Posted on Jul 16, 2016
How would you accommodate a transgender subordinate in your unit?
85.4K
3.25K
603
694
694
0
Following RAND's study and the one by the Palm Center previous to that, it's clear that there are thousands of transgender people serving right now.
How should the military accommodate these individuals? Should they be allowed to follow the regs of the gender they identify with? Should facilities be assigned by gender, or the physical sex of the service member?
Constructive responses please.
How should the military accommodate these individuals? Should they be allowed to follow the regs of the gender they identify with? Should facilities be assigned by gender, or the physical sex of the service member?
Constructive responses please.
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 153
Physical and biological sex determines regs and access. It's not the military who should be bending over backwards to leftist political ideologies. You joined, fall in line, leave the politics in the dumpster where they belong or leave. Not everyone agrees with politics, the military is highly conservative and anyone who plays party politics to ensure advancement should be shown the door. That goes double for senior enlisted and officers. Policies start with them.
The military is not a special interest group. Medical and psychological qualifications exist for a reason. It's one thing to get waivers for small stuff that hasn't applied for 5-10+ years. "Transgenders" have a 41% suicide rate. No other group historical approached such a historical high rate. That includes slaves, Jews in the holocaust, etc. We don't need psychological "time bombs" running around with access to weapons. They need help first and foremost, not being coddled by today's military.
The military is not a special interest group. Medical and psychological qualifications exist for a reason. It's one thing to get waivers for small stuff that hasn't applied for 5-10+ years. "Transgenders" have a 41% suicide rate. No other group historical approached such a historical high rate. That includes slaves, Jews in the holocaust, etc. We don't need psychological "time bombs" running around with access to weapons. They need help first and foremost, not being coddled by today's military.
(2)
(0)
1LT Larry Bass
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
(0)
(0)
The ORIGINAL Oath(s) of Office / Enlistment were, as the American Forefathers intended, as was Service to Country in the Armed Forces: made for "one nation under God" and performed by willing and able-bodied men.
Not meaning misogyny, but rather the protection that the Bible intended. Even with that said, Ruth lead an army very well.
The liberal, politically-correct people that preach follow the "science", refuse to show this Armor of God, St. Michael watched over soldier that natural science where such other genders exists, so that we can follow that science, "correctly".
Not meaning misogyny, but rather the protection that the Bible intended. Even with that said, Ruth lead an army very well.
The liberal, politically-correct people that preach follow the "science", refuse to show this Armor of God, St. Michael watched over soldier that natural science where such other genders exists, so that we can follow that science, "correctly".
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Good things no religion runs our country or military. I could give two shits what anyone's god wants. They keep their god out of our lives and all is well.
(3)
(0)
I just feel like the whole point is moot. Since you can no longer be discharged for being a member of the lb qt + group I don't think it's really a big deal. Unless somebody makes it one.
(2)
(0)
Just be who you are....in your heart and soul and more importantly in your brain. If you identify as male or female and wish to transition, then just obey "your" regular military reg.'s. But when it comes to "expecting" and or wanting special privileges or having the reg.'s rewritten for you....then you lost me as support. Again, just be you and do your job whether your male or female period.
(2)
(0)
I say they need to be treated as the sex they were born until some sort of pre determined level of transition has been reached. That pre determined level however should also be created by medical doctors and not a board of officers or politicians. I doubt anyone would be willing to transition that openly in the military knowing the amount of "person challenges" and humiliation they would go through unless it was necessary.
(2)
(0)
Considering there are only about 700K transgenders in the U.S. making up between .2 to .3 percent of the total population it would be more accurate to say there are hundreds not thousands serving. Now I have to ask what accommodations should be made and why?
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SPC Angela Burnham - .03% x 2.1 million = 630. That's math. I think the real number is closer to twice that, but if you are going to use statistics in a study to call me incorrect, you should have your arithmetic right. Perhaps it was a typo, since the study you cite estimates .1 - .5% of the service is transgender. Given the statistical spread between those numbers, that implies a methodology that infers a number by sampling the general population for one end of the spread (the high end), and actual survey response in a small sampling of the actual or recently discharged Soldiers for the low end. This is a fundamentally inaccurate method (hence the spread of between 1320 and 6630 personnel in the service). It is very probable that any direct survey would underreport the number as many respondents would not volunteer their status, much like sexual assaults are underreported. The real census will occur when we get a handle on how many transition annually or have already done so. Give it a couple years, and we'll have a better estimate. Regardless, that same study indicates an estimate 40-190 personnel per year would seek some form of change annually, and that is a very small number.
(1)
(0)
SSG Stephen Arnold
2.1 million? Are you including national guard and reserves? That is a much higher number than I've seen for a few years.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SSG Stephen Arnold - All services, all components is a tad under that number, yes.
(0)
(0)
SSG Stephen Arnold
Okay. I was considering active duty, which is much lower than when I served.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=united-states-of-america
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=united-states-of-america
United States of America Military Strength
Military Power and Ranked Strength of United States of America.
(0)
(0)
SPC Angela Burnham this is a great question. This would be a great help for the platoon leadership.
(2)
(0)
SPC Angela Burnham
SSG Stephen Arnold -
That's the thing though SSG. You can't kick them out since you don't know who they are, so they aren't going anywhere. That's an unchangeable fact. So, how can we allow these thousands of individuals to serve in a better fashion without compromising our fighting talent?
That's the thing though SSG. You can't kick them out since you don't know who they are, so they aren't going anywhere. That's an unchangeable fact. So, how can we allow these thousands of individuals to serve in a better fashion without compromising our fighting talent?
(1)
(0)
SSG Stephen Arnold
By expecting them to meet the exact same training standards are the rest of the service members.
(0)
(0)
SSG Jacey R.
SSG Stephen Arnold we agree everyone should meet the training standards. I don't think that any of the other transgender people would disagree with that nor looking for any type of special treatment or accommodations.
(1)
(0)
To put a bit of perspective on this question, less than .01% of the population is fully transitioned to a gender other than the one they were born with. The large majority of "transgenders" are in fact still fully intact sexually. This begs the question then, how committed are these people to their stated transition? More importantly, why should society be in any way burdened with the obligation to support and accommodate these people in any way differently than the rest of the population? Is being confused about your sex a special badge that requires some sort of adulation from the general public? Is mutilating your body (lets not bring up tattoos and piercings here) something we are all supposed to admire and emulate? Why in any world would any sane individual "advocate" these people be in the military in the first place? Why would anyone "advocate" for some sort of special accommodation for these people?
We are talking about the military here, right? I'm talking about citizens who have volunteered to serve the nation in combat, endure months at sea and suffer all manner of loss of privacy and normal dignity. There is no place in combat or in a hot damn engine room for some special needs lesser mortal that needs their own special set of rules. The last thing I want to know is whether or not some "man" in my division is dealing with menstrual cramps today and can't be bothered to pick up a wrench or stand "his" watch in the hole, or some "woman" needs a no shave chit.
Whatever your issue with your body composition may be, it's not something the rest of society needs to be involved with. Keep your gonads and your sexual preferences to yourself, only your partner in the rack needs to be involved.
We are talking about the military here, right? I'm talking about citizens who have volunteered to serve the nation in combat, endure months at sea and suffer all manner of loss of privacy and normal dignity. There is no place in combat or in a hot damn engine room for some special needs lesser mortal that needs their own special set of rules. The last thing I want to know is whether or not some "man" in my division is dealing with menstrual cramps today and can't be bothered to pick up a wrench or stand "his" watch in the hole, or some "woman" needs a no shave chit.
Whatever your issue with your body composition may be, it's not something the rest of society needs to be involved with. Keep your gonads and your sexual preferences to yourself, only your partner in the rack needs to be involved.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next


LGBTQ+
Discrimination
Policy
Grooming Standards
Transgender
