Posted on Mar 4, 2019
Why are there transgender veterans who support banning currently serving transgender service members but won't discuss it?
18.1K
236
120
39
39
0
Been finding a recent string of self identified transgender veterans on mainstream social media who've uploaded personal opinions about the SCOTUS decision to stay the current or "future" policy decision to ban and seperate transgender personnel from service and continued service, and are in support of banning trans Americans from service.
Hopefully I can get an actual conversation going on, but for some reason when I said how I was in Bagram, AFG (at the time of posting, I've just recently redeployed home) and would love a further explanation they've all be silent. I love to hear negative beliefs and opinions about why a whole population should be removed and banned from service beyond "they're icky and weird and confused". When I get to hear facts on why women, HIV+, and even Non-American citizens shouldn't be authorized to serve; I get facts and discussions. For the trans argument it's just "gross, icky and confused".
Any thoughts on the matter?
Hopefully I can get an actual conversation going on, but for some reason when I said how I was in Bagram, AFG (at the time of posting, I've just recently redeployed home) and would love a further explanation they've all be silent. I love to hear negative beliefs and opinions about why a whole population should be removed and banned from service beyond "they're icky and weird and confused". When I get to hear facts on why women, HIV+, and even Non-American citizens shouldn't be authorized to serve; I get facts and discussions. For the trans argument it's just "gross, icky and confused".
Any thoughts on the matter?
Deployment
National Security
Leadership
Service
Transgender
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 34
23
23
0
It doesn't work well. And trying to be something you were not born and depending on medical support when deployed is an issue.
(23)
(0)
MAJ Byron Oyler
SFC (Join to see) - A lot of it deals with policy changes. Previously if you were trans, you had to keep it to yourself and if it came out, you likely were chaptered. Good or bad, you were forced to focus on being a soldier. Now we focus on the needs of the soldier and if we cannot provide a needed medical service you cannot deploy and the current focus is deploy or get out. You can mention all these other problems you have seen deployed and if they came up at SRP and still deployed, someone was wrong. Depending on a transgender's level of distress, it can tax the system to degrees you may not even know. Some receive speech therapy, hormone therapy, intensive counseling, and some even need surgery. Today to not provide a transgender the care they need would be medical malpractice and while many see the treatment of transgenders to be social opinions, if you want medical treatment then you fall under medical guidelines. So many jump to conclusions that people make comments based on non-fact based opinions and those of us that look at patient's holistically really take a beating on this. You sound like a good soldier that won't attack me for this, I take note, and appreciate it.
(1)
(0)
SPC Earl Semler
I think there is a tendency for them to come into the service and get uncle Sam to pay for their complete conversion and then get out when completed. I am sure there are some who want to stay in, but do we gamble with the budget to find them?
(0)
(0)
SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM
This practice appears to go against science and how GOD created us!
(0)
(0)
11
11
0
I am not transgender, so I would not presume to explain why a transgender service member would support banning transgender people from joining the service.
That said, I will offer offer my opinion, freely admitting that I do not know how much I do not know.
It is a common mistake to believe that the next war will be the same as the last war. In a symmetrical warfare scenario, the logistical effort may be much more complex. Difficult delivery of person specific meds may overly burden the supply train. And has been a standing reason for banning a number of people with a variety of medical conditions from service. Although not, medical supplies, it was my experience in the Marine Corps that during peace time, personal mail could chase you around the Pacific or Mediterranean for weeks, frequently arriving out of sequence.
It is my poorly informed understanding that transgender people suffer a substantially higher level of mental health problems, particularly suicidal ideation. That may be a contributing factor, particularly in the crucible of deployment, and furthermore combat theater deployment.
I do believe the "gross, icky, and confused" concern exists. That does not mean I think it is valid. At various times different subsets of American Society have been too "gross, icky, and ______." As examples and by no means all inclusive list: Irish, Blacks, Italians, Asians, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, etc. etc. etc. It seems that eventually, given enough time and no choice, the military adapts; typically faster than the civilian populace.
That said, I will offer offer my opinion, freely admitting that I do not know how much I do not know.
It is a common mistake to believe that the next war will be the same as the last war. In a symmetrical warfare scenario, the logistical effort may be much more complex. Difficult delivery of person specific meds may overly burden the supply train. And has been a standing reason for banning a number of people with a variety of medical conditions from service. Although not, medical supplies, it was my experience in the Marine Corps that during peace time, personal mail could chase you around the Pacific or Mediterranean for weeks, frequently arriving out of sequence.
It is my poorly informed understanding that transgender people suffer a substantially higher level of mental health problems, particularly suicidal ideation. That may be a contributing factor, particularly in the crucible of deployment, and furthermore combat theater deployment.
I do believe the "gross, icky, and confused" concern exists. That does not mean I think it is valid. At various times different subsets of American Society have been too "gross, icky, and ______." As examples and by no means all inclusive list: Irish, Blacks, Italians, Asians, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, etc. etc. etc. It seems that eventually, given enough time and no choice, the military adapts; typically faster than the civilian populace.
(11)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Thank you for your response MAJ John Bell, and thank you for your service to our great nation!
That last paragraph says it all, we as the Armed Forces move faster than society as a whole. Some says its great, some says its bad.
That last paragraph says it all, we as the Armed Forces move faster than society as a whole. Some says its great, some says its bad.
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SFC (Join to see) - Although it isn't a truly American concept, there is occasionally something to be said for "Dammit because I said so. Make it happen. NOW."
I am for one, favor a universal standard based solely on mission capabilities and combat effectiveness. Either you meet it or you don't. I do not suffer from any delusion that everyone will be happy with that standard.
I can honestly say that even in the 70's, 80's, and 90's I knew Marines who were not happy about being in a fighting hole with another Marine solely based on race, religion, ethnicity and national origin. When I could avoid the issue, I did. Not my proudest leadership moments, but the mission came first. When I couldn't avoid the issue, I and my senior SNCO's were quite adept at making them hate us so bad that they did not have time to hate each other.
In my entire time in the Marine Corps LGBTQ issues were not an issue. I served in one operational unit that had one female Marine. That became an issue (300+ male Marines, 1 female Marine) The female Marine was not the problem, the hormones of about a dozen of the male Marines were. I didn't have enough time to complete a sigh of exasperation before the SgtMaj and two Company 1stSgts figuratively removed the source of the problem, "mental testicles."
I am for one, favor a universal standard based solely on mission capabilities and combat effectiveness. Either you meet it or you don't. I do not suffer from any delusion that everyone will be happy with that standard.
I can honestly say that even in the 70's, 80's, and 90's I knew Marines who were not happy about being in a fighting hole with another Marine solely based on race, religion, ethnicity and national origin. When I could avoid the issue, I did. Not my proudest leadership moments, but the mission came first. When I couldn't avoid the issue, I and my senior SNCO's were quite adept at making them hate us so bad that they did not have time to hate each other.
In my entire time in the Marine Corps LGBTQ issues were not an issue. I served in one operational unit that had one female Marine. That became an issue (300+ male Marines, 1 female Marine) The female Marine was not the problem, the hormones of about a dozen of the male Marines were. I didn't have enough time to complete a sigh of exasperation before the SgtMaj and two Company 1stSgts figuratively removed the source of the problem, "mental testicles."
(3)
(0)
MAJ Byron Oyler
SFC (Join to see) - I don't see this one changing until the trans population can agree it is a social choice and have it removed from DSM-V or it stays in DSM-V and insurance pays for health care. Personally if I was LGBTQ, I would push hard for it to be in DSM-V and listed as a disability. Reason why, no one messes with the ADA. You get ten points right away when applying for a civilian job and if anyone ever treats a disabled person poorly in public, ten other Americans will jump their ass. You probably think I am crazy but my role in life is to take care of people and if going the disabled route treats you better, then I am for it.
(1)
(0)
TSgt Gwen Walcott
Many that I know are disgusted at the wholesale declaration of being transgender as an excuse for lighter duty (perceived or real) AND, more importantly, the diminishment of the difference between being transsexual vs being a crossdresser and expecting benefits for the latter than were only intended for the former. There is also the resentment of expectation that the DoD will pay for and monitor transition when that option was self directed and funded by older transsexuals. There are dues to be paid. Free rides and exceptional benefits are frowned upon and resented
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
So, I have known and do know a fair number of trans servicemembers. I've been in units with them and have never, ever had any issues with trans servicemembers. All of my Soldiers have been Soldiers first and everything else second. I fully support trans servicemembers serving in all branches and services and I think the "ban" is a knee-jerk religious conservative overstep by people who don't understand and are not comfortable with other people feeling different than they look.
All of that being said, this is my understanding of the primary reasons for the transgender service "ban."
1. The resource costs associated with the actual transition process are not in line with standard, expected, medical costs associated with able-bodied enlistees. We don't let others in with a lot of other known medical issues that require extensive resources to treat.
2. Some people view transgender as a type of mental illness because a person doesn't feel like the gender they happen to have physical parts for.
I think those are the two I hear most often.
All of that being said, this is my understanding of the primary reasons for the transgender service "ban."
1. The resource costs associated with the actual transition process are not in line with standard, expected, medical costs associated with able-bodied enlistees. We don't let others in with a lot of other known medical issues that require extensive resources to treat.
2. Some people view transgender as a type of mental illness because a person doesn't feel like the gender they happen to have physical parts for.
I think those are the two I hear most often.
(9)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
DNA links prove Jews are a 'race,' says genetics expert
Conjuring fear of Nazism and anti-Semitism, Jews recoil from the thought that Judaism might be a race, but medical geneticist Harry Ostrer insists the 'biological basis of Jewishness' cannot be ignored.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MSgt Kurt S. Judiasm is a religion, as I said. Jewish is a subset of race. You can be a Christian Jew. You can also be a Caucasian who practices Judiasm.
Jewish religion and people are separate things.
Jewish religion and people are separate things.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MSgt Kurt S. - Judiasm is a religion. We've said that from the beginning. Saying that Jewish is a subset of race is no different than saying Caucasian and Asian are a subset of race - which they also are. Is saying that someone is Asian racist?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google