• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Pentagon to Allow Transgender Individuals to Enlist Despite Trump Objections

I don't get the cynicism. Isn't it generally considered a good thing when someone is prepared to give their life to serve and protect their nation? Shouldn't that be praised, rather than picking on their gender status?
 
CFC said:
I don't get the cynicism. Isn't it generally considered a good thing when someone is prepared to give their life to serve and protect their nation? Shouldn't that be praised, rather than picking on their gender status?
Click to expand...

No, wasting your life to go and fight in pointless wars for the pleasure of other people should never be praised. I'm glad those poor trans people don't have to suffer that kind of degradation.
 
CFC said:
I don't get the cynicism. Isn't it generally considered a good thing when someone is prepared to give their life to serve and protect their nation? Shouldn't that be praised, rather than picking on their gender status?
Click to expand...

I think the big thing is that folks don't want people gaming the system for what they consider to be elective surgery. The initial surgery at around 50k and the follow up therapy being costly, many see the tax payer as being on the hook for what they consider to be a 'mental disorder'. Also many want our military to be perceived as battle ready and having great strength. I think there are legitimate concerns about having someone that just had a major organ on their body altered/cut off, and being on Brain altering hormone therapy, of which our understanding is relatively in it infancy, as far as the clinical studies go in current year. If I'm on the front line I'd be the first to admit I want the strongest possible people around me to help preserve health and lives. The military isn't somewhere that social experiments should play out, let it be the one place PC culture takes a back seat to logic and safety.
 
^ Ok I'm probably missing something here. Are you saying they use the military to pay for their surgery after joining up for service??
 
CFC said:
^ Ok I'm probably missing something here. Are you saying they use the military to pay for their surgery after joining up for service??
Click to expand...

Yep that's a major gripe. It is fully covered, some right wing website posted a link to a transgender message board where they walked folks through how to get the surgery paid for by the military which caused the big uproar. And the military is on the hook for all subsequent visits after the initial surgery.
 
droppers, how many cases of reassignment surgery has the u.s. military paid for? thanks.

note that, when trump issued his transgender ban he also directed the secretary of defense to "halt the use of federal funds to pay for sexual reassignment surgeries and medications, except in cases where it is deemed necessary to protect the health of an individual who has already begun the transition" which is what happened in the case which was widely reported in november 2017.

alasdair
 
Droppersneck said:
I think the big thing is that folks don't want people gaming the system for what they consider to be elective surgery. The initial surgery at around 50k and the follow up therapy being costly, many see the tax payer as being on the hook for what they consider to be a 'mental disorder'. Also many want our military to be perceived as battle ready and having great strength. I think there are legitimate concerns about having someone that just had a major organ on their body altered/cut off, and being on Brain altering hormone therapy, of which our understanding is relatively in it infancy, as far as the clinical studies go in current year. If I'm on the front line I'd be the first to admit I want the strongest possible people around me to help preserve health and lives. The military isn't somewhere that social experiments should play out, let it be the one place PC culture takes a back seat to logic and safety.
Click to expand...

There's so few transgender people, droppers. It's not a real cost-saving technique. Lowering the military/defense part of the budget would be.

Replacing a leg is costly, too, maybe they should just hand out more wheel chairs :\ seriously, though? Is that your line of thinking?

p.s. "Costly to the taxpayers" 1.5 trillion addition to the deficit? The entire Republican party (other than possibly Corker?) and Trump don't care the cost to the taxpayers, not one bit!
 
Yeah CFC that's how most people see it here. I think if the government wasn't on the hook and there were restrictions on them participating in front line battle positions, it would be a non issue. That's just my opinion though, there are plenty of bigoted people out there that maybe just don't want to see them accepted into the military, just because.
 
Cream Gravy? said:
The military doesn't want the troops to get confused about their sexuality 8)
Click to expand...

Not an issue since don't ask don't tell was repealed. As an nco i can confirn the official stance on sexuality is "keep it to yourself, we don't give a shit who you bang in your free time". Tho i have been out for a few years now, but i doubt that's changed.

Captain.Heroin said:
Fighting in the war is not the primary reason people join the military. They want financial/educational/career opportunities that otherwise would not be opened to them.
Click to expand...

Can confirm, at least pre-9/11. For a few years after that people did sign up to go fight the wars, but that's not the case anymore. Deployments are cool and all and I'm glad i got my CIB but i sure as shit didn't sign up to go to a war zone. Being eager to kill people will disqualify you from service btw.
 
Last edited:
Droppersneck said:
I think the big thing is that folks don't want people gaming the system for what they consider to be elective surgery. The initial surgery at around 50k and the follow up therapy being costly, many see the tax payer as being on the hook for what they consider to be a 'mental disorder'. Also many want our military to be perceived as battle ready and having great strength. I think there are legitimate concerns about having someone that just had a major organ on their body altered/cut off, and being on Brain altering hormone therapy, of which our understanding is relatively in it infancy, as far as the clinical studies go in current year. If I'm on the front line I'd be the first to admit I want the strongest possible people around me to help preserve health and lives. The military isn't somewhere that social experiments should play out, let it be the one place PC culture takes a back seat to logic and safety.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Gaming the system? You're kidding right?

Let's go ahead and assume the figure you posted is genuine, and say that the initial SR Surgery is 50,000 dollars even.

A SINGLE Apache Helicopter costs tax payers 35 MILLION dollars!

That would cover the cost of SRS for over 700 PEOPLE!

A single B-2 Stealth Bomber cost tax payers 737 MILLION dollars!

That would cover the cost of SRS for every transgender person currently serving in the military two times over!



Our Government is throwing away Trillions of dollars on literal Death Machines and here you are getting all worked up over a measly 50k. Are you seriously telling me a single B-2 Stealth Bomber is more deserving of tax payer dollars than directly improving the lives of several thousand people?

Gosh you're pathetic.
 
Ok, so we stop paying for their reassignment surgery. Why does that mean we have to stop them from joining at all? That's the part I don't understand.
 
Droppersneck said:
^ Even 50k is too much. The point is that we don't want people using the military as a way to get their reassignment surgery imo
Click to expand...

You cant sign up for less than an 8 year commitment, typically its 4 active 4 inactive or 6 active 2 inactive for reserves and guard. 50k isn't work worth an 8 year commitment along with the discipline and new skillsets and everything a person picks up to bring back to their community once their term is up? Shit, i know I've cost the government a shitton more than 50k with all the shit i did. The deployment alone was prolly more than 50k.
 
JessFR said:
Ok, so we stop paying for their reassignment surgery. Why does that mean we have to stop them from joining at all? That's the part I don't understand.
Click to expand...
It's about being battle ready. If I'm on the front line or in a combat setting it's unfair for all parties, expecting a dude that just got his Johnson cut off/on a hormone therapy to be able perform under those conditions. Sorry not sorry, I'd be pissed if I got put into that predicament. And I have zero issue with folks being transgender. I think gender dysphoria is a legitmate thing, and I feel for their plight.
tathra said:
You cant sign up for less than an 8 year commitment, typically its 4 active 4 inactive or 6 active 2 inactive for reserves and guard. 50k isn't work worth an 8 year commitment along with the discipline and new skillsets and everything a person picks up to bring back to their community once their term is up? Shit, i know I've cost the government a shitton more than 50k with all the shit i did. The deployment alone was prolly more than 50k.
Click to expand...

Yeah don't act like that continuing care of therapy and hormones isn't pricey as hell. It's not fair to put those costs on the American people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top