Military to Trump: we won’t ban transgender service members just because you tweeted about it

[Deborah]

Military to Trump: we won't ban transgender service members just because you tweeted about it

By: German Lopez @ Vox

http://tinyurl.com/y7reqoys

. . . the US Joint Chiefs of Staff have told the military that there will be no change in trans policy until they receive official guidance from the president.

In simple terms, the Joint Chiefs are saying that the US military will not set policies based on the tweets of the president — and will instead require a formal memo or order to actually do what Trump wants.
——————————————————————

The real professionals have spoken.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

[WolfNightV4X1]

I sort of agree in certain aspects, I made a post on other sites asking questions out of curiosity and playing the devil's advocate card.

The bottom line is I do believe the ban is discrimination in and of itself, and a way to spotlight issues where there previously was not any, such a the bathroom laws.


However, I do/did believe some form of exclusion of transgender people was warranted, not because they are trans, but the medical costs which are involved do not mean some trans people can serve. Every transgender person is different so I don't think total exclusion is okay, some trans people don't seek to transition some physical aspects, some trans people are post op. For those that aren't, I think most people are aware of the demands and stress of the military, the ones who regularly need medication will simply not join because during enlisting they're always on the move, and resources are not going to be accessible at the exact time you need them

I see banning transgender people the same way as banning people with other medical conditions in need of persistent care, like diabetes. If people with diabetes cannot enlist, so should /some/ trans people, as part of health and safety regulation. But do they enlist people with diabetes and provide medical services? If they do then not providing medical care for transgender people would be discrimination.


I like that you people in this thread pointed out the viagra expenses, that answers my question on whether or not the military already paid for medical expenses of their military in some way.


Not only that, but I think people are afraid of how many trans people will join and significantly boost the cost, as it stands the transgender population is about 0.6% in the US (I think, regarding strictly binary folk who seek some form of HRT or SRS), of those not all transgender people will join the military, some will use their heads and not join knowing their own medical limitations.



Overall, it's a hyperinflated issue over some concern that can easily be addressed if you think about it. The overall ban without any form of thought to the specific situations or individuals IS a direct act of discrimination no matter how you look it

[Tessa James]

I am a decorated Vietnam veteran and have the battle stars and scars to show for it.  I volunteered as an 17 yo kid while trump got deferrals for a "foot thing".  This is a disgusting and dangerous insult to all who have served and continue to volunteer.  We have always served and always will.

I await the spin and denials from the trump sycophants to follow.  Yuk!

[itsApril]

However, I do/did believe some form of exclusion of transgender people was warranted, not because they are trans, but the medical costs which are involved do not mean some trans people can serve.

* * *

I see banning transgender people the same way as banning people with other medical conditions in need of persistent care, like diabetes. If people with diabetes cannot enlist, so should /some/ trans people, as part of health and safety regulation. But do they enlist people with diabetes and provide medical services? If they do then not providing medical care for transgender people would be discrimination.

As you might expect, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have studied all aspects of the transgender policy in detail over several years.  There have been several studies related to projected medical costs.  The best study indicated that medical costs of allowing transgender people to serve would increase the already large military medical budget (after all, the military already needs to provide comprehensive medical care to service people on a world-wide basis) by approximately eight tenths of one percent.  The principal expenditure is hormones, which are cheap in the overall scheme of medical costs.

In government finance terms, the cost of transgender medical care is essentially equivalent to a rounding error in budgetary matters.  A small price to pay if it means the military can recruit or retain thousands of qualified candidates.

With respect to your other point of comparison to diabetes, diabetes is a chronic condition that often undermines the health and fitness of those with the condition.  Diabetes exists at all levels of severity, from minor to severe to disabling to fatal.  Many people with mild cases of diabetes are able to control the condition (sometimes even without medication) through simple regimens of diet and exercise.  Yes, there are military members with diabetes.  To join or remain in the services, they must meet the same standards of physical fitness that all other members meet.

The same is true of the military initiative to allow transgender people to serve openly.  Trans candidates who want to join or remain in the services will have to meet the same physical standards as all others.

Remember, we're talking about the right to serve OPENLY, not to serve.  The fact is that trans people have served throughout the entire history of the US armed services.  The VA can tell you that there are tens of thousands of trans veterans on its rolls.

Trump's Twitter outburst doesn't have anything to do with money or concerns over readiness/fitness.  Trump's tweets are all about dog-whistling to the bigotry of his base supporters to deflect attention from the failures of his political leadership (deepening Russia investigation, failure to enact major legislation, inability to fill hundreds of senior government positions, etc.)

Trump doesn't really understand and doesn't care how the military (or the government more broadly) works.  As his crazy tweets show, he would like to be able to rule by decree rather than follow the norms of Constitutional government.

[SadieBlake]

@deborah, you beat me to it, from http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/27/trump-transgender-military-ban-no-modification-241029

There will be "no modifications" to the military's transgender policy as a result of President Donald Trump's declared ban on transgender men and women on Twitter, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs said in a message to top military officers on Thursday -- the latest sign of the disarray following the commander-in-chief's abrupt announcement.

Marine Gen. Joe Dunford also wrote in the message, which was sent to the chiefs of the military branches and senior enlisted leaders, that the military will continue to "treat all of our personnel with respect."

"I know there are questions about yesterday's announcement on the transgender policy by the President," Dunford wrote in the internal communication, a copy of which was provided to POLITICO. "There will be no modifications to the current policy until the President's direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidance."

"In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect. As importantly, given the current fight and the challenges we face, we will all remain focused on accomplishing our assigned missions," he continued.
....

"The Department will continue to focus on our mission of defending our nation and on-going operations against our foes, while ensuring all servicemembers are treated with respect," she added.

The Pentagon's position underscored how the military, like legal experts, does not consider the president's social media pronouncements policy.

In an appearance at the National Press Club, Gen. Mark Milley, the Army chief of staff, also said later Thursday that Dunford is "exactly right" and that the military will work through new guidance when it gets a formal directive from the White House through normal channels.

"We grow up and learn to obey the chain of command, and my chain of command is secretary of the Army, secretary of Defense and the president," Milley said. "We will work through the implementation guidance when we get it...To my knowledge, the Department of Defense, Secretary Mattis has not received written directives yet."

Milley also doubled down on Dunford's message that every service member – "bar none" – should and will always be treated with dignity and respect.

Only a formal directive through the chain of command would lead to a real policy change, said Tobias Wolff, a professor at University of Pennsylvania Law School.

[Deborah]

I imagine that Twitler is steaming mad that the Generals are blowing him off.  Tweets to follow shortly.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

[AnneK]

I imagine that Twitler is steaming mad that the Generals are blowing him off.  Tweets to follow shortly.

I doubt a tweet from a twit would constitute a lawful order.

[SammyGirl]

The most frustrating thing about this for me is the fact I am a veteran and although I am not 'out' yet I am extremely upset about this latest slap in face.  The galling thing about it is that I can't tell anybody why.  Hiding this side of myself is just so taxing as many of you may agree with me.

[bubbles21]

Absolutely love this response 

As you might expect, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have studied all aspects of the transgender policy in detail over several years.  There have been several studies related to projected medical costs.  The best study indicated that medical costs of allowing transgender people to serve would increase the already large military medical budget (after all, the military already needs to provide comprehensive medical care to service people on a world-wide basis) by approximately eight tenths of one percent.  The principal expenditure is hormones, which are cheap in the overall scheme of medical costs.

In government finance terms, the cost of transgender medical care is essentially equivalent to a rounding error in budgetary matters.  A small price to pay if it means the military can recruit or retain thousands of qualified candidates.

With respect to your other point of comparison to diabetes, diabetes is a chronic condition that often undermines the health and fitness of those with the condition.  Diabetes exists at all levels of severity, from minor to severe to disabling to fatal.  Many people with mild cases of diabetes are able to control the condition (sometimes even without medication) through simple regimens of diet and exercise.  Yes, there are military members with diabetes.  To join or remain in the services, they must meet the same standards of physical fitness that all other members meet.

The same is true of the military initiative to allow transgender people to serve openly.  Trans candidates who want to join or remain in the services will have to meet the same physical standards as all others.

Remember, we're talking about the right to serve OPENLY, not to serve.  The fact is that trans people have served throughout the entire history of the US armed services.  The VA can tell you that there are tens of thousands of trans veterans on its rolls.

Trump's Twitter outburst doesn't have anything to do with money or concerns over readiness/fitness.  Trump's tweets are all about dog-whistling to the bigotry of his base supporters to deflect attention from the failures of his political leadership (deepening Russia investigation, failure to enact major legislation, inability to fill hundreds of senior government positions, etc.)

Trump doesn't really understand and doesn't care how the military (or the government more broadly) works.  As his crazy tweets show, he would like to be able to rule by decree rather than follow the norms of Constitutional government.

[stephaniec]

Whitehouse admits Trump hasn't worked out details of transgender ban

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/07/28/white-house-admits-trump-hasnt-worked-out-details-of-transgender-ban/

Pink News/ by Nick Duffy   07/28/2017

[Deborah]

"Diversity is a strength": a retired admiral tweets against Trump's proposed trans ban
http://tinyurl.com/y7yt6gkg

This is a must read.  The best was the last tweet sent to one of Trumpelstilskin's staff, Sebastian Gorka.

Unless you're willing to wear U.S. uniform, suggest you leave decisions about what's best for troops to those who know what they're doing.

Woooohooooo


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

[Valkyrie_2]

When I had a twitter account I found most of the tweeting was pretty pointless. There were no actual conversations, just people and bots spouting stuff that nobody ever read.

I find it rather sad that the president would waste his time mouthing off on twitter. It's a medium for foul mouthed school kids.

I have no idea why my account got closed/banned/suspended - nobody ever told me. All I had was a note referring to a terms of service document I can't be bothered to read and no indication of a violation.

Personally, I wouldn't read too much into anything that gets spouted on twitter. It's like peeing into the wind.

Interestingly, Bloomberg had an article on Twitter. Seems Twitter can't get advertisers to buy space. Not surprised there. It also seems twitter has lost a billion dollars over the last decade and never made a profit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Janes Groove]

When I had a twitter account I found most of the tweeting was pretty pointless. There were no actual conversations, just people and bots spouting stuff that nobody ever read.

I find it rather sad that the president would waste his time mouthing off on twitter. It's a medium for foul mouthed school kids.

I have no idea why my account got closed/banned/suspended - nobody ever told me. All I had was a note referring to a terms of service document I can't be bothered to read and no indication of a violation.

Personally, I wouldn't read too much into anything that gets spouted on twitter. It's like peeing into the wind.

Interestingly, Bloomberg had an article on Twitter. Seems Twitter can't get advertisers to buy space. Not surprised there. It also seems twitter has lost a billion dollars over the last decade and never made a profit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I hate to go off topic but I disagree.  Twitter has had it's problems with advertisers but it helped get a President elected and that's a fact.

Also, it is becoming a credible competitor to Google.  While Google directs you to news  where their algorithm wants you to go, Twitter will give you a much wider environment of alternatives of search results and a more up to the minute news source than anything else out their.

It's pretty deeply embedded into the fabric of the interwebs and is here to stay.

[SadieBlake]

Veering well off topic but what both Facebook and Twitter excel at is capturing attention and that's fundamentally their business model. Of course that's another way of saying wasting people's time.

Yes they're both for now ubiquitous. Given that it's dubious whether they actually add any value, I'm not so sure about their long term viability.

[Deborah]

Regardless of what Twitter is or isn't, in this case they made very public an Admiral putting a chicken hawk in his well deserved place.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

[Valkyrie_2]

I hate to go off topic but I disagree.  Twitter has had it's problems with advertisers but it helped get a President elected and that's a fact.

Also, it is becoming a credible competitor to Google.  While Google directs you to news  where their algorithm wants you to go, Twitter will give you a much wider environment of alternatives of search results and a more up to the minute news source than anything else out their.

It's pretty deeply embedded into the fabric of the interwebs and is here to stay.

It's not Twitter that got him elected; it was his use of social media. All the successful leaders have used social media to their advantage. Hitler used film - The Eternal Jew - for example. Lincoln used the telegraph. Maddison probably used runners.

I agree though that the long term future of such beasts as Facebook and twitter are questionable. I gave up on Facebook almost 10 years ago. Twitter I kept trying but never had any success then my account got locked/whatever. I think I missed having an active Twitter account for all of about twenty seconds.

I just don't find social media to be all that friendly. It's more anti social than social. Put up a female sounding account and all the horn dogs descend on it. Put up an account as a flower pot and that'll get closed as a fake account. Put up an account as a guy and you'll get called on everything you said 200 years ago.

Let's just say (dragging it back on topic) that I don't have any high regard for anything posted on social media. It is, in my opinion, graffiti sprayed on a brick wall.

I kept reading in the uk press some years ago (when I lived in the uk) about things that went on in some fake online world and how various businesses and media organizations had set up imaginary premises there. Then they would report all this online garbage in the newspapers. I can't remember which fake online world it was but it all seemed both very time wasting and very scary that journalists etc couldn't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

For me, anything said on twitter, Facebook etc is fake until proven otherwise.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RobynD]

I saw a rumor posted some place today that the WH is preparing actual orders to dismiss about 13-15K trans people that are in the armed services. All to appease cultural troglodytes, as the current administration is failing in all other ways.

We'll see if it occurs.

[Raell]

The military spends 10 times the money on Viagra that it does on transgender issues.

The military spends more on giving retirees erections than on transgender troops http://www.armytimes.com/news/2017/07/26/the-military-spends-more-on-giving-retirees-erections-than-on-transgender-troops/#.WYfQcnB7kUw.twitter

[AnneK]

I saw a rumor posted some place today that the WH is preparing actual orders to dismiss about 13-15K trans people that are in the armed services. All to appease cultural troglodytes, as the current administration is failing in all other ways.

We'll see if it occurs.

Here's a different take on what's happening:
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/08/06/trump-administration-deals-with-presidential-demands-by-ignoring-them.html

he president triggered an avalanche of attention with a headline-grabbing announcement on Twitter: After consulting with his generals and military experts, the president said, the U.S. military would no longer accept or allow transgender people.

The blunt, clear statement prompted questions about what procedures might be implemented; what would happen to the transgender people already serving; what financial conditions might apply to any discharges; and whether the order might be fought in court.

But then a considerable wrinkle developed: The military said it wasn't happening.

[SailorMars1994]

See my  American friends. I, and most people around the country warned you this would happen. Trump, is a do whatever it takes to ''win'' type of guy. He sucsessfully fed the ignoance of the masses with low key racism and at times, blantent racism. However, he has also got comfy and his biggest support from super evangelical Christians. Not your regular good folk who want to live like Jesus and be wholesome and go to church every sunday. Nah, not those folks. But rather then hard core right that use religon to excuse their bigotry (and in 2017, that is getting old). The, who I strongly think are what we call in the closet gays like Matt Barber or Peter Labarbera. To the Falwell family no doubt, Huckabee, Rick Perry and many others. Trump wants to keep them happy to, because for whatever reason those folks think we some how ''took'' something away from them. Out of every name I used, only Rick Perry served in the military. The rest are the largest chicken hawks you can think of.

Trump is not a seasoned poltician. He doesnt have the intellect to know whats smart or good.

America, you practially elected Homer Simpson. A few powerfully persausive people can lead this guy anywhere if they basically give him a donut and talk to him in simple, slow but manipulative ways. This is what bugs me about people who said, and especally still say that he and Hilary were practially the same. No, Hiliary would not have kicked us folk out of the military, nor would she pander to some of the most hateful voices and had she been elected, then the Supreme Court would have been in a forward thinking direction. If something happens to Ruth Bader Ginsburg (death, resingnation, ect) when Trump is in power and the GOP still has the Senate then you can probably kiss any rights good bye for decades. This isnt a joke, things could get very ugly.