Posted on Jul 26, 2017
Trump announces ban on transgender individuals serving in military
1.2K
9
7
5
5
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
The military is also supposed to be representative of the society we are fighting for. The more exclusive the military becomes, the more disconnected we become from society, and the faster you will come to the point of at best, no one caring about our vets or at worst, seeing protesters calling every person they see in uniform a baby-killer like we witnessed after Vietnam. Barring someone who is physically capable from service only weakens our forces and removes us, as an institution, further away from the people we are supposed to ultimately be working for.
I could have understood a ban on the DoD paying for gender reassignment surgery. That would have justified financial logic, despite Tricare already paying for other "elective" surgeries without concern . And even then, we would have an argument over the government not listening to the medical community about the consequences of not acknowledging gender dysphoria and how hypocritical that is considering the GOP lambasted the government involvement at all under Obama. So I'm finding a hard time believing that this is simply about money.
But if we want to play the money game, I'll concede the surgery itself is costly. However, hormone replacement therapies can cost as little as $10/month WITHOUT (key word here) insurance coverage. There are people in the service right now whose ongoing medication costs more than that. So what is wrong with allowing someone who is post-op and has minuscule associated costs? Hell, if you're only spending $10 a month on your meds and already had the surgery, you can easily afford to pay the cost out of freaking pocket. The issue then becomes simply getting a renewed prescription, which is easy enough if we don't restrict military providers from dealing with ongoing treatment or complain about them seeing a doc out in town. Ultimately, this group of people would not be a problem.
We also have an issue of people who don't want to have a sex-change operation or take hormones, but still psychologically identify as a different gender than what is on their birth certificates. These people would have zero medical costs associated (beyond the standard rounds of vaccines we all get and the normal incidental injury stuff). Blanket banning transgender service excludes them for no reason. And there's also an issue of those who were already openly serving legally. Are they suddenly going to be kicked out of the service?
I foresee a lawsuit under the 14th Amendment coming in the near future.
I could have understood a ban on the DoD paying for gender reassignment surgery. That would have justified financial logic, despite Tricare already paying for other "elective" surgeries without concern . And even then, we would have an argument over the government not listening to the medical community about the consequences of not acknowledging gender dysphoria and how hypocritical that is considering the GOP lambasted the government involvement at all under Obama. So I'm finding a hard time believing that this is simply about money.
But if we want to play the money game, I'll concede the surgery itself is costly. However, hormone replacement therapies can cost as little as $10/month WITHOUT (key word here) insurance coverage. There are people in the service right now whose ongoing medication costs more than that. So what is wrong with allowing someone who is post-op and has minuscule associated costs? Hell, if you're only spending $10 a month on your meds and already had the surgery, you can easily afford to pay the cost out of freaking pocket. The issue then becomes simply getting a renewed prescription, which is easy enough if we don't restrict military providers from dealing with ongoing treatment or complain about them seeing a doc out in town. Ultimately, this group of people would not be a problem.
We also have an issue of people who don't want to have a sex-change operation or take hormones, but still psychologically identify as a different gender than what is on their birth certificates. These people would have zero medical costs associated (beyond the standard rounds of vaccines we all get and the normal incidental injury stuff). Blanket banning transgender service excludes them for no reason. And there's also an issue of those who were already openly serving legally. Are they suddenly going to be kicked out of the service?
I foresee a lawsuit under the 14th Amendment coming in the near future.
(2)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
Oh there will be a whole group of Federal Judges that file to block the order today I am sure.
(0)
(0)
1. Even POTUS cannot write military regulations via twitter.
2. This is discriminatory, so will not stand.
3. This is nothing more than blatant catering to his far-right constituency.
2. This is discriminatory, so will not stand.
3. This is nothing more than blatant catering to his far-right constituency.
(2)
(0)
The issue with the trans community (Texas Bathroom bill and Military ban) is not about the people it is about the money. Texas schools are faced with a huge issue if they have to provide facilities for another class, there are 52 unique gender identities now so where does it stop. Same with the Military I served on two mixed gender ships. We had distinct male and female living areas. The ban on trans gender was only lifted last July as the administration was trying to ruin as many conservative institution as possible in their dying days. So what do you say to a young women who joined to serve her country and now fears that she will be forced to give up her right to privacy and have a male in her open living compartment and bathroom/shower facilities. So simply when a group is exercising their right to take hormone pills to change their outwards appearance because today they self-identify as a Non-Binary gender strips another person of their rights it is in direct violation to our Constitution
(0)
(0)
Read This Next