• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Study: Military is ready for transgender troops

Amandi said:
No, catering. Just let them serve like everyone else.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood my use of the word "catering". I meant it in terms of submitting to the desires of a small group of people who want to do something.

But accommodations would have to be made. When women were integrated into the service separate facilities needed to be built and new organizational structures put in place to deal with woman specific issues (like women's health issues).

I have no idea what changes might be needed to integrate transgendered people into the military but military service today is not an obligation, nor is it a right. Given that the benefit from having transgendered people in the service - in terms of broadened candidate pool or some specific benefit that only transgendered people can bring to the table - has to outweigh the cost of integrating or the money is simply not well spent.
 
I would like to support transgendered troops by having a law that says those who rape our female soldiers need to be castrated. :mrgreen:
 
Jack Fabulous said:
The wrong question is being asked here. The questions that should be being asked are...

How does allowing transgendered troops BENEFIT the military? Would the introduction of transgendered troops give us any sort of tactical advantage? Is the net result a stronger fighting force? Is their a tangible benefit besides appeasing the gods of political correctness?
Click to expand...

Larger pool of talent to draw from. Fewer losses of assets when a valuable member of our armed forces is discharged when they get "outed." (example: before the DADT repeal, a highly-decorated fighter pilot was booted because he was outed. We spent millions training that guy.)

Good enough for you?
 
Deuce said:
Larger pool of talent to draw from. Fewer losses of assets when a valuable member of our armed forces is discharged when they get "outed." (example: before the DADT repeal, a highly-decorated fighter pilot was booted because he was outed. We spent millions training that guy.)

Good enough for you?
Click to expand...
Nope.

The subject of the thread is "transgendered" soldiers, not closet homosexuals that risk being outed. And as far as "talent pool"? Are there really large numbers of trannies out there just chomping at the bit to enlist?
 
Deuce said:
Larger pool of talent to draw from. Fewer losses of assets when a valuable member of our armed forces is discharged when they get "outed." (example: before the DADT repeal, a highly-decorated fighter pilot was booted because he was outed. We spent millions training that guy.)

Good enough for you?
Click to expand...

It takes about a million dollars to train a single nuke, and the prerequisites to go through the training program make it hard to find people who can do it. This is why they offer nukes bonuses for enlistment and to reenlist. I got about $30K when I reenlisted, and turned down about $60K to reenlist a second time. I also knew 3 nukes from my ship put out under DADT, one voluntarily and two involuntarily. Had DADT not been in place, none of them would have been discharged (and the one who volunteered wouldn't have felt the need to do so had the military recognized her spouse the same as they did me when my husband was active duty).

My transgendered sister left the Army because she had to hide. She had to dress and act and look like a man although she feels like a woman.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Nope.

The subject of the thread is "transgendered" soldiers, not closet homosexuals that risk being outed. And as far as "talent pool"? Are there really large numbers of trannies out there just chomping at the bit to enlist?
Click to expand...

Actually, there are many already in and some who would be more likely to stay in if they could be more open about it.
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, there are many already in and some who would be more likely to stay in if they could be more open about it.
Click to expand...

How many? Or are you just guessing?
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Nope.

The subject of the thread is "transgendered" soldiers, not closet homosexuals that risk being outed. And as far as "talent pool"? Are there really large numbers of trannies out there just chomping at the bit to enlist?
Click to expand...

It's the same issue that homosexuals used to face, so I used an example.

How many valuable members of the military are you willing to discharge, or prevent enlistment, to maintain this rule?
 
jmotivator said:
How many? Or are you just guessing?
Click to expand...

I don't have an exact number but I do know that there is a forum somewhere on the web for them and there were an awful lot on there. I was checking it out after my sister came out to us, while still in the Army.

So long as there is just a few, that is enough, especially if they are filling critical roles. Personally, I think that such a transition should go slow, as I stated earlier, particularly when it comes to pre-op or those who don't plan on getting any surgery. It should start with allowing post-op transsexuals in (if you have all the right parts, there is no issue with berthings, or there shouldn't be). And they should look into changing some of the civilian clothes and appearance policies.
 
roguenuke said:
I don't have an exact number but I do know that there is a forum somewhere on the web for them and there were an awful lot on there. I was checking it out after my sister came out to us, while still in the Army.

So long as there is just a few, that is enough, especially if they are filling critical roles. Personally, I think that such a transition should go slow, as I stated earlier, particularly when it comes to pre-op or those who don't plan on getting any surgery. It should start with allowing post-op transsexuals in (if you have all the right parts, there is no issue with berthings, or there shouldn't be). And they should look into changing some of the civilian clothes and appearance policies.
Click to expand...

You do realize that an internet forum is not a very rigorous statistics gathering methodology?
 
jmotivator said:
It does for an argument claiming there are a lot of transgenders in the Military,
Click to expand...

I don't think it matters how many there are. There's no benefit to continuing to bar them from service.
 
jmotivator said:
You do realize that an internet forum is not a very rigorous statistics gathering methodology?
Click to expand...

I realize that there are more than just a couple and less than "a whole helluva lot". In reality, it doesn't matter. They don't really need that much adjustments for what is being asked for.
 
Deuce said:
I don't think it matters how many there are. There's no benefit to continuing to bar them from service.
Click to expand...

If you don't count morale, but then, since 1955, when has a Democrat ever considered the morale of the armed forces.
 
jmotivator said:
It does for an argument claiming there are a lot of transgenders in the Military,
Click to expand...

Actually the claim was "many" which is relative. There are more than a lot of the population may realize. There certainly are more than I realized there were when I first started researching it.

But here is an estimate from actual researchers.

https://news.vice.com/article/allowing-transgender-people-to-serve-in-the-us-military-is-inevitable

This effort was aided by reports from the Palm Center think tank in March 2014 and the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law in May, which estimate that around 15,500 people currently serving in the US military are transgender. Data from the National Transgender Discrimination Survey and the US Census Bureau shows that there are about 134,300 transgender veterans, and that military service is more common among transgender people than it is among the general American population. No data is available on whether these individuals are pre- or post-transition.
Click to expand...

My sister is one of those "134,300 transgender veterans".
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Nope.

The subject of the thread is "transgendered" soldiers, not closet homosexuals that risk being outed. And as far as "talent pool"? Are there really large numbers of trannies out there just chomping at the bit to enlist?
Click to expand...

Ok so then how about this example

Landon Wilson, Transgender Navy Sailor, On Being Discharged And His Documentary Project

Military spent half a million dollars training him only to kick him out in the middle of a deployment to Afghanistan.
 
jmotivator said:
If you don't count morale, but then, since 1955, when has a Democrat ever considered the morale of the armed forces.
Click to expand...

You can't show that morale would take any serious, particularly detrimental blows from just allowing transgender people to serve openly. Allowing them more freedom, particularly while in civilian clothes.
 
Omgitsme said:
Ok so then how about this example

Landon Wilson, Transgender Navy Sailor, On Being Discharged And His Documentary Project

Military spent half a million dollars training him only to kick him out in the middle of a deployment to Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Oh, that is so sad. And exactly the point. He should have been allowed to simply switch, especially at that point, without much issue. What exactly is the problem? I understand that he went behind people's back to do this, and that could be an issue. But the bigger issue is that there was no way to do it otherwise.

And I cannot tell that he used to be a she. I was wondering at first before I read through it if they simply took a picture of him at a time when the military made him dress appropriately for a man.
 
roguenuke said:
Oh, that is so sad. And exactly the point. He should have been allowed to simply switch, especially at that point, without much issue. What exactly is the problem? I understand that he went behind people's back to do this, and that could be an issue. But the bigger issue is that there was no way to do it otherwise.

And I cannot tell that he used to be a she. I was wondering at first before I read through it if they simply took a picture of him at a time when the military made him dress appropriately for a man.
Click to expand...

Yeah it was pretty ****ty. And from what I heard they didnt even wait for a replacement to fill his position before kicking him out.
 
roguenuke said:
You can't show that morale would take any serious, particularly detrimental blows from just allowing transgender people to serve openly. Allowing them more freedom, particularly while in civilian clothes.
Click to expand...

No, I can. I have seen the effect on the general public of the professional grievance merchants who first start by calling for equality and quickly shift to crushing opposing thought through legal and social means. Just recently we watched the national debate go from "should gays get married?" to lawsuits forcing people to participate in gay marriages against their will. Abortion began as a woman's right to privacy and today we have people's business being picketed and people being fired for opposing abortion. Obama was hailed as a shining moment in the closing of the racial divide, now you are a racist is you disagree with his policies. First comes the innocent appeal, then comes the hammer. It is the way of the new left.

Save the naive view of how this game is played for someone who doesn't know better.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
No, I can. I have seen the effect on the general public of the professional grievance merchants who first start by calling for equality and quickly shift to crushing opposing thought through legal and social means. Just recently we watched the national debate go from "should gays get married?" to lawsuits forcing people to participate in gay marriages against their will. Abortion began as a woman's right to privacy and today we have people's business being picketed and people being fired for opposing abortion. Obama was hailed as a shining moment in the closing of the racial divide, now you are a racist is you disagree with his policies. First comes the innocent appeal, then comes the hammer. It is the way of the new left.

Save the naive view of how this game is played for someone who doesn't know better.
Click to expand...

So it's ok to uphold people's rights...sometimes? Exercising your rights is guaranteed by the govt....the consequences of doing so aside from that are your own. Dont want to be called out as a racist, homophobe, misogynist? Dont discriminate in your personal life or business. You have the right to...but the consequences can still be there.

And I have yet to hear of anyone who was forced into gay marriage. Links?
 
Lursa said:
So it's ok to uphold people's rights...sometimes? Exercising your rights is guaranteed by the govt....the consequences of doing so aside from that are your own. Dont want to be called out as a racist, homophobe, misogynist? Dont discriminate in your personal life or business. You have the right to...but the consequences can still be there.

And I have yet to hear of anyone who was forced into gay marriage. Links?
Click to expand...

I said participate. I am talking about the bakery that was sued because it didn't want to make a gay wedding cake.

Also, having the government crack down on you for your opinion is not as indicative of freedom as you seem to think....
 
jmotivator said:
No, I can. I have seen the effect on the general public of the professional grievance merchants who first start by calling for equality and quickly shift to crushing opposing thought through legal and social means. Just recently we watched the national debate go from "should gays get married?" to lawsuits forcing people to participate in gay marriages against their will. Abortion began as a woman's right to privacy and today we have people's business being picketed and people being fired for opposing abortion. Obama was hailed as a shining moment in the closing of the racial divide, now you are a racist is you disagree with his policies. First comes the innocent appeal, then comes the hammer. It is the way of the new left.

Save the naive view of how this game is played for someone who doesn't know better.
Click to expand...

No, you objectively can't.

The very fact that you are trying to connect same sex marriage to public accommodation laws shows the flaws in your argument. They are being forced to abide by laws that are already in place, just as those against interracial marriages/relationships are "forced" to do, or they face civil penalties. There are companies being boycotted for supporting same sex marriage and gay parenting and businesses being picketed and firebombed for performing or supporting abortions as well.

The person who is showing their partisanship here is you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom