Do you think it's smart for the SecDef to allow Transgender individuals to serve in the military?

SSG Roger Ayscue — Sat, 14 May 2016 19:32:37 -0400

The military has always made service members that required extensive medical treatment Non-deployable. Now the SecDef and CinC want to allow individuals that require extensive medical & psych treatment to serve. How is this different that allowing diabetics to serve or people that are overweight? If a transgender does not get his hormones, they can become a detriment in Combat. Is it worth it?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2016 7:34 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 May 2016 19:34:32 -0400

Can they do their job well?

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made May 14 at 2016 7:38 PM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Sat, 14 May 2016 19:38:04 -0400

Does the military have such unlimited assets that they can pay for the Gender assignment treatment for new enlistees or existing service members? We can not afford to provide dental care but they have funds for this? Folks this don't pass the Bubba test. We will kick out service members for diabetes if they need insulin, but now we are going to accept IET assesions that require daily or weekly hormone shots to remain their gender of choice?
This is Political Correctness run amok. this is what you get when you have a Commander in Chief that never had the balls to serve, and is pandering to the special interests.

The US Military is to fight and win upon arrival and to defend the United States and its national interests. This new move is detrimental to good order and discipline, and honestly makes us a laughing stock.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2016 7:41 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 May 2016 19:41:55 -0400

They have already been and are currently serving in the military. There is at least one former SEAL that identifies with this.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2016 8:31 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 May 2016 20:31:51 -0400

You should not be allowed to "change" if you are already serving or during service. I see it as no different than body modifications like stretched earlobes, vampire teeth, pierced genitalia. If it requires you to voluntarily go on a profile/limited duty AND it is purely cosmetic then it is a no go in my opinion.

If it is considered non cosmetic then it would have to fall under medical necessity i.e. mental stress or mental something and it should preclude you from service just like any other mental disorder. They wont go that route though because it is not PC, so inevitably it will be a purely cosmetic surgery.

I also realize that service members pierce their genitalia, but it is not authorized for profile.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made May 14 at 2016 8:40 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sat, 14 May 2016 20:40:44 -0400

You mean to Openly Serve for the First Time. The More I'm Learning the More I'm realizing that they were there the whole time. Uncomfortably Too. While a Small Population of Americans as a Whole I am surprised at the Number of Military Lifers there are among them. Brave SOBs in my book and they have my support.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made May 14 at 2016 9:47 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Sat, 14 May 2016 21:47:32 -0400

Social engineering always comes at the expense of effectiveness.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made May 14 at 2016 10:26 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sat, 14 May 2016 22:26:58 -0400

I wonder how many, like me, have no way to respond to this. With all of the problems confronting us, we have decided to focus on this one. The simple truth is that you can chop off your pecker, grow breasts, have a womb implanted, grow your hair longer, and whatever and you're still a man who chopped off his pecker, grown breast, had a womb implanted, grown longer hair, and whatever. I could make another list for women with the same result. How can I say such a thing? Am I a Neanderthal? Am I a bigot? Hell no. The simple truth is that one can make whatever changes they want but still cannot change their basic nature because they cannot change their genes. Either they have a "XX" or "XY" chromosomes or they don't. And no amount of social engineering is going to change it either. Every man and woman has to learn to live in their own skins. Accept who and what they are. If they are trapped in the wrong body, understand that almost everyone else feels they're equally trapped. Hell, I'm a handsome young man trapped in a flabby old man's body. I suspect that may be as difficult to alter as a transgender. Also, to be perfectly honest, I'm not clear on the difference between transgender and homosexuality. No, you needn't bother to explain it, not for my benefit. Just understand that we have learned (or, at least, most of us have learned) to live with homosexuals among us without social engineering (like altering bathroom rules). Why are we now imploding as we struggle to change our world for the benefit of a number that seems even rarer than homosexuals? The bottom line is that I don't care about any person's sexuality, nationality, gender, ethnicity, religion, ideological preference, or whatever other than my own. Yours is simply not my business. Please don't try to make it my business.

Response by SSG Patricia King made May 15 at 2016 12:12 AM

SSG Patricia King — Sun, 15 May 2016 00:12:37 -0400

I have been doing my job as an infantry NCO while in the process of transition for over a year now. For parts of it my medical costs came out of my pocket and for parts they were covered by Tricare. I have never been non deplorable and have done an NTC rotation while on my medications. My transgender care has not caused me to miss out on any critical training events.
I am not alone. Many service members have served and even deployed while undergoing transgender medical care.
Studies have been done through the DOD and several 3rd party organizations on everything from the effects on readiness to the costs over the last 10 months and the consensus has come back that there will be no effect on readiness and that this course of action is not only feasible but preferable.
We all hate change and many are from an ideology which does not understand transgender people. There will initially be a resistance but ultimately we are service members. People will do their jobs and roger out. And a year later we will all wonder what the big fuss was about.
As for if these treatments should be done. Why don't we leave that to medical professionals to decide and all stay in our perspective lanes. I am an infantry soldier so I will worry about closing with and destroying the enemy. Yep, girls can do that too.

Response by SPC Alexander Brandt made May 15 at 2016 1:07 AM

SPC Alexander Brandt — Sun, 15 May 2016 01:07:22 -0400

So we have issues with toxic leadership, mismanagement of funds, poorly run units, milllions of dollars wasted on irrelevant equipment, a draw-down, ongoing complaints about military pay, many, MANY issues with the VA, and THIS is the issue we're fixating on?

For realzies?

Response by SSG William Jones made May 15 at 2016 1:51 AM

SSG William Jones — Sun, 15 May 2016 01:51:25 -0400

Drawing down the military yet opening the door to transgenders is way out of whack!!! It's a recipe for disaster. Shades of Sodom and Gomorrah!!!

Response by PO2 Robert Aitchison made May 15 at 2016 1:44 PM

PO2 Robert Aitchison — Sun, 15 May 2016 13:44:59 -0400

Really it's not a question of if Transgender people will be able to serve openly but a question of when.

I admit a few years ago I was highly skeptical of this issue but the complete non-issue (in terms of readiness, unit cohesion, good order & discipline, etc.) that followed the repeal of DADT leads me to believe that there won't be a problem here either.

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2016 4:42 PM

LTJG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 May 2016 16:42:50 -0400

Before this became such a widely talked about issue (in the dark ages where people had to hide who they were in fear), many of you had no cares about the matter. Suddenly, now that we are talking about it, people are magically experts in the medical field. Saying things like "it's a mental illness," "transition is entirely elective," "your chromosomes determine your true gender," "transgender people can't serve or deploy due to ongoing medical treatments," and so on. Those are all wrong, yet people keep saying them as though they are some expert. To the average person out there who is just a service member trying to understand this, here is what you need to know and worry about: 18 countries around the world have figured this out, some even did it decades ago. Those other militaries have continued to achieve their missions without issues. If we can do our jobs well (we can), then why does it matter to the rest of you what gender we serve as?

To all you super-patriotic people who cling to guns and family values, are you really going to allow Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom to have more freedom than us?

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2016 6:20 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 May 2016 18:20:33 -0400

I'm for integration - what difference does it really make? I know many men who act like women, and women who act like men. I would tell my Marines many times - I don't see sex, race, sexual orientation, religion - all I see is your rank, the U.S. Marines nametape over your left breast pocket, and the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor underneath it. Can you do the job? Go!

Response by SSgt Nicole Biscoe made May 16 at 2016 4:07 AM

SSgt Nicole Biscoe — Mon, 16 May 2016 04:07:27 -0400

If the military keeps their current policy they will continue to lose people like me. I was a NCO with 12 years of experience and a clearance. It's ok tho there are plenty of civilian employers out there who don't discriminate so it's the military's loss.

Response by SGT David T. made May 16 at 2016 7:39 AM

SGT David T. — Mon, 16 May 2016 07:39:13 -0400

I have said this before with other groups. If they are able and willing serve and can do the job they should be allowed to do so. Just because someone is transgender, they are not less worthy to serve or to be patriotic. Our society is a mix of all sorts of people, and our military is a microcosm of that society. I understand that changing the status quo can be very scary for many people, but should that fear of change prevent people from serving the nation that they love. At the end of the day, we are all Americans and should focus on that and not on our differences.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made May 16 at 2016 9:13 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Mon, 16 May 2016 09:13:24 -0400

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/05/16/this-yelling-christian-mother-of-12-leads-her-kids-on-a-hate-parade-through-a-target-store/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

This Yelling Christian Mother of 12 Leads Her Kids On a Hate Parade Through a Target Store

If she wants to protect children, she should start with her own.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2016 10:04 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 May 2016 10:04:35 -0400

if it helps us win wars then sure...I don't see how it helps us win wars

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made May 16 at 2016 11:52 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Mon, 16 May 2016 11:52:03 -0400

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/not-about-bathrooms-critics-decry-north-carolina-laws-lesser-known-elements/2016/05/14/387946ec-186b-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

‘Not about bathrooms’: Critics decry North Carolina law’s lesser-known elements

The legislation also limits attempts to set a minimum wage and how people can sue for discrimination.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2016 5:01 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 May 2016 17:01:01 -0400

Can I just tell my command I am a female, do their PFT, live in their barracks and such? If not then I am being discriminated against.

Response by SGT Stacey Nelson made May 16 at 2016 5:43 PM

SGT Stacey Nelson — Mon, 16 May 2016 17:43:26 -0400

I think it's funny you don't even consider all the female to male transsexuals.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 21 at 2016 5:16 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 May 2016 17:16:21 -0400

I think that the military is the leaders of culture. From blacks to women to gays to trans people. If they can do the job who cares if they are male or female. I'm proud to serve next to anyone that has my back.

Response by MSgt George Cater made Dec 6 at 2016 11:54 PM

MSgt George Cater — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 23:54:38 -0500

No.

Response by PO2 Stephen McKean made Jul 27 at 2017 3:48 PM

PO2 Stephen McKean — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 15:48:51 -0400

Military can easily solve this problem by setting a cost limit that enlisting members cant go beyond before it disqualifies them from serving.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jul 31 at 2017 12:18 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:18:11 -0400

In reference to readiness, the last numbers HRC put out are that around 50,000 personnel are currently non deployable because of short term, generally PT related injuries. If we're worried about military readiness, then running, pick-up football games or basketball are probably a more pressing threat than transgender people.

https://www.army.mil/article/158897/Dailey__Non_deployable_Soldiers_No_1_problem/

Dailey: Non-deployable Soldiers No.1 problem

The biggest problem in the Army today is Soldiers who are non-deployable, and that's having a direct impact on readiness, Sgt. Maj. of the Army Daniel A. Dailey said.

Response by PO3 John Leonatti made Jan 7 at 2018 10:03 AM

PO3 John Leonatti — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 10:03:03 -0500

We need to start calling these people what they are, mentally troubled self mutilators