What are your thoughts on Transgender and the U.S. Military?
I just cannot settle on a right or wrong here. It seems that morally both sides can be argued. Medical conditions are perfectly OK to exclude some people from some vocations. I wonder if there is a real rational basis for this exclusion. Maybe there is some logic to combat exclusion until it is really no longer an issue like how we slowly implemented being gay in military is OK. But I would really like to hear from others, especially to see if it can be addressed without emotions.
The Archie Bunker crowd can circle the wagons all they want, but they are living in the past. The human being will soon rise up and reclaim this continent. The European will then have to either get with the program or begin the exodus back to Europa. Transgender people are just as qualified to maim, torture, and kill as anyone else. I am a Vietnam Era Veteran and I served 6 years. Some of my friends were homosexual, and I worked with many gay people. While stationed in San Diego my girlfriend had several lesbian friends who were also career military. People who have never served in the military don't realize that there have always been an abundance of homosexuals in the military.
Now, in spite of all of the flag waving and patriotic nonsense that invariably accompanies discussions about the armed forces, the plain truth is that the purpose of the military is ultimately to kill human beings. Regardless of how you slice the onion it will always make you cry. It doesn't matter whether we consider dropping bombs and killing innocent men, women, and children as a matter of self-defense, or a matter of Imperialist aggression, the end result is the same; dead bodies and broken hearts. For six years I was paid by the American taxpayer to help maintain and perpetuate a killing machine. During that time I was also a target for any nation or group hostile to the United States. Furthermore, had I been ordered further into harms way I would have had no choice but to comply.
Now, considering health care for transgenders: Anyone who participates in the military accepts the responsibility of killing and the personal risks involved. As such, the American taxpayer has agreed as a matter of contract to provide servicemen and women with heath care and other lifetime benefits. Being a transgender, just as being a homosexual, is not a personal lifestyle choice. These are conditions people are born with. Some people with this condition know they are transgender before joining the military, whereas others only find out later. But many people who have a history of diabetes and other ailments in their family join the military knowing full well that at some point the American taxpayer will be bound to pay for their medical treatment as they grow older. If we can accept this then I fail to see why we cannot accept treating people who are transgender and who are in need of gender reassignment. This controversy amounts to nothing more than homophobic bigotry.
Interesting insight. EO executive order was signed I believe in 1948. And yet long before that Native Americans were fully integrated. 1993 DADT was implemented. Not until 2011 was the ban lifted for LGBs. A slow history indeed.
Ronnie, I wish I had Read the USC which prohibit our being aggressors & UCMJ with a section between 90 & 93 saying "one can be court-martialed for obeying unlawful orders" before entering Vietnam, our serving violated the constitution and UCM
Elijah, that is good info. I should have read the entire UCMJ but I didn't. That's what the gov. counts on; that we will choose to remain ignorant, which allows them to operate with impunity. Eric, I have de-integrated myself. Circle the wagons!
Very good Ronnie. Most of my childhood pards have basically done the same although as with you still communicate with us off the res types.
Ronnie, in the 60s when I went in they discouraged our reading them both, they didn't let us know where to find a UCMJ, but they would always tell us about things in it to keep us in line but nothing to keep them in line.
In '74 we were all given a copy of the UCMJ in bootcamp at Great Lakes. But a 17 year old kid is more concerned with getting paid and getting laid. This is the key to military success: Get 'em young, dumb, and full of that "get happy feeling".
In '64-69 no such UCMJ giving, has it been I'ld have finished 20 in the USAF. A T Sgt. ordered me to unground a plane he signed off but I was discharged. I told the 1st Sgt. once ordered my Crew Chief authority was overridden made it honorable.
If they want to put their lives out on the line and risk it for our freedom, who are we to tell them no. If they can and want to live a life in the military by all means go right ahead. I would look at them no different than looking at a man or a woman soldier. What they are doing for our freedom is far more important than what they are doing in their personal lives.
Ryan I was just considering a comparison to choosing to get pregnant while serving. Certainly for months and months after the sex realignment procedures/surgery and hormone treatments they cannot be active in service.
I and the Constitution fully agree, Ryan, so why would Trump do it unless attempting to hide something of more importance, as the government always does?
They would have to be complete with their transition. I was in the military and during basic training, some people were medically disqualified for various reasons. Some that I remembered:
One had asthma and was taking medications to treat it
Another had migraines and had a whole list of medications
One had poor eyesight
One was overweight
One had high blood pressure
Treatments for people who are transgender, as far as I know, are the
Treatments for facial hair-for men to woman
Treatments to remove facial hair-women to men
These are enough to get a person medically disqualified from the military. Some of these treatments can also bring on some other health issues such as an increase in their glucose levels and blood pressure.
Not only that, there can be the psychological side of transitioning. Some transgender people have a harder time than others.
Good information a more precise explanation. Thank you.
My peeps tell me that the operation involved is 50K to 100K$ but I still do not buy the cost factor. It is the whole concept of "out of action" on choice other than procreation that makes me wonder. I just don't want a new T next to me in a foxhole.
I was discussing this with my mom's husband last night, who served in the military for 30 years. I won't touch on the medical costs thing as I think that's already been talked about quite a bit (but he thinks it's a ridiculous, non-issue.)
Anyway, he felt most strongly about the quote that suggested the ban was about "unit cohesion." He said unit cohesion is absolutely the most important part about serving in the military since you eat, sleep, fight, and socialize with those people around the clock. He said if for even a second you don't trust that the person next to you has your back or if you give them any reason to believe that you don't have theirs, things are not functioning as they need to be.
He said that when there was talk of women being allowed to serve in the military they heard all about "unit cohesion." He said some people were hesitant. But women started to serve and people quickly learned that hey, women aren't all that different from men. Could you really get to know someone pretty intimately, trust their character and their intentions, but then look at them and say "I still don't trust her to put her life on the line for me because she's a woman"? He said it never happened. He said the "unit cohesion" issues never manifested beyond preconceived notions.
He said it was the same when there were talks of allowing gay people to serve. People throwing around "unit cohesion" as though gay people were somehow inherently less trustworthy or capable than straight people. He said it's just not how it works. You cannot look at someone and say "I don't believe they will fight for me the same as this other person" just because of their gender or sexual orientation. The only real threat to "unit cohesion" is the behaviour of an individual, if they've given you any indication that they are not in it with the best of intentions or cannot be relied upon to do their job. And that has nothing to do with anything else. A straight while male is just as likely to cause those issues as anyone else.
So anyway, he very passionately asserted exactly what I have always thought, which is that people are people. These labels, these individual decisions that people make about their own lives, they do not define anyone's character or ability to be a valuable member of any team. We are ultimately not as different from each other as it may seem on the surface. And you can't go into the military wanting to fight for only a certain type of person... you fight for everyone and anyone. So why can't everyone and anyone who is capable fight with you and for you, too?
I agree cost is a non-issue. Like Alcoholism we do not choose. A 30 Vet has a different perspective than a 21 year old. And the notion of women and gays -- took like 50 years to implement. T's are maybe there in another 10-15. Raised accepting is key
That same thing happened concerning Afro-Americans when Eisenhower integrated the military, All of those taught prejudices are unfounded when people's live are on the line. Their maintenance cost doesn't usually kick in for some years, I've found.
Elijah you must be thinking of the Truman EO 9981 in July '48. And for practicality perhaps as late as Nixon, or maybe JFK with draft implementation. So it for sure took us a century to move equal rights of color. Why so fast with T's?
Eric, when we saw the unfoundedness of ethnic discrimination, now see gender is and know homosexuality has always been in the military why delay other unfounded prejudices with "T's"?
Correctomundo! You get the big Kahuna Burger! They all want equal rights and they all want the right to kill other people with high tech weaponry. But I can't imagine a mother being more upset that her son was killed by a Trans instead of a Redneck.
Ronnie and Elijah and Aime you are all making very good points. But I am getting the feeling that writers here live in a little bit of enlightenment. Like our older worldly Vet. I would hate to act ivory tower like on our average servicemen.
Eric, enlightenment means "being beyond using judgmental additives, seeking the 360 degrees of all subject matters, deciding based on the laws in force". Few posts here recognize the US' Supreme Law, they are mostly the individual's preferences.
Well that is something we totally disagree on. My first element of enlightenment would be not to define it. Next would be to not make it a box with requirements. And next would be not to judge others regarding it.
Everything has to first be defined to determining what it is. That is why the USA is biblically call "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT...", here man use words they can't defend which means they are babbling. Enlightenment is the judge, not who express it.
My thoughts are the same thoughts Christ has about transgenders. People should want to have the same mind-set as The Most High God and Christ, and it would be easy for them to know right from wrong. Know the Bible, because we all will have to explain to Christ the wrong things and good things we've done.
Have you ever read Isaiah 45:7 where god does [present tenses] everything done? There's no right nor wrong done ever, god is fulfilling what each body is manifested to perform. Why is god's name I AM THAT I AM & ISIS? All's in god & god in al
400 years of chattel slavery was wrong. The genocide of 100 million of my people by European squatters was wrong. It appears God also has a lot of explaining to do as well.
Karma has to be paid, Israel [whites] were enslaved in Egypt by blacks its justice was paid in the USA. God's doing via man to teach the wise https://hubpages.com/religion-philosoph … d-and-Evil has no substance.
I'm sure my thoughts on this may seem backwards, offensive and old fashion but the simple truth often does. People were designed as sexual beings either a male or a female. Regardless of what anyone thinks the truth is still the truth, either you're a man or a women.
Now a person who is confused about something as basic as their sexual identity, is a person who is unstable in their thinking and therefore a danger to others in a combat situation.
Sex and gender are different things and that's a very simple truth. Besides not acknowledging that important fact, you're really oversimplifying when it comes to sexuality, it's actually not "basic" at all.
I respect this position. I wonder if the exact opposite is not true. A person so committed to being right with themselves would be more stable? Maybe changing the external is as valid as changing the internal into a killing machine? Deep.
Would you trust a surgeon who identifies as a mass murderer? Or a General Practitioner who identifies as Darth Vader? How about a Taxi driver who identifies as a suicide bomber?
Seeing as none of those are even remotely relevant comparisons I'm just gonna assume you're happy to remain clueless on the subject
First of all, I have little sympathy for anyone who aspires to be a mass murderer. However, transgender exists mentally with or without physical transformation. They were also designed this way, and they are not confused. It appears you are confused.
WBA, man, NOT hu/woman, can shape change into either gender, reproduce then change back. What we are seeing is carnal man attempting to change their flesh because of not understand their sprit nature. Spiritually we can but not physically.
I know you want this to be black or white but..over 6 million American children were surgically assigned gender without their knowladge or consent to keep the two gender myth alive. In fact 60,000 American kids are surgically assigned gender year.
Having not read all (19) prior comments, I add mine: I feel transgender surgery, recovery, and counseling is a personal responsibility and need not be funded by the Pentagon. If not, then it should take place prior to enlistment, or after active military service, or on leave when circumstances permit. I disagree that persons who are already transgendered physically can be dismissed from service.
Thank you Demas this should have been boldly stated at first. I was just thinking about sitting in a foxhole with a New Yorker. It is a world apart from being a Southwester Country boy. And I really would not care what she started out as in life.
Is it better to fund people's desires than "Treasonous" acts like what got us into WW 1 & 2, Vietnam and the "Middle East" wars? Our taxes are for "defending" wars not war caused by U.S. "treason" and also for "the general Welfare" of We The Peop
by Scott S Bateman 11 months ago
Should Trump ban transgender troops in the military? Why or why not?
by Cleo Burch 7 months ago
Is it okay for Trans people to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender?This pertains to actual transgender people. As in, those serious about it. Not the creeps who aren't actually transgender but are looking to harass people. Legitimate transgender people. Note, this is coming from a...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 years ago
What makes so many people alarmed over the issue of transgenderism and transgenderpeople? What makes many people view transgenderism as an "aberration" instead of accepting the fact that there are people who are uncomfortable in their original gender bodies and they want to be the gender...
by Imendez63 18 months ago
Should transgender people be allowed to use the opposite biological sex bathroom?With a major company already in the process of making this happen. Would you feel comfortable with an opposite sex going into the washroom ?
by N B Yomi 2 years ago
Hi Hubbers,I'd like some help with passing the Quality Assessment Process. Will you please give feedback on my Hub The Transgendered bathroom issue, isn't a real issue (must be signed in to view). What can I do to improve? Thanks!
by Peg Cole 2 years ago
You've probably seen the reports stating that the "Director of Education has ordered a suburban Chicago school to allow a boy who claims to be a girl into the girls’ locker room, whether or not the girls or their parents like it." Other states will soon be facing the same issue.Breibart...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|