Ben Carson calls transgender military members a distraction. How do you feel about this?

I don't think anyone should be barred from service as long as they can do their jobs. I will say that I agree with him though, all of these experiments are unnecessary and a waste of time and resources. We should look at what we need to actually prioritize here and I would say that determining whether someone's gender ID will affect their job is not a priority.

As for the comments about DADT, I agree to some extent with that too but allow me to explain for those who this might stir up. I 100% think, as I already said, that everyone should be allowed to serve if they can, including those who are homosexual. I had two friends at my last base who were homosexual and they were both great at their jobs. The only reason I think DADT should be partially brought back is because there is no place at work for discussions of sexual nature, regardless of what it is. I know these talks will always happen but they are completely unnecessary and irrelevant to the mission at hand. That said, I don't think DADT need to be brought back to force homosexual members out. However, conversations about sexual acts, hetero, homo, whatever should be punishably with disciplinary action. That's the kind of conversation you have off duty and out of the shop and that's all there is to it.

So with that said, a Don't Ask Don't Tell policy could help to just avoid those conversations at work in general. We won't force you out but when you are on duty you shouldn't be asking nor telling people about your sex lives. If you do, LOCs, LORs and ultimately Art 15s and beyond will be handed out. You never know who may be listening in and should treat your conversations with the idea that at any point your leadership could walk through the door.

Ben Carson should stick to medicine. I don't appreciate him commenting on things he has no experience with. This guy also thinks the pyramids were used for grain storage. He's an ass-clown.

Omg I see it now, new MOS for the service... The toilet police. I feel bad for the guys and gals that are going to have to check each person and make sure they go into the appropriate bathroom, ya know the one for their biological gender. "Hey Sir, I've got one here with both, where do they pee???"

There will be that one guy who pretends to be transgender just so he can go to the women's bathroom and showers and be a creep. On a separate note, just because it doesn't bother you doesn't mean it's wrong if it bothers someone else...unless You're the bigot.

I've never met one In the military ... that i know of.. .. so I can't say if it would be a distraction or not. I can't think of a reason as to why it would be though.

No less, I don't recall anyone using this "distraction" argument when we were in arms about black socks with the PT uniform.

I can fully get behind the idea of wanting to have priorities in place of the transgender movement, but the idea gets redundant when you try and indefinitely use the idea as your argument for why it shouldn't be put in place indefinitely as well. You can ignore it for more important matters, but there will be a point eventually where you have to pick that straw and decide to do with the idea being presented.

As the argument goes, if we're investing any resources whether it's minimal or large then it's too much because, well, it could be going into combat and obviously that weakens us. Though it could be justified, personally I don't agree with the statement and haven't yet been argued to convince me otherwise.

Comparison of strategy implementation versus approval/regulation of transgender don't exactly seem like they go hand-in-hand. Less you were to suggest that the team behind our strategy and combat effectiveness are the same that are approving and regulating. While it may all wrap around the same organization, the impact doesn't seem exactly as accurate as people suggest.

Lastly, calling it a laboratory for Social Experiment feels a on an bit exaggeration considering how LGBT equality is something that has been a push for many people for a long time, especially after recently getting over the hurdle of gay marriage. Feels like he's a bit late to the punch unless he's referring specifically to the regulation/approval for LGBT service members hitting ground next year which isn't at all touched on in the interview so I feel there's more evidence against than for that.

I hope that everyone is aware that transgenders are now a protected category. Be mindful of your responses. I am in a women's network and some people thought it justice to threaten to file EO complaints because a few other soldiers didn't agree with the bandwagon. Unfortunately we've gotten to a point where we can't have disagreements without people thinking you're a threat to their life. So just be aware.

The military is not the place to do "social experimentation". When you 18-20 year old males, many of whom have never been away from mom or dad, suddenly get together and say "hey let's all be women today". Then they go into the female latrine, and all hell breaks loose. Not a good idea IMO.

Well, the facebook meme posted claims "blind hate" on Dr Carson's part, an Ad Hominem attack, so we're not starting out too well to have a rational discussion. So which thing he said would you like to discuss rationally...the redefinition of marriage, or transgender in the military?