Is the new White House policy of banning Transgender Service Members correct?

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 11:06:07 -0400

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Aug 24 at 2017 11:10 AM

SFC Pete Kain — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 11:10:09 -0400

Is that official or still based on a tweet?

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Aug 24 at 2017 11:29 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 11:29:49 -0400

It is the correct policy, political correctness aside.

Response by SSG Diane R. made Aug 24 at 2017 11:30 AM

SSG Diane R. — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 11:30:03 -0400

We've been discussing that then another thread too, an article I posted last night from The Wall Street Journal.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Aug 24 at 2017 11:49 AM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 11:49:06 -0400

He has written a policy. It is based on ignorance and hate, and is simply a diversion from his problems. The costs of trans care in the military are nominal, but the costs of discharging and replacing all the trans serviced members will be in the billions; which we obviously cannot afford to waste right now.

There are trans service members serving and deploying globally right now...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 24 at 2017 12:31 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 12:31:05 -0400

I don't think it's right at all. People can say all they want that they're "mentally unfit" but in the DSM I don't believe transgender is listed as any kind of mental illness or disorder AND gender identity disorder is a very broad term and covers a lot of things. It does not mean someone has a mental illness.

There are so many who have been serving, openly, for the last year (some longer) with zero issues. So all the arguments I've seen have been proven wrong. The same arguments used in this case were used in the repeal of DADT, were used about integrating the services and so on. The military didn't end. It didn't implode.

I think it's ridiculous. I think it's pointless to bring back the ban. That's just my view.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 24 at 2017 1:54 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 13:54:58 -0400

This decision is way above my paygrade. But transgendered people aside, if a certain type of person either A. cost more to train and maintain or B. will diminish the war fighting ability of the US military then yes, the decision is correct. People with peanut allergies can't serve. People with only one good eye can't serve, people belonging to communist groups can't serve, the list goes on and on. If he made the decision because he doesn't like transgendered people then it's wrong.

And please don't see this as an opportunity to ask me why transgendered people either cost more to train/maintain or diminish our war fighting ability. I never said they did. But if the president's decision was made based on something like that, then it's the right call. As I said, this is above my pay grade and my opinions on it mean squat.

Response by PFC Lisa McDonald made Aug 24 at 2017 1:59 PM

PFC Lisa McDonald — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 13:59:10 -0400

Yes it is and the lgb activist need next!
We are not nor have ever been okay all okay with the lgbt labels or the grouping.
The lgbt activist used the discrimination and junk science to create their illegal human experiment and criminal sex ring lgbt.

Response by PFC Lisa McDonald made Aug 24 at 2017 2:04 PM

PFC Lisa McDonald — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:04:46 -0400

President Obama shredded the current research and constitution when he started writing the LGBT labels and group into federal policy.
He paid off the deep pocket LGBT activist and sold a bunch of people to the lgbt activist who wanted no part of it.
I look at the lgbt leadership as like overseers controlling the slaves.
I want to be free not part of some group of un-Ametican idiots calling themselves sex discriminatory and illegal human experiment terms!

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 24 at 2017 2:15 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:15:33 -0400

What is your definition of correct? As far as I can tell, at the moment there is no official policy banning transgenders from serving just a couple of tweets that President Trump sent out a few weeks ago. No order or actual instructions have come out changing the policy set by President Obama, just the press stating shortly it will happen.

Response by PO2 Robert Aitchison made Aug 24 at 2017 2:21 PM

PO2 Robert Aitchison — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:21:06 -0400

I don't agree with prohibiting transgender people from serving openly, I believe that these people who wish to serve have much to offer and nothing is gained by forcing them to remain in the closet.

Response by LTC Stephen B. made Aug 24 at 2017 3:07 PM

LTC Stephen B. — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 15:07:40 -0400

Can't say until we see an actual policy.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 24 at 2017 4:25 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:25:11 -0400

I don't know if I have the right answer Sir.
I'm fine with them serving, I'm not fine with Uncle Sugar paying for their transition. While in transition they are non-deployable and I think that's BS. The transition can take years, so they get stuck in rear detachment and can't participate.
If you're Trans and you want to serve I'm fine with it, but we have people with missing limbs that don't get adequate care. We shouldn't be paying for you to transition until we can figure out all of our other service related medical issues first.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 24 at 2017 4:37 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:37:45 -0400

I take testosterone, the Army kicks me out for using drugs.

A female takes testosterone. "I'm becoming a man!" Gets to continue with their career as "a man" using testosterone.

I fail a PT test. I get flagged and threatened with separation.

Another guy fails a PT test. "I'm trans! I'm a woman!" Continues career with PT graded on the female scale.

I get depressed because someone close to me dies or a long term relationship ends and the Army looks at me like I'm broken and could potentially send me packing.

Someone decides they don't like themselves so they want to mutilate their body and become someone else. Army says "Sure, come on! We'd love to have you!"

I can do this all day.

Response by PO2 Kevin LaCroix made Aug 24 at 2017 5:28 PM

PO2 Kevin LaCroix — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:28:00 -0400

As far as I know the Military has no found any significant decrease in the ability of a trans gender person to do their job.

Response by SSG Stephen Arnold made Aug 24 at 2017 8:38 PM

SSG Stephen Arnold — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 20:38:43 -0400

Since when is a preexisting condition the military's responsibility?

Preexisting conditions are reasons to EXCLUDE one from serving.

Recovery from gender reassignment is a months long process and the person will not be able to perform their duties for a good portion of that time.

Inability to perform one's duties is a reason for REMOVAL from service.
This is a readiness issue.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Aug 25 at 2017 11:49 AM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Fri, 25 Aug 2017 11:49:21 -0400

Cost-benefit analysis isn't very warm and cozy or friendly or kind. But it should be what DoD uses to get the most bang for the taxpayer buck.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Aug 25 at 2017 12:48 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Fri, 25 Aug 2017 12:48:27 -0400

It should be about the ability to complete the mission.
The mission is to create a ready, trained, fighting force.
So the same four basic questions apply to all potential recruits regardless of gender..

1: Is the SM mentally stable, deployable, trainable?
2: Is the SM medically stable, deployable, trainable?
3: Is there a distraction to training to allow this person to serve?
4: Time being a resource, what additional amount of this finite resource desperately needed to minimally complete the mission are required in order to allow this person to serve?
If the answers to 1&2 are YES, 3 NO, 4 NONE.

Then let this person serve as you would another potential recruit.. OR like any other potential recruit, if they walk in to the recruiters office and are a NO to question 1 or 2, YES to question 3, and something other than NONE to question 4, say thank you for your interest in serving, but you do not meet minimum standard for military service....as we would ANY OTHER potential recruit.

To those of any gender already serving with honor and remain ready to train and deployable as standards requirer...No change.. We said yes, they are doing the job with honor, pride and ability..

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Aug 25 at 2017 3:10 PM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:10:01 -0400

I agree with the policy. HOWEVER, I believe we threw a bait and switch out there for members to come out and they did and have served proudly and honorably. I believe that if we ban we should start with the new recruits. Those that came out under the previous guidelines and have successful appraisals should be able to stay and enforce the policy through attrition versus giving the "PSYCH gotcha" phrase and sending them home...people like CW4 Mueller etc...too highly trained of a person to let go until she says it is time to go. Can't just bait and switch good folks like that, that is not a good policy.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Aug 25 at 2017 3:53 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:53:26 -0400

The mission of the military is to fight and win wars - social experimentation is not part of that mission.
There is no "right" to serve in the military - it is only for those that meet the requirements of the military. There is no good reason I have ever heard for the military to take on people with mental and medical challenges above and beyond that found among average recruits.

Response by Cpl John Barker made Aug 28 at 2017 4:28 AM

Cpl John Barker — Mon, 28 Aug 2017 04:28:12 -0400

It's actually insane people even thought it was a good idea in the first place, or even logistically realistic in a combat zone

Response by SSG Richard Reilly made Aug 28 at 2017 12:40 PM

SSG Richard Reilly — Mon, 28 Aug 2017 12:40:42 -0400

Two views here. The personal and the logical. First why in uniform you are a Soldier. I don't care what kind of civilian clothes you where until it effects that. Personally No I don't believe they should be in the military, but that is my theological, and social beliefs. But putting those feelings aside I don't care. If they can do the job let them. When your in the field or combat doesn't matter where or how you pee.

Response by HN Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2017 1:01 PM

HN Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:01:46 -0400

Almost like the discussion of women entering combat MOS and having the ability to go to Ranger school, I think that if transgender service members can successfully do their job and help their unit function they should be allowed to enlist or comission

Response by SPC Jeff Hogan, M.S., M.P.S. made Aug 28 at 2017 1:16 PM

SPC Jeff Hogan, M.S., M.P.S. — Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:16:12 -0400

this reminds me of the discussion about whether women should serve in combat. Egads, what happens if they are on their cycle and the enemy smells them?

I thought we were past this. It will cost many dollars to implement that could be better spent elsewhere.

Response by SPC Dawn Appelberg (Johnson) made Sep 23 at 2017 3:37 PM

SPC Dawn Appelberg (Johnson) — Sat, 23 Sep 2017 15:37:40 -0400

Transgender is a mental disorder. It is a dismorphia where the individual loathes their body so much they are willing to mutilate it in order to alter their appearance and find personal acceptance. W should not be coddling this mental disorder - we should be seeking counselling for the underlying issues and deal with it as we would any other mental disorder.