Well
Looks like he did it. Signed it today. We are not aloud to serve, they are not paying for care of active members and looking for reasons to kick them out.... so messed up
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/08/25/politics/trump-transgender-military/index.html
To the Sisters (mtf) and Brothers (ftm) currently in active duty, and to the ones who have served, from the bottom of my heart: Thank you.
You have served valiantly and selflessly in the face of opposition of those you protect. If that's not courage, I don't know what is.
Fight on!
We are here to stay, that clown isn't.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
I didn't know the military did pay for all the care of active members. That was their main excuse though for kicking trans people out, wasn't it.
Quote from: Viktor on August 25, 2017, 06:57:01 PM
I didn't know the military did pay for all the care of active members. That was their main excuse though for kicking trans people out, wasn't it.
That was the excuse. The real reason was to make his Christian base happy. Everyone else in the country hates him anyway.
The military health care system pays for active duty military and their families and all retired service members. What hasn't been said so far is what will happen to the health care for family members and retired service members.
My inclination today is to burn a flag and scream loudly. Probably fortunately for me I don't have one.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To be honest, looking at the cost of transition in the US when I first joined this site I was shocked at how expensive it could be. I genuinely wonder where and how people raise the money to pay for it sometimes.
So if the military don't want to pay for that, I can sort of see their point. Would they normally recruit individuals with expensive medical conditions? I mean if they do, routinely, recruit people they have to pay the medical expenses of, then that's clear discrimination against trans people. But if they have a general policy of not accepting anyone on the basis of it, then I guess that's that. (Would the military accept a non-trans person enlisting who was scheduled to have say, several medium-risk surgeries in the future, for example? or someone on medication for life?)
I don't know about their policies though. I would consider being trans and going for surgeries and so on quite a burden on the trans person, and therefore possibly the military they are serving in. But if they are already transitioned and serving, I see far less of a reason to exclude a serving transperson.
In some ways I see potential problems with the costs and the recovery time for some trans people. For those without those issues, it's clearly quite unfair they should be dismissed like this. I can see why people are angry.
That said, I've considered working for companies before abroad and they had some very strict health regulations; they refused to take anyone with anything they considered costly in the medical department - mandatory chest x-rays and all to make sure you weren't carrying anything debilitating. I figure they just didn't want to be concerned with an employee's medical issues becoming their own. I don't necessarily agree with it or find it fair, but I understand it from their financial perspective.
The cost argument is a total red herring. If they bought a couple fewer gold-plated hammers, it would cover it. For a less facetious example, the upper estimate for trans health care, including surgeries, is a small fraction of what they are paying for Viagra for male members. So forget cost. It isn't an issue.
I can see an argument for operational readiness. If serving members need regular medication, that could be a problem in combat if the supply is interrupted. However, the consequences if a member's hormone supply is interrupted, though unpleasant, are not as life-threatening as if another member's insulin supply was cut off.
So there really isn't a good argument for banning trans members. The real reason is to ensure political support from his only remaining consituency.
To add to that I imagine the intake of trans people compared to cis is very small.
I can't fathom why the military would pay for viagra for its members. Last I checked, erections were not necessary for combat. . . how bizarre. But it looks like the UK military also dish them out. I had no idea they cared about the troops' sex lives.
Quote from: Viktor on August 25, 2017, 06:57:01 PM
I didn't know the military did pay for all the care of active members. That was their main excuse though for kicking trans people out, wasn't it.
That was
Trump's excuse, not the military's. Add to that his pardon of that sheriff that defied court orders and you have even more evidence about how unfit he is to be president. He's trying to run the country according to his own personal bigotry.
:police: Let be careful here. This subject could easier stray into a violation of our TOS and we do not want that.
Discussion of controversial subject is fine but let us keep it within the rules :police:
Thank you,
Laurie
I feel bad for those currently serving. On the other hand if you didn't want to serve and you are of draft age, new loophole:) come on, silver linings people, can't be angry all the time:)
I feel terrible for those who serve and are not supported by our president. Banning a segment of society from serving is discriminatory. Next it may be a certain religious group.
I have nothing good to say about what actions the president has done to date. This is another example of what I consider a poor leadership decision and discriminatory behavior.
I think this meets the TOS, if not please delete.
Stick a fork in him, he's done. The SoCons aren't big enough of a constituency to matter by themselves. As much as this hurts, the gop is driving over a cliff.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I read an article in the Washington post claiming that training up the replacement for the few transgender troops costs 960 million. That is about 100 years of the expected health care cost for the currently serving transgender.
Not sure this is a great deal.
Quote from: KathyLauren on August 25, 2017, 07:37:32 PM
The cost argument is a total red herring. If they bought a couple fewer gold-plated hammers, it would cover it. For a less facetious example, the upper estimate for trans health care, including surgeries, is a small fraction of what they are paying for Viagra for male members. So forget cost. It isn't an issue.
I can see an argument for operational readiness. If serving members need regular medication, that could be a problem in combat if the supply is interrupted. However, the consequences if a member's hormone supply is interrupted, though unpleasant, are not as life-threatening as if another member's insulin supply was cut off.
So there really isn't a good argument for banning trans members. The real reason is to ensure political support from his only remaining consituency.
There are also several academy graduates that were refused commissions. The taxpayer cost for training each of them was $250,000.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just wonder how long it will be before he says gays can't serve in the military either.
C'mon. You know it's coming now.
Quote from: Gertrude on August 25, 2017, 08:45:07 PMThe SoCons aren't big enough of a constituency to matter by themselves. As much as this hurts, the gop is driving over a cliff.
I know some Republicans who abhor the social conservative wing of the party. I cannot verify if the social conservatives the majority of the party. My hope is that they are small in number but just loud. With a bit of luck, those social conservatives can take that bus and split off with their own narrow minded bigots.
Maybe a reformed Republican party may able to succeed using the idea that government is supposed to be responsive to the majority by building bridges and opening a big tent with the goal of responsible use of hard earned taxes.
Honestly, I feel like quite a mess emotionally and am glad the military wouldn't want me. I really don't think I would make a good soldier.
Quote from: MistressStevie on August 25, 2017, 09:22:05 PM
I know some Republicans who abhor the social conservative wing of the party. I cannot verify if the social conservatives the majority of the party. My hope is that they are small in number but just loud. With a bit of luck, those social conservatives can take that bus and split off with their own narrow minded bigots.
Maybe a reformed Republican party may able to succeed using the idea that government is supposed to be responsive to the majority by building bridges and opening a big tent with the goal of responsible use of hard earned taxes.
I hope you are right. I read about the Republican Party before it went so far right on social issues, the GOP pre-1968... I like that Republican Party, bring it back!!!!!!!
Quote from: Janes Groove on August 25, 2017, 09:21:07 PM
I just wonder how long it will be before he says gays can't serve in the military either.
C'mon. You know it's coming now.
And women. Too distracting to the real soldiers...
QuoteHonestly, I feel like quite a mess emotionally and am glad the military Trump wouldn't want me. I really don't think I would make a good soldier.
Quote from: SailorMars1994 on August 25, 2017, 09:28:59 PM
I hope you are right. I read about the Republican Party before it went so far right on social issues, the GOP pre-1968... I like that Republican Party, bring it back!!!!!!!
They started going off the rails with Nixon, even without Watergate.
Quote from: AnneK on August 25, 2017, 09:39:18 PM
They started going off the rails with Nixon, even without Watergate.
The Democrats have had their own excursions into religious morality as platform. There
was a study one time graphing references to G_d in national platforms. It amazed how much
the counts went back an forth. With luck it is time to swing the other way!
The current system is electing representatives rewards the extremes in the primary process.
I often wonder if top two or top three run offs would serve to elect representatives more
representative of their entire district.
According to a forbes article I found, the military cost of trans health care spending is roughly 1% of 1% or ~0.01% of the military budget... so yeah.
Quote from: Deborah on August 25, 2017, 07:07:43 PM
My inclination today is to burn a flag and scream loudly. Probably fortunately for me I don't have one.
I'm right there with you sis, after arguing with people of our town, I think it will be a confederate one though, for good measure I'll toss in a Nazi flag. I'm about fed up with people complaining about their rights being trampled on, whilst they skip along everyone else's.
Grrrr!
To everyone impacted by this, I'm sorry, this is horrible.
Locked.
Descended in to bashing and insults.