Re: Donald Trump's First 100 Days as President
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GreatWhiteNorthRaven
This transgender ban is just terrible. He quoted the costs, but that's already been debunked:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...udget-pentagon
Listen, I will say that there are some logistical considerations. For example, if someone is enlisting and planning to have surgery they should wait till after to join so there's no disruption to service.
There's only 15,000 transgender persons in the military that add between 2.4 - 8.4M in healthcare costs to a budget that is enormous.
You have to look at the cost/benefit. The cost of stigmatizing a popuation he said he'd protect doesn't seem worth the money saved for a small proportion of the military population.
What od you guys think?
I honestly think he's trying to draw attention away from Russia. He did something so outrageous we'd be talking about it.
As for the ban itself, it is dumb. He's just making up a half baked excuse to justify it. Why on earth would you want to exclude anyone who otherwise would qualify from service from serving in a volunteer military?
That said, is gender identity protected under the equal protection clause in the constitution?
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Re: Donald Trump's First 100 Days as President
Trump sure does know how to make himself look guilty. If he had nothing to hide he wouldn't care that Sessions recused himself. Sounds like theres something fishing that he doesn't want Mueller to see, even if its not collusion. Maybe something in his taxes.
Re: Donald Trump's First 100 Days as President
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ortizer
I honestly think he's trying to draw attention away from Russia. He did something so outrageous we'd be talking about it.
As for the ban itself, it is dumb. He's just making up a half baked excuse to justify it. Why on earth would you want to exclude anyone who otherwise would qualify from service from serving in a volunteer military?
That said, is gender identity protected under the equal protection clause in the constitution?
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
I don't get it. The number of transgender serving + the costs just don't justify what it does to the LGBTQ2 community.
Re: Donald Trump's First 100 Days as President
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GreatWhiteNorthRaven
I don't get it. The number of transgender serving + the costs just don't justify what it does to the LGBTQ2 community.
It's smoke and mirrors man. He's doing something that is going to alienate an entire group and has no benefit just to make people talk about something that isn't Russia.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Re: Donald Trump's First 100 Days as President
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GreatWhiteNorthRaven
I don't get it. The number of transgender serving + the costs just don't justify what it does to the LGBTQ2 community.
If you polled most of the US military, you'd find that a majority of them weren't really thrilled about the idea of transgendered folks serving alongside of them.
In the military, you are entitled to 2 elected surgeries. The caveat is that you have to see a psychologist first so they can determine whether or not the surgery is warranted. For example, I know a girl that had a breast reduction while active duty. Now, according to her, it wasn't because they were impacting her physical health, but they were big and she was having a hard time making weight. So, getting a breast reduction dropped like 15lbs of bodyweight. She told the psychologist that she was getting harassed and it caused depression and anxiety because of the size of them (and I can understand how she was probably being harassed...good looking girl...huge tata's...in the Navy...you see where I'm going).
Anyway, there is the potential that a guy who wants to identify as a woman can potentially get the military to pay for transgender surgery and all of the psychological aspects that go along with it. Whether or not that cost is super high or not, it's probably something that the military shouldn't be paying for. Frankly, I don't think the military should pay for any elected surgery. So, hopefully they do away with it altogether.
The big issue is that what's to stop a guy from claiming to be transgendered, identify as a woman, and then be held to female standards for physical assessment tests? Or, on the other side of the coin, the transgendered woman that identifies as a man...now she has to be held to male standards, which are by and large, much more difficult than female standards.
The common argument there is to make the same standards across the board for both men and women.
Ok, well then you're potentially watering down the US military by making it incredibly easy for anyone OR you're making it impossible for most women to join. Facts are facts and most women are physically unable to do the same things as men in terms of running, push ups, pull ups, ruck hikes, etc. That's why there are different standards. Do we really want that? I dont want a watered down version of the military and I definitely don't want to exclude women from the military either, so it's a tough line to walk.
By allowing transgendered military members, you're basically asking the entire Department of Defense to completely re-do all of their standards, which will take A LOT of time and A LOT of money because it's not just as simple as saying the standard will now be X. They have to have lots of different components chime in on standards and it has to be something that the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard all agree on. It's a huge HUGE YUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEE undertaking.
Re: Donald Trump's First 100 Days as President
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wickedsolo
The common argument there is to make the same standards across the board for both men and women.
and that takes about 30 seconds to write... so whats the problem?
these fitness tests are for minimum ability necessary to get the job done. theres no punishment for exceeding them is there? Set them so theyre at the minimum required to do the job. Not all women will be able to do it, but thats equality. if its set at the minimum to be able to carry out the basic duties of their job than youd still have plenty of women able to carry full pack, jog, etc.
equality is about treating people the same, not lowering standards.
Re: Donald Trump's First 100 Days as President
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ortizer
I honestly think he's trying to draw attention away from Russia. He did something so outrageous we'd be talking about it.
As for the ban itself, it is dumb. He's just making up a half baked excuse to justify it. Why on earth would you want to exclude anyone who otherwise would qualify from service from serving in a volunteer military?
That said, is gender identity protected under the equal protection clause in the constitution?
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
The military excludes people all the time. My neighbors son just let go from the Coast Guard because he stutters, they said he never should have been let in.
I'm not saying I'm for or against what Trump is doing(I really don't have much of an opinion do to limited knowledge) just this is not the first nor the last time they've excluded someone.
Re: Donald Trump's First 100 Days as President
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JAB1985
and that takes about 30 seconds to write... so whats the problem?
these fitness tests are for minimum ability necessary to get the job done. theres no punishment for exceeding them is there? Set them so theyre at the minimum required to do the job. Not all women will be able to do it, but thats equality. if its set at the minimum to be able to carry out the basic duties of their job than youd still have plenty of women able to carry full pack, jog, etc.
equality is about treating people the same, not lowering standards.
Have you ever been in the military?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Donald Trump's First 100 Days as President
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JAB1985
and that takes about 30 seconds to write... so whats the problem?
these fitness tests are for minimum ability necessary to get the job done. theres no punishment for exceeding them is there? Set them so theyre at the minimum required to do the job. Not all women will be able to do it, but thats equality. if its set at the minimum to be able to carry out the basic duties of their job than youd still have plenty of women able to carry full pack, jog, etc.
equality is about treating people the same, not lowering standards.
Couldn't have said it better myself. In any changing context the phsyical requirements should not change. The difference is that Trump is saying they don't even get the chance to acheive those standards. Disallowing someone to even try and them failing are two completely different things.
Wicked - I do respect your opinion because I knwo you served. I didn't and I will acknowledge that I am weak in terms of experiential knwoeldge on this topic.
However, there are policy options to mitigate things that you described that are a significantly better alternative to an outright ban - specifically speaking to your second paragraph.
The LGBTQ2 community has fought very hard for equality. This is a leader of the country saying they're not worthy to serve their country. Again, I haven't seen a piece of the other side that outweighs the impact that can have.
I feel so terribly bad for anyone transgendered that has to deal with the increased stigma due to this decision. It's a massive step backwards that's coming from a guy that pledged he'd support them.
Re: Donald Trump's First 100 Days as President
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wickedsolo
Have you ever been in the military?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I dont understand - where is he wrong? He's saying you wouldn't have to change standards to ensure equality.
What I was saying in my post is that those standards should not change and if someone fails to meet them than that's their issue. Disallowing them to even try (if the argument is in re: to standards to enlist/be apart) does not change that.
Donald Trump's First 100 Days as President
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GreatWhiteNorthRaven
I dont understand - where is he wrong? He's saying you wouldn't have to change standards to ensure equality.
What I was saying in my post is that those standards should not change and if someone fails to meet them than that's their issue. Disallowing them to even try (if the argument is in re: to standards to enlist/be apart) does not change that.
My point is that nothing takes just 30 seconds in the military. Nothing. Especially what you're lobbying for.
Anyone that has served in the military knows that.
And you absolutely would have to change standards. If you have a naturally born man that now identifies as a woman and wants to be treated like a woman and held to those standards, how is that "equal"? He's still physically a guy capable of male standards...that's the trouble.
The military would have to completely overhaul their entire assessment process.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Donald Trump's First 100 Days as President
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JAB1985
and that takes about 30 seconds to write... so whats the problem?
these fitness tests are for minimum ability necessary to get the job done. theres no punishment for exceeding them is there? Set them so theyre at the minimum required to do the job. Not all women will be able to do it, but thats equality. if its set at the minimum to be able to carry out the basic duties of their job than youd still have plenty of women able to carry full pack, jog, etc.
equality is about treating people the same, not lowering standards.
Serious question. A man who is or wants to be woman, which test do they take?
