases are likewise filed in federal court to address grievances committed by a state, right? Usually, important cases would be filed in federal court.
-
I believe you can file in either state or federal court. Baker, Peruta, and most firearms cases are likewise filed in federal court to address grievances committed by a state, right? Usually, important cases would be filed in federal court.
No, it depends on the jurisdiction and whether you broke any federal laws.
If you get a DUI in Honolulu, you go to Hawaii State Court. If you get a DUI on a military base, you go to Federal Court.
-
No, it depends on the jurisdiction and whether you broke any federal laws.
If you get a DUI in Honolulu, you go to Hawaii State Court. If you get a DUI on a military base, you go to Federal Court.
Unless the military police give the arrest to the Honolulu Police, then it can still go to a Hawaii court. The base is considered concurrent jurisdiction.
Probably not very applicable in a 2A lawsuit though.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/8AVtcd8.jpg?1)
Wow, they really eat their own.
-
Then you'd BOTH be wrong.
The DoD has TWO equal opportunity polices:
1. Military Equal Opportunity, and
2. Equal Employment Opportunity.
Number 1 is for those entering active military service.
The other (#2) process is for civilian hires and pretty much mirror any other company governed by Federal EEO laws.
http://military.findlaw.com/administrative-issues-benefits/equal-opportunity-policies-in-the-military.html
Unless and until "Transgender" becomes a separate protected class under the law for hiring practices in the military, the services and Commander in Chief can set the policy as they see fit.
The "little thing called the Constitution" is not a catch-all for every extreme exception in the country. If you're looking for fair treatment for what is regarded as a psychological disorder by most, then the military is not for you.
If you're looking to be abused equally along with other recruits, you should run, don't walk, to your nearest recruiter!
Are you suggesting that military policy supersedes the constitution?
-
Yeah, it does EEF.
Don't even start down that road. IMO.
I'm pretty sure the military even give up a lot of 2A rights when they voluntarily join.
(Hence all the base shootings cause no one can carry)
They sign a contract.
I say this with all respect. It is a priviledge .
And no, I have never served.
Thank you to those who have and are.
-
Are you suggesting that military policy supersedes the constitution?
The military has a mission, and the accomplishment of that mission supersedes individual rights. It always has. Did you know a Court Martial can sentence you to DEATH for misconduct in the field?
899. Article 99. MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY
Any person subject to this chapter who before or in the presence of the enemy–
(1) runs away;
(2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;
(3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;
(4) casts away his arms or ammunition;
(5) is guilty of cowardly conduct;
(6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;
(7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;
(8 ) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or
(9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle;
shall be punished by death or such punishment as a court- martial may direct.
The UCMJ was written in the 1950s to standardize and document the military justice system that had been informally in effect since before the country began.
The UCMJ incorporates criminal and civil offenses like murder, rape and assault, but also conduct of troops, such as conduct unbecoming or failure to go (basically disobeying an order to be in place at a certain time & place.)
All military members, whether on military property or on duty or not are subject to the jurisdiction of military law. We have our own lawyers, and they practice law specifically as it applies to the military.
When you join the military, you forfeit all individual rights to choose where you live, what job you may be assigned (I've seen computer scientists assigned to the transportation unit), and privacy.
In criminal cases, there may be constitutional protections that require a warrant, but in most cases, if you are living in government-furnished quarters, they can search and inspect your personal property at will. Anyone who went through basic training knows your footlocker is not a place you can expect privacy.
While the courts have made rulings that the bill of rights do apply to military members, the nature of military bases makes that moot.
(http://i.imgur.com/N7wjN0s.jpg)
-
(6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage
woohoo! ;D
-
Yeah, it does EEF.
Don't even start down that road. IMO.
I'm pretty sure the military even give up a lot of 2A rights when they voluntarily join.
(Hence all the base shootings cause no one can carry)
They sign a contract.
I say this with all respect. It is a priviledge .
And no, I have never served.
Thank you to those who have and are.
I understand that and agree. They give up their rights to cheat on their spouses as well (an interesting tidbit).
Giving up rights when you join is not the same thing as being denied employment though I am not sure if that presents a different legal challenge.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the military just has to accept anyone and everyone, they can establish standards and I don't think anyone should get a pass for those standards.
I do think there could be a legal issue if the military denies entry for an arbitrary reason. I don't know this for sure as I am not a constitutional lawyer but I could see someone filing suit over it given the furor for LGBT rights.
Denying a certain swath of the population should be justified by facts, that is to say the case should be made why transgender people are not allowed. I suppose the roundabout way is the don't ask don't tell policy. You can hire transgender people, but they cannot make it known and must dress in the manner of their sex at birth. I suppose one manner of solution could be looking at what the military does to individuals who are born without a specific sex, those born missing male or female anatomy, etc.
This raises a question, if a trans person had the complete sex change and legally changed the sex on their ID, would the military even know? I assume it would come out in the medical portion somewhere but who knows?
-
The whole issue is who pays for such transformation, I don't think the taxpayer aught to, that's my opinion.
Hey. Whatever floats your boat... don't make me pay for that yacht, that's all on you...
-
The whole issue is who pays for such transformation, I don't think the taxpayer aught to, that's my opinion.
Hey. Whatever floats your boat... don't make me pay for that yacht, that's all on you...
It's not just the original purchase price, but the on-going money and time spent for maintenance, too. Then there's the potential reality of being deployed where the maintenance isn't available, or the mission doesn't accommodate time off for issues that might arise associated with the maintenance.
In other words, even if they transitioned prior to joining, they have to be able to take the hormones and see a specialist when needed. That's not happening in a deployed location or on a ship for 6 months.
Even if you've had gender reassignment surgery, the fact remains your body is still that of the original gender. Chemistry won't permanently change just because you don't like it. Hormone therapy can really mess a person up and cause many side effects which can equate to being hospitalized or placed on quarters. That's not going to aid the military.
There's a significant number of transgenders who changed their mind and transitioned back to their birth gender. One of the biggest reasons is the high maintenance and cost involved in the transition process. If a guy wants to be a girl for the rest of his life, he's going to have to deal with his body's chemistry for that long. As he ages, so does his body, and so may the medications needed.
If they weren't happy in their old body, how would they know they will be happier in another body? They won't know until they do as much as they can to achieve that other body, which might not coincide with the mental image they'd hoped for.
Sorry. This is not the best candidate for the military. Even well-adjusted men and women wash out of boot camp and advanced training, and they aren't under the additional pressure of managing their "transitioned" selves.
All I can say is. "Careful what you wish for. You just might get it!" :shake:
-
56 retired high ranking military officers write a letter in support of transgenders in the military and opposing Trump's ban.
full list of the signees of the letter appears below:
General John R. Allen, USMC (Retired)
General Robert W. Sennewald, USA (Retired)
Vice Admiral Donald Arthur, USN (Retired)
Lieutenant General Robert Gard, USA (Retired)
Lieutenant General Walter Gaskin, USMC (Retired)
Vice Admiral Kevin P. Green, USN (Retired)
Lieutenant General Arlen D. Jameson, USAF (Retired)
Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, USA (Retired)
Lieutenant General Willie Williams, USMC (Retired)
Major General Juan G. Ayala, USMC (Retired)
Major General Donna Barbisch, USA (Retired)
Rear Admiral Chris Cole, USN (Retired)
Major General Vance Coleman, USA (Retired)
Major General J. Gary Cooper, USMC (Retired)
Major General Paul Eaton, USA (Retired)
Major General Mari K. Eder, USA (Retired)
Rear Admiral F. Stephen Glass, USN (Retired)
Major General Richard S. Haddad, USAF (Retired)
Major General Irv Halter, USAF (Retired)
Rear Admiral Jan Hamby, USN (Retired)
Major General Marcelite J. Harris, USAF (Retired)
Rear Admiral John Hutson, JAGC, USN (Retired)
Major General James R. Klugh, Sr., USA (Retired)
Major General Dennis Laich, USA (Retired)
Major General Randy Manner, USA (Retired)
Major General Dee Ann McWilliams, USA (Retired)
Major General John Phillips, USAF (Retired)
Major General Dana J.H. Pittard, USA (Retired)
Major General Gale Pollock, CRNA, FACHE, FAAN, USA (Retired)
Rear Admiral Harold Robinson, USN (Retired)
Major General Patricia Rose, USAF (Retired)
Rear Admiral Alan Steinman, USPHS/USCG (Retired)
Major General Antonio Taguba, USA (Retired)
Major General Peggy Wilmoth, PhD, MSS, RN, FAAN, USA (Retired)
Major General Maggie Woodward, USAF (Retired)
Rear Admiral Dick Young, USN (Retired)
Brigadier General Clara Adams-Ender, USA (Retired)
Brigadier General Ricardo Aponte, USAF (Retired)
Rear Admiral Jamie Barnett, USN (Retired)
Brigadier General David Brahms, USMC (Retired)
Brigadier General Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Retired)
Brigadier General Julia Cleckley, USA (Retired)
Rear Admiral Jay DeLoach, USN (Retired)
Brigadier General John Douglass, USAF (Retired)
Brigadier General Evelyn “Pat” Foote, USA (Retired)
Brigadier General Judy M. Griego, NMANG (Retired)
Brigadier General David R. Irvine, USA (Retired)
Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (Retired)
Rear Admiral Gene Kendall, USN (Retired)
Brigadier General Thomas Kolditz, PhD, USA (Retired)
Brigadier General Carlos E. Martinez, USAF (Retired)
Brigadier General Ronald Rokosz, USA (Retired)
Brigadier General John M. Schuster, USA (Retired)
Rear Admiral Michael E. Smith, USN (Retired)
Brigadier Paul Gregory Smith, USA (Retired)
Brigadier General Marianne Watson, USA (Retired)
-
56 retired high ranking military officers write a letter in support of transgenders in the military and opposing Trump's ban.
full list of the signees of the letter appears below:
General John R. Allen, USMC (Retired)
General Robert W. Sennewald, USA (Retired)
Vice Admiral Donald Arthur, USN (Retired)
Lieutenant General Robert Gard, USA (Retired)
Lieutenant General Walter Gaskin, USMC (Retired)
Vice Admiral Kevin P. Green, USN (Retired)
Lieutenant General Arlen D. Jameson, USAF (Retired)
Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, USA (Retired)
Lieutenant General Willie Williams, USMC (Retired)
Major General Juan G. Ayala, USMC (Retired)
Major General Donna Barbisch, USA (Retired)
Rear Admiral Chris Cole, USN (Retired)
Major General Vance Coleman, USA (Retired)
Major General J. Gary Cooper, USMC (Retired)
Major General Paul Eaton, USA (Retired)
Major General Mari K. Eder, USA (Retired)
Rear Admiral F. Stephen Glass, USN (Retired)
Major General Richard S. Haddad, USAF (Retired)
Major General Irv Halter, USAF (Retired)
Rear Admiral Jan Hamby, USN (Retired)
Major General Marcelite J. Harris, USAF (Retired)
Rear Admiral John Hutson, JAGC, USN (Retired)
Major General James R. Klugh, Sr., USA (Retired)
Major General Dennis Laich, USA (Retired)
Major General Randy Manner, USA (Retired)
Major General Dee Ann McWilliams, USA (Retired)
Major General John Phillips, USAF (Retired)
Major General Dana J.H. Pittard, USA (Retired)
Major General Gale Pollock, CRNA, FACHE, FAAN, USA (Retired)
Rear Admiral Harold Robinson, USN (Retired)
Major General Patricia Rose, USAF (Retired)
Rear Admiral Alan Steinman, USPHS/USCG (Retired)
Major General Antonio Taguba, USA (Retired)
Major General Peggy Wilmoth, PhD, MSS, RN, FAAN, USA (Retired)
Major General Maggie Woodward, USAF (Retired)
Rear Admiral Dick Young, USN (Retired)
Brigadier General Clara Adams-Ender, USA (Retired)
Brigadier General Ricardo Aponte, USAF (Retired)
Rear Admiral Jamie Barnett, USN (Retired)
Brigadier General David Brahms, USMC (Retired)
Brigadier General Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Retired)
Brigadier General Julia Cleckley, USA (Retired)
Rear Admiral Jay DeLoach, USN (Retired)
Brigadier General John Douglass, USAF (Retired)
Brigadier General Evelyn “Pat” Foote, USA (Retired)
Brigadier General Judy M. Griego, NMANG (Retired)
Brigadier General David R. Irvine, USA (Retired)
Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (Retired)
Rear Admiral Gene Kendall, USN (Retired)
Brigadier General Thomas Kolditz, PhD, USA (Retired)
Brigadier General Carlos E. Martinez, USAF (Retired)
Brigadier General Ronald Rokosz, USA (Retired)
Brigadier General John M. Schuster, USA (Retired)
Rear Admiral Michael E. Smith, USN (Retired)
Brigadier Paul Gregory Smith, USA (Retired)
Brigadier General Marianne Watson, USA (Retired)
they are all retired.
-
they are all retired.
Right. None of them will have to deal with the consequences of allowing transgenders to openly serve.
-
Nothing confusing about Transgenders, huh?
(http://i.imgur.com/rDiUpJH.jpg)
:crazy:
-
If they weren't retired they would be opening themselves up to punishment and death, especially since military officers have weakened or forfeited constitutional rights.
-
So fucked up. So we are just making stuff up to explain ourselves. OK.
-
I'd be willing to bet that they're not all Liberals.
-
Right. None of them will have to deal with the consequences of allowing transgenders to openly serve.
Hmmmm, a look at those names of POLITICAL officers (no one get to flag rank otherwise) shows a rather odd list of names:
Claudia
Donna
Mari
Jan
Marcelite
Dee Ann
Dana
Gale
Patricia
Peggy
Maggie
Clara
Jamie
Julia
Evelyn
Judy
Marianne
Now, I may be mistaken, but the current commandant of the AF academy is a blatant homosexual living with her, ah, "spouse".
Any female flag officer is the last one I would use as a source for opinion on homosexuals or trans-disordered issues in the military. Especially if they were promoted during Obunghole's regime and are likely to be in the same group.
Does not take a huge leap of imagination to guess how many on this list do not give a damn what normal troops think of their agenda..
-
I just noticed the female names in the list myself. Was about to mention it but you beat me to it. I'm with you on that one.
-
Right. None of them will have to deal with the consequences of allowing transgenders to openly serve.
So their military opinion only matters when it agrees with you?
-
The whole issue is who pays for such transformation, I don't think the taxpayer aught to, that's my opinion.
Hey. Whatever floats your boat... don't make me pay for that yacht, that's all on you...
That is my biggest objection. A sex change is an elective operation, they must pay for it themselves.
-
FYI the don't ask don't tell is no longer regulation. Some of you are also missing some critical information. There's the issue of a TG currently serving and a TG that is trying to enlist.
TG trying to enlist are supposed to list all medications, surgeries, medical history. If they don't, and it comes up after they enlist. They will be discharged with a fraudulent enlistment. There are also other factors, are they pre or post op, transitioning, etc. a male with breast implants would be referred for a psych evaluation. At which point they would be DQ for psych. If post op same thing. They would also need to have legally changed birth certificate to sex they changed to, but they would still need to disclose any surgeries, which leads back to a psych eval.
until this goes into affect, The military does not recognize someone as TG just because they say they identify as one. They would need to have surgery and get their sex legally changed. Up until that point, they will be recognized as what is stated on their BC and held to that standard. So a male can say he's TG all he wants, but his appearance needs to follow the male standards.
I didn't address a lot in this thread as there is so much.
I am a Soldier currently serving currently as a Senior Recruiter.
-
So their military opinion only matters when it agrees with you?
Their opinions don't have to agree with me, but they do have to be based in operational reality. A retired officer has the luxury of publicizing their opinions without the responsibility of implementing the policies nor dealing with any problems they cause.
BTW, Admirals and Generals don't have to share their sleeping quarters with people they don't know.
-
I'm probably missing something, but I can't see why the Government is paying for what is an elective procedure/process. Even worse, why we paid for the transformation for Bradley/Chelsea Manning while in prison. Ok, even if it can be justified as a need, I have a friend who has been waiting for a year for surgery to correct things from injuries sustained while deployed. Ok, I get that common sense is not that common, but I would think that you'd need to prioritize caring for those who were injured (and getting them "back to good" again, or at least as best as possible) while serving honorably before those who want to transition.
-
BTW, Admirals and Generals don't have to share their sleeping quarters with people they don't know.
Also, that rank is passed through Congress and approved by them. A political post if there ever was one.
Who can forget all the senior officers Obunga purged, apparently for not going along with his homosexualization and neutering of the military. How many of those purged are on this list?
-
I don't know about discrediting Generals and Admirals, but good comment about the purge with the repeal of don't ask don't tell, among other issues.
Couple pretty good articles on it listed below, though most quotes are again from retired Generals and high ranking officers.
It's well discussed on the web.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/18/president-obama-wary-of-generals-admirals-commandi/
https://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/list-of-military-elite-purged-and-fired-under-obama-compiled-by-general-paul-vallely-3-17-14/
Also a response from the Left to the purge claim:
https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/03/24/president-obama-purge-military/
-
You're not going to hear currently serving Generals go against the direction of the President. Generals are expected to follow the President's orders even if they don't agree with them. They may state their disagreement in private to the Sec of Def but not publicly. Retirees don't have the limitation.