Trump, 'No transgender people in military'

[repoman]

Binding, yes, but fortunately, the Assistant Director of Transgender Policy This Week is a position for which Trump has not appointed anyone, so no one can carry this out.

Moreover, the AMA passed a resolution in 2015 that there is no medical reason transgender people cannot serve in the military. From a legal standpoint, what basis could the military enforce that fucking asshole's verbal vomit even if they wanted to?

How is the AMA part of the government?

 

[RavenSky]

As far as I am concerned, Transgender and Transexual people are one in the same. People claim transgenderism on the basis of identifying as the opposite sex, NOT on the basis of being a masculine woman or an effeminate man. I mean if the latter were true, that'd render the term utterly meaningless since what we consider masculine and feminine are a matter of perspective.

Then you are truly clueless. Read up on what the terms mean instead of making a fool of yourself.

Apparently it is not that clear cut: http://www.transawareness.org/what-is-the-difference-between-transgender-and-transsexual.html

 

[LordKiran]

As far as I am concerned, Transgender and Transexual people are one in the same. People claim transgenderism on the basis of identifying as the opposite sex, NOT on the basis of being a masculine woman or an effeminate man. I mean if the latter were true, that'd render the term utterly meaningless since what we consider masculine and feminine are a matter of perspective.

Then you are truly clueless. Read up on what the terms mean instead of making a fool of yourself.

You know I'm used to receiving hostility from people on the internet but in your case, that's quite unnecessary. So I don't know if you have a problem with me specifically or what.

Sociology is not a hard science, some opinions may be worth more than others, but I am not obligated to bow my head to John Money just because the consensus is with him.

 

[J842P]

Binding, yes, but fortunately, the Assistant Director of Transgender Policy This Week is a position for which Trump has not appointed anyone, so no one can carry this out.

Moreover, the AMA passed a resolution in 2015 that there is no medical reason transgender people cannot serve in the military. From a legal standpoint, what basis could the military enforce that fucking asshole's verbal vomit even if they wanted to?

I don't think the AMA's resolution makes any difference. The military has broad leeway on these matters. The President could order that there be no red-heads in the military, if they so liked.

 

[LordKiran]

Then you are truly clueless. Read up on what the terms mean instead of making a fool of yourself.

Apparently it is not that clear cut: http://www.transawareness.org/what-is-the-difference-between-transgender-and-transsexual.html

I don't know which of those I most closely match with, but all I'm saying is this whole idea of 'gender' being anything other than a synonym for sex is just plain bullshit. People just do what they do, and we only label it after the fact into arbitrary categories. The high heeled shoe is the perfect example of this!

 

[RavenSky]

Moreover, the AMA passed a resolution in 2015 that there is no medical reason transgender people cannot serve in the military. From a legal standpoint, what basis could the military enforce that fucking asshole's verbal vomit even if they wanted to?

How is the AMA part of the government?

I didn't say it was; however, the military used to ban transgender because the medical professional called it "gender identity disorder" - basically a mental illness. That was changed in 2013, and in 2015 the AMA took the additional step of specifically stating that there is no medical reason transgender people cannot serve in the military.

So if being transgender is not a mental illness, and it does not prevent a person from performing their duties as a soldier, what legal justification does Trump have to ban then?

Can he, as you asked, just ban anyone or any group he wants to no reason at all? Can he re-ban gays from serving? Women? People of color? Non-christians?

If not, how can he legally do this?

The only thing I can see him being able to enforce is to go back to (1) forcing people to adhere to the grooming standards and facilities of the gender identified on their birth certificate, and (2) the military no longer pays for any surgery or medical treatment to physically transition.

In my opinion, he can't - logically or legally - truly ban anyone from enlisting; only prevent them from openly identifying as transgendered.

- - - Updated - - -

Moreover, the AMA passed a resolution in 2015 that there is no medical reason transgender people cannot serve in the military. From a legal standpoint, what basis could the military enforce that fucking asshole's verbal vomit even if they wanted to?

I don't think the AMA's resolution makes any difference. The military has broad leeway on these matters. The President could order that there be no red-heads in the military, if they so liked.

Could he?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't think the AMA's resolution makes any difference. The military has broad leeway on these matters. The President could order that there be no red-heads in the military, if they so liked.

Could he?

Yes. As long as they prohibit ALL redheads, not just enlisted or just women redheads...

He'd probably be better off propping the decision up with some carefully selected findings. Maybe show that redheads are more likely to be mistreated among serving members, with a .03% greater chance of suicide if the DOD doesn't pay for their hair coloring. Kicking them out is simply protecting them. Maybe not all of them, but we can't ignore the .03% that would be at risk.

Science cannot dictate unit cohesion. If enough sailors/soldiers are convinced that they'd be uncomfortable around a transgender member, they'll be uncomfortable around a transgendered member.

The funny thing is, it sounds a LOT like the comments about putting women in combat or on deployed vessels. Or allowing gays.
I suspect people said the same sort of thing about 'what if a white soldier has to take orders from a black officer?' or 'How will they handle the bathroom facilities on a seagoing command?'

In a few years, they'll be complaining about the tigers. How can we have unit cohesion if tigers deploy with a unit that they dream about preying upon? I can see an all-tiger unit serving in a jungle, but what'll they do in a foxhole in the Mideast? No Bamboo!
And can we call it a foxhole or is that discrimination against tigers that dug the hole?

 

[RavenSky]

Could he?

Yes. As long as they prohibit ALL redheads, not just enlisted or just women redheads...

He'd probably be better off propping the decision up with some carefully selected findings. Maybe show that redheads are more likely to be mistreated among serving members, with a .03% greater chance of suicide if the DOD doesn't pay for their hair coloring. Kicking them out is simply protecting them. Maybe not all of them, but we can't ignore the .03% that would be at risk.

Science cannot dictate unit cohesion. If enough sailors/soldiers are convinced that they'd be uncomfortable around a transgender member, they'll be uncomfortable around a transgendered member.

The funny thing is, it sounds a LOT like the comments about putting women in combat or on deployed vessels. Or allowing gays.
I suspect people said the same sort of thing about 'what if a white soldier has to take orders from a black officer?' or 'How will they handle the bathroom facilities on a seagoing command?'

That's kind of my point... could he ban all women from the military? All blacks? All Jews? All Muslims? All atheists?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes. As long as they prohibit ALL redheads, not just enlisted or just women redheads...

He'd probably be better off propping the decision up with some carefully selected findings. Maybe show that redheads are more likely to be mistreated among serving members, with a .03% greater chance of suicide if the DOD doesn't pay for their hair coloring. Kicking them out is simply protecting them. Maybe not all of them, but we can't ignore the .03% that would be at risk.

Science cannot dictate unit cohesion. If enough sailors/soldiers are convinced that they'd be uncomfortable around a transgender member, they'll be uncomfortable around a transgendered member.

The funny thing is, it sounds a LOT like the comments about putting women in combat or on deployed vessels. Or allowing gays.
I suspect people said the same sort of thing about 'what if a white soldier has to take orders from a black officer?' or 'How will they handle the bathroom facilities on a seagoing command?'

That's kind of my point... could he ban all women from the military? All blacks? All Jews? All Muslims? All atheists?

He could. The policies of the military don't have to stand up to rational evaluation.
We shave our beards for uniformity and so that an opponent can't grab it while grappling. I shaved and I was 4000 nautical miles away from the enemy...

I think it'd be political suicide to ban, say, all blacks from the service, in favor of uniformity, but Trump's done a LOT of things that conventional wisdom said was political suicide...
However, if sufficient surveys could be produced to show that the military is the last bastion of racial tension, and a diverse force was less effective, I can imagine it being ordered.
Branch leaders would resist, based on what their retention numbers will look like over the next few months, but i don't think they could actually face up to him and say, "Nope, can't do that."

 

[RavenSky]

In an interview with a reporter from Axios, an administration official gave away the game—the point of the policy was to hurt Democrats’ electoral prospects.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...proves-that-trump-is-only-going-to-get-worse/

An anonymous Trump administration official offered this hugely cynical quote to Axios's Jonathan Swan on Wednesday morning:

"This forces Democrats in Rust Belt states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, to take complete ownership of this issue. How will the blue collar voters in these states respond when senators up for re-election in 2018 like Debbie Stabenow are forced to make their opposition to this a key plank of their campaigns?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-frighten-republicans/?utm_term=.dca2fe7502a2

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Yes. As long as they prohibit ALL redheads, not just enlisted or just women redheads...

He'd probably be better off propping the decision up with some carefully selected findings. Maybe show that redheads are more likely to be mistreated among serving members, with a .03% greater chance of suicide if the DOD doesn't pay for their hair coloring. Kicking them out is simply protecting them. Maybe not all of them, but we can't ignore the .03% that would be at risk.

Science cannot dictate unit cohesion. If enough sailors/soldiers are convinced that they'd be uncomfortable around a transgender member, they'll be uncomfortable around a transgendered member.

The funny thing is, it sounds a LOT like the comments about putting women in combat or on deployed vessels. Or allowing gays.
I suspect people said the same sort of thing about 'what if a white soldier has to take orders from a black officer?' or 'How will they handle the bathroom facilities on a seagoing command?'

That's kind of my point... could he ban all women from the military? All blacks? All Jews? All Muslims? All atheists?

Waiting for SCROTUS to tweet: "There are no atheists in foxholes."

 

[repoman]

well, there won't be any dilators in foxholes...

 

[Elixir]

U think Don Jr is a tranny? He's awfully effeminate.

 

[iolo]

All this stuff is, I think, irrelevant. Homosexuality was long seen to be a bar, for instance, yet homosexual soldiers have been some of the best in history - take the Theban Sacred Band, who finally put paid to the Spartans who, I think, tended to have similar tastes. If there really were Amazons (and there are serious arguments) they would also be important in terms of opinion versus sense.

 

[Malintent]

Trump pretty much made a single attempt at harmony at his speech in Cleveland during the RNC Trump Con in 2016. Inclusion of LGBTQ... are there more letters now?

Well, Trump just tweeted that Transgender people will not be allowed to serve in the military. Seems a bit odd, seeing that the military is having a hard enough time to deal with enlistment as it is, and are there seriously that many transgender people rushing to enlist?

But Trump against carves into stone that his personal Twitter account is Presidential material, so everything he twits is Presidential record. That'll be nice for the lawsuits.

Keeping trans people out of the military makes a certain kind of sense if they're pre-op. Pre-op trans people (And even post op ones to an extent) have some specific medical requirements that may be hard to meet when in field. That said there are plenty of non combat and domestic roles so I'm not sure why this is an issue.

So instead of saying that they are not entitled to 'sex-change' related medical services as part of their medical benefits for being enlisted, they are banned?

People with big noses should then be banned too... they might want a nose job.

Oh, and no more religious people either... they might want a circumcision if they decide to have a Jewish religion-change.

 

[Malintent]

U think Don Jr is a tranny? He's awfully effeminate.

I noticed that too, and decided that was why we practically never hear him speak. I think that is very intentional... Trump finds his 'faggot voice' problematic towards the image he wishes to ooze.

 

[LordKiran]

Keeping trans people out of the military makes a certain kind of sense if they're pre-op. Pre-op trans people (And even post op ones to an extent) have some specific medical requirements that may be hard to meet when in field. That said there are plenty of non combat and domestic roles so I'm not sure why this is an issue.

So instead of saying that they are not entitled to 'sex-change' related medical services as part of their medical benefits for being enlisted, they are banned?

People with big noses should then be banned too... they might want a nose job.

Oh, and no more religious people either... they might want a circumcision if they decide to have a Jewish religion-change.

Please it's hardly the same thing.

even then, Ravensky said this:

Moreover, the AMA passed a resolution in 2015 that there is no medical reason transgender people cannot serve in the military. From a legal standpoint, what basis could the military enforce that fucking asshole's verbal vomit even if they wanted to?

I'm willing to take her word for it, so moot argument at this point.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

All this stuff is, I think, irrelevant. Homosexuality was long seen to be a bar, for instance, yet homosexual soldiers have been some of the best in history - take the Theban Sacred Band, who finally put paid to the Spartans who, I think, tended to have similar tastes. If there really were Amazons (and there are serious arguments) they would also be important in terms of opinion versus sense.

No, it's not irrelevant. It's an attempt to shift the conversation away from the Russia investigations by attacking an unpopular outgroup. That's very relevant.

 

[Shadowy Man]

You know what's more disruptive to the military? Sexual assault. Why doesn't our President spend some time working on *that* problem?

I guess he'd just say something like "if you ladies can't deal with it then go be kindergarten teachers."

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Problematic as a group?

Oh, yeah. The problems increase with population as a logarithmic curve.

Agreed. Naval Academy Officers are absolute shit.

aa