5
5
0
Bill would lift ban on transgender troops." "Thoughts?
One of the few good ideas to come from California, IMHO. While the military would still have a long way to go developing a policy for this, I believe it's a step in the right direction.
Thoughts both pro and con please!
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) is drafting legislation that would scrap the Defense Department’s ban on transgender people in the armed forces.
“The current ban has hurt our troops and damaged our national defense for too long,” Speier, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, wrote earlier this month in a “Dear Colleague” letter aimed at garnering co-sponsors to her bill.
“Many in uniform endure tremendous challenges and setbacks — emotional, financial and professional — because they are forced to serve in silence,” she added.
Speier said members “have the opportunity to follow through on our promise to support our troops, no matter their gender identity. Now is the time to allow our transgender troops to serve openly and honestly.”
A spokesman for Speier’s office said she could introduce the legislation next month.
Earlier this month the Pentagon revamped its military equal opportunity policy to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender service members from discrimination and harassment.
“Recognizing that our openness to diversity is one of the things that have allowed us to be the best in the world, we must ensure that everyone who's able and willing to serve has the full and equal opportunity to do so,” Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said during DOD’s Pride Month Ceremony.
In March, Carter indicated that he is open to the idea of openly transgender people serving in the military. His comments were quickly endorsed by the White House.
One of the few good ideas to come from California, IMHO. While the military would still have a long way to go developing a policy for this, I believe it's a step in the right direction.
Thoughts both pro and con please!
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) is drafting legislation that would scrap the Defense Department’s ban on transgender people in the armed forces.
“The current ban has hurt our troops and damaged our national defense for too long,” Speier, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, wrote earlier this month in a “Dear Colleague” letter aimed at garnering co-sponsors to her bill.
“Many in uniform endure tremendous challenges and setbacks — emotional, financial and professional — because they are forced to serve in silence,” she added.
Speier said members “have the opportunity to follow through on our promise to support our troops, no matter their gender identity. Now is the time to allow our transgender troops to serve openly and honestly.”
A spokesman for Speier’s office said she could introduce the legislation next month.
Earlier this month the Pentagon revamped its military equal opportunity policy to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender service members from discrimination and harassment.
“Recognizing that our openness to diversity is one of the things that have allowed us to be the best in the world, we must ensure that everyone who's able and willing to serve has the full and equal opportunity to do so,” Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said during DOD’s Pride Month Ceremony.
In March, Carter indicated that he is open to the idea of openly transgender people serving in the military. His comments were quickly endorsed by the White House.
Bill would lift ban on transgender troops
Posted from thehill.com
Transgender
LGBTQ+
DoD
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 13
14
14
0
PO1 John Miller
I think any transgender person should be disqualified from military service due to the mental disorder they have. Any man who thinks he is a woman, and any woman who thinks she is a man, has a mental disorder. He/she can never be anything other than what he/she was born as, despite all the wishing, hoping, surgery, make-up, medication, and liberal adulation. If they really believe they can, they have a serious mental disorder.
I think any transgender person should be disqualified from military service due to the mental disorder they have. Any man who thinks he is a woman, and any woman who thinks she is a man, has a mental disorder. He/she can never be anything other than what he/she was born as, despite all the wishing, hoping, surgery, make-up, medication, and liberal adulation. If they really believe they can, they have a serious mental disorder.
(14)
(0)
SPC Vicky King
SrA Edward Vong - There is definite criteria for diagnosing much mental illness and specific researched treatments. Even outside of the so called professional communities you don't need anything more than a fifth grade education to determine a whole plethora of abnormal behaviors, and a man in a dress is one of them.
Psychiatry expert:‘scientifically there is no such thing as transgender’ by Thaddeus Baklinski
Dr. Joseph Berger, who is a consulting psychiatrist in Toronto and whose list of credentials establishes him as an expert in the field of mental illness, has issued a statement saying that from a medical and scientific perspective there is no such thing as a "transgendered" person, and that terms such as “gender expression” and “gender identity"...are at the very least ambiguous, and are more an emotional appeal than a statement of scientific fact. He stated that people who identify themselves as "transgendered" are psychotic or simply unhappy, and pointed out that hormone therapy and surgery are not appropriate treatments for psychosis or unhappiness...Berger stated, "The medical treatment of delusions, psychosis or emotional happiness is not surgery,"..."The so-called ‘confusion’ about their sexuality that a teenager or adult has is purely psychological. As a psychiatrist, I see no reason for people who identify themselves in these ways to have any rights or privileges different from everyone else... http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/psychiatry-expert-scientifically-there-is-no-such-thing-as-transgender
Psychiatry expert:‘scientifically there is no such thing as transgender’ by Thaddeus Baklinski
Dr. Joseph Berger, who is a consulting psychiatrist in Toronto and whose list of credentials establishes him as an expert in the field of mental illness, has issued a statement saying that from a medical and scientific perspective there is no such thing as a "transgendered" person, and that terms such as “gender expression” and “gender identity"...are at the very least ambiguous, and are more an emotional appeal than a statement of scientific fact. He stated that people who identify themselves as "transgendered" are psychotic or simply unhappy, and pointed out that hormone therapy and surgery are not appropriate treatments for psychosis or unhappiness...Berger stated, "The medical treatment of delusions, psychosis or emotional happiness is not surgery,"..."The so-called ‘confusion’ about their sexuality that a teenager or adult has is purely psychological. As a psychiatrist, I see no reason for people who identify themselves in these ways to have any rights or privileges different from everyone else... http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/psychiatry-expert-scientifically-there-is-no-such-thing-as-transgender
(3)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SPC Vicky King, agreed. In my day the same thing was said of homosexuality, and I'm not certain that the change from that opinion was valid. It seems to me that the change was done more for ideological than medical reasons.
(3)
(0)
SMSgt (Join to see)
Concur...even the APA identifies it as a disorder if " it causes significant distress or disability"...what other mental disorders are we going to allow? Disallow?
(3)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
SSgt Kenneth Langwell - Absolutely. It is well known that Obama is following the Rules for Radicals blueprint. Very clear to see to anybody who does not have his/her head up their butts. The only hope we have is for the US to elect a strong Republican President and controlling numbers in both houses of Congress and that they work overtime to return our country to the traditions and values many of us still hold so dear. Will not be easy, even with the right folks in the right positions and I fear that it may already be too late. We are on the path to civil war/racial war, unless something is done very quickly to reverse the path.
(1)
(0)
12
12
0
I do not believe that the military is the proper place for social activism.
The function of the military is to provide for national security and to fight our wars - not to be a playground for social engineers.
I think that the more of this sort of thing that we do the more the true mission will be degraded.
The function of the military is to provide for national security and to fight our wars - not to be a playground for social engineers.
I think that the more of this sort of thing that we do the more the true mission will be degraded.
(12)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
CPT Waddell,
As I agree with your comment I must also say that the Military has always led the country in Social changes. De-Segregation, Women in service, allowing homosexuals to serve. It is important to not discriminate against a capable body that can carry out missions. HOWEVER if it degrades or distracts other/themselves from performing it should not be allowed.
I do agree that the military is not a place for popularity or should assist in any kind of social acceptance as that is not our role. We are here to protect the people of the United States of America even if that is from themselves. I will not interject my personal beliefs because they are exactly that my personal beliefs but I do have a very strong belief that everyone should be entitled to serve this great nation no matter their gender, race, belief, or social status as long as none of these interfere with Military Operations and operational power.
.
As I agree with your comment I must also say that the Military has always led the country in Social changes. De-Segregation, Women in service, allowing homosexuals to serve. It is important to not discriminate against a capable body that can carry out missions. HOWEVER if it degrades or distracts other/themselves from performing it should not be allowed.
I do agree that the military is not a place for popularity or should assist in any kind of social acceptance as that is not our role. We are here to protect the people of the United States of America even if that is from themselves. I will not interject my personal beliefs because they are exactly that my personal beliefs but I do have a very strong belief that everyone should be entitled to serve this great nation no matter their gender, race, belief, or social status as long as none of these interfere with Military Operations and operational power.
.
(2)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SSG (Join to see), I don't believe service to our country is a right; it is a privilege. The needs of the service should control who serves and who cannot serve, not the needs of the individual.
Consider the number of people that are not allowed to serve today regardless of their wishes; those that cannot provide complete employment record, those that cannot account for all relatives, those that cannot account for residency for past 7 years, those with a record of bad debts or bankruptcy, those with records of drug use or criminal violations, those with tattoos covering certain areas of their body, those that do not test well enough on written or physical exams, etc.
Why should sexual anomalies be given special status when there exists the potential of disrupting unit cohesion due to this factor?
It is not for the good of the service, IMHO.
It is for the ideological desires of civilian leaders with agendas unrelated to the primary mission of the military services – and it degrades the military effectiveness in the end.
There are a lot of good people that are not allowed to serve for a wide variety of reasons, but it is the needs of the military that should prevail for the security of the country.
Consider the number of people that are not allowed to serve today regardless of their wishes; those that cannot provide complete employment record, those that cannot account for all relatives, those that cannot account for residency for past 7 years, those with a record of bad debts or bankruptcy, those with records of drug use or criminal violations, those with tattoos covering certain areas of their body, those that do not test well enough on written or physical exams, etc.
Why should sexual anomalies be given special status when there exists the potential of disrupting unit cohesion due to this factor?
It is not for the good of the service, IMHO.
It is for the ideological desires of civilian leaders with agendas unrelated to the primary mission of the military services – and it degrades the military effectiveness in the end.
There are a lot of good people that are not allowed to serve for a wide variety of reasons, but it is the needs of the military that should prevail for the security of the country.
(2)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
PO1 Dean Chapman (retired), exactly. It is a political decision, not a decision done for the good of the military or to secure national security; it has the opposite effect, IMHO.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
If we haven't managed to integrate women into combat roles by the time the ban lifts, how will it be determined which gender standards they fall under? Not only for MOS roles, but also for AFPT and other standards. How can this even be done successfully? All I see is the military spending more money trying to solve this problem the politicians thrust upon them. If they are doing this in claims of equality, then a transgender who is biologically female or who is transitioned to female should not be granted exceptions that our women in the military do not get. If it's equal, it needs to be equal for everyone.
(4)
(0)
(1)
(0)
PFC Janelle Fletcher
Definitely agree at least on the level of biology. Where would the line be and how much money will it take to find that line. Im all for anyone serving who can do the job with dignity and honor but in the MOS's that are already gender restricted what is the answer.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google