• 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!

Military May Allow Openly Transgender Personnel

Hatuey said:
I didn't make anything up. (edited out the rest because of its base on a false assumption)
Click to expand...

still trying huh, again good luck and thanks for the laughs!
although this one was shorter and i probably could have read it i did not, there will be no discussion on your made up and false assumption.

if you would like to discuss your concerns about the OP and your assumption that SEEMS (i could be wrong) to be based on how the military might just throw its current standards out the window and throw professionalism to the side you are free too. I seriously doubt that will happen but its topic related and open to discussion but any repeat of your factually wrong, made up and false assumption will be ignored :shrug:
 
AGENT J said:
still trying huh, again good luck and thanks for the laughs!
although this one was shorter and i probably could have read it i did not, there will be no discussion on your made up and false assumption.
Click to expand...

There was no false assumption. You claimed that there was such a thing as "officially transgender". That is false as shown by the very definition of transgender. As a matter of fact, the "officially transgender" you were referring to is... well transsexual. I'm sorry you didn't really read your article but now is not the time to act up. If you can't find the definition of transgender, just say so. I'll find it for you.
 
Hatuey said:
There was no false assumption.
Click to expand...
again didnt read after this
the fact remains there was, this fact will never change :shrug:
this will be the last reply on this issue, good luck with your strawman though!
 
AGENT J said:
again didnt read after this
the fact remains there was, this fact will never change :shrug:
this will be the last reply on this issue, good luck with your strawman though!
Click to expand...

Your words don't change because you want them to:

AGENT J said:
a transgendered who is OFFICIALLY transgender as diagnosed by a doctor and has surgery or is taking hormones and is legally a female etc is a female and will conduct thier whole careers as such.
Click to expand...

Again, you're discussing a transsexual. Here, let's let GLAAD show you why you didn't know what you were addressing:

GLAAD Media Reference Guide - Transgender Issues | GLAAD

Transgender (adj.)
An umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth. People under the transgender umbrella may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms - including transgender. Some of those terms are defined below. Use the descriptive term preferred by the individual. Many transgender people are prescribed hormones by their doctors to change their bodies. Some undergo surgery as well. But not all transgender people can or will take those steps, and a transgender identity is not dependent upon medical procedures.
Click to expand...

Transsexual (adj.)
An older term that originated in the medical and psychological communities. Still preferred by some people who have permanently changed - or seek to change - their bodies through medical interventions (including but not limited to hormones and/or surgeries). Unlike transgender, transsexual is not an umbrella term. Many transgender people do not identify as transsexual and prefer the word transgender. It is best to ask which term an individual prefers. If preferred, use as an adjective: transsexual woman or transsexual man.
Click to expand...

It's not looking good for your understanding of transgender and transsexual. Tell us again about those "official transgender" so that I can explain to you that a man who decides to wear women's clothing on their day to day because they feel they are a woman is an official transgender person. They didn't even have to go to a doctor to be labeled as such.
 
Hatuey said:
Interesting. I didn't know that. I have a problem with people being kicked out of the military for their sexual and gender preferences in private. However, that still doesn't address the question of what the official meant by openly serving. As it stands, openly serving for a gay member means you can't be kicked out simply for being gay. However, being transgender and GIDs involve treatments which encourage a person to lose their fear of being ostracised by expressing their gender. Would an "openly serve" policy also give transgender the privilege to ignore certain regulations? If no, then problem solved. If yes, then I see a potential problem with a lot of discussion ahead.
Click to expand...
An example would be an officer who cross-dressed while 'off duty'. UCMJ still applies while off duty and so that officer could be court marshaled for 'conduct unbecoming', which would ruin their carrier if not end it outright. "Serving openly", in this example, would mean that officer could cross-dress while on their own time without fear of criminal charges.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
As it stands, openly serving for a gay member means you can't be kicked out simply for being gay. However, being transgender and GIDs involve treatments which encourage a person to lose their fear of being ostracised by expressing their gender. Would an "openly serve" policy also give transgender the privilege to ignore certain regulations? If no, then problem solved. If yes, then I see a potential problem with a lot of discussion ahead.
Click to expand...
I believe that would depend on the spicific treatment. I do know that anyone recieving any kind of hormone replacement therapy is deemed unfit for duty and given a medical discharge 'under honorable conditions'. I think that would include transgender and transexual people seeking hormone-related body modification even if under a doctor's supervision.

I have to say that I agree with that rule despite my support for transexuals to serve openly, because the hormone use is elective, and harmon therapy isn't possible in combat zones.
 
Last edited:
 
AGENT J said:
U.S. Military May Allow Openly Transgender Personnel - WSJ


New SecDef signals support for transgender service
https://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/02/23/white-house-endorses-carter-remarks-transgender-service/

I happen to agree in this regard. My personal views of one's lifestyle are meaningless, the basic question is, can you do the job and do it well? if the answer is yes then theres not much else to discuss. This is the basic concept of how many things should be.

Good move!
Click to expand...

While I don't have issue with this move, I will say two things.

First, I think they are wrongly overestimating the number of true transsexuals, basically using the term wrong. I think that the military, like much of the country, doesn't quite understand the difference between dressing in the clothes of the other gender occasionally and having gender dysphoria, which is what leads someone to actually live as the opposite sex they are born as.

Second, I do think that there should be some restrictions on this. I don't believe that everyone who likes to dress as the opposite sex occasionally (many for reasons of sexual arousal or stimulation) should simply be allowed to do so any time they wish. I think that it is appropriate to expect a person to dress consistently as only one gender or the other throughout their career (with the only exception being an actual transition to the other gender, which should happen seamlessly after actual therapy determines that this transition should be done and as part of the plan for it). And they should be expected to follow the rules of dress appropriate to their identified gender while in uniform. Outside of their duties, they should be expected to dress appropriately. (I've never really agreed with no earrings/piercings for men in the military.)
 
chad1389 said:
It's really more of an enlistment issue. Much of the military is predominantly southern. When you start allowing stuff like this, it could possibly cause a decline in the men and women from those states who wished to sign-up when they reach the age of requirement. Enlistment into the armed services has been on the decline for many factors for some time now, but as far as I know, what the military makes anyone wear has never been an issue.
Click to expand...

The military is currently downsizing and not really hurting for people to enlist at the moment. They are in fact looking for reasons to kick people out or prevent them from entering.
 
roguenuke said:
While I don't have issue with this move, I will say two things.

1.)First, I think they are wrongly overestimating the number of true transsexuals, basically using the term wrong. I think that the military, like much of the country, doesn't quite understand the difference between dressing in the clothes of the other gender occasionally and having gender dysphoria, which is what leads someone to actually live as the opposite sex they are born as.

2.) Second, I do think that there should be some restrictions on this. I don't believe that everyone who likes to dress as the opposite sex occasionally (many for reasons of sexual arousal or stimulation) should simply be allowed to do so any time they wish.

3.) I think that it is appropriate to expect a person to dress consistently as only one gender or the other throughout their career (with the only exception being an actual transition to the other gender, which should happen seamlessly after actual therapy determines that this transition should be done and as part of the plan for it). And they should be expected to follow the rules of dress appropriate to their identified gender while in uniform. Outside of their duties, they should be expected to dress appropriately. (I've never really agreed with no earrings/piercings for men in the military.)
Click to expand...

1.) i'd have to agree, simply "cross dressing" alone or like to cross dress does not make one transgendered lol
There are in fact qualifications for such. In the real world people don't just get to say hey, im transgender and thats it. Its the same misunderstanding when people ask don't all gay people want to have sex changes? or associate pediphilla with gay, it just confusion and or ignorance etc

2.) of course not and I agree and i SERIOUSLY doubt that the army or anybody else has any intentions of allowing this.

3.) For me this is up to the army but I agree (barring the official transition part or on the way to transition legally )
 
AGENT J said:
1.) i'd have to agree, simply "cross dressing" alone or like to cross dress does not make one transgendered lol
There are in fact qualifications for such. In the real world people don't just get to say hey, im transgender and thats it. Its the same misunderstanding when people ask don't all gay people want to have sex changes? or associate pediphilla with gay, it just confusion and or ignorance etc

2.) of course not and I agree and i SERIOUSLY doubt that the army or anybody else has any intentions of allowing this.

3.) For me this is up to the army but I agree (barring the official transition part or on the way to transition legally )
Click to expand...

I honestly don't believe that the number "15000" takes into account those qualifiers though. It is estimated that only about .01 percent at most of people will be diagnosed with gender dysphoria. That would put the number of those in the military service (both active and reserve combined) that should be diagnosed with gender dysphoria at only about 225. This seems like a much more likely number for those who are likely to legitimately have their mental health helped by switching over to the opposite gender.

I also think it is important that transition is done in a controlled manner and as part of a plan. There is a reason that gender dysphoria is considered part of abnormal psychology, within the DSM. It should not be done lightly, nor should the military be forced to have to appease every person at a whim. My sister goes back and forth on what she feels is "right" for her when it comes to transitioning, and I think this is because she cannot settle long enough to get proper therapy to make a plan and work with a therapist to actually figure out what is best for her. I can see others easily having this same issue.

Now, I will say, that if the transition isn't working, then going back should also be a legitimate option. It should be worked with as much as the military is able, without a disruption in mission.
 
roguenuke said:
I honestly don't believe that the number "15000" takes into account those qualifiers though. It is estimated that only about .01 percent at most of people will be diagnosed with gender dysphoria. That would put the number of those in the military service (both active and reserve combined) that should be diagnosed with gender dysphoria at only about 225. This seems like a much more likely number for those who are likely to legitimately have their mental health helped by switching over to the opposite gender.

I also think it is important that transition is done in a controlled manner and as part of a plan. There is a reason that gender dysphoria is considered part of abnormal psychology, within the DSM. It should not be done lightly, nor should the military be forced to have to appease every person at a whim. My sister goes back and forth on what she feels is "right" for her when it comes to transitioning, and I think this is because she cannot settle long enough to get proper therapy to make a plan and work with a therapist to actually figure out what is best for her. I can see others easily having this same issue.

Now, I will say, that if the transition isn't working, then going back should also be a legitimate option. It should be worked with as much as the military is able, without a disruption in mission.
Click to expand...

I agree, its the first thing I though when i read it. I bet the bigot posts are coming real soon too lol
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Aren't they already able to be open? I don't get how 'gay' didn't just include 'everyone who's not straight'.

??

But the issue with things like bathrooms and clothing - What is it about this that people get all in a tizzy over. It has nothing to do with social norms and gender.

Penis? Use a urinal.
Vagina? Use a toilet so you can do things like change your maxi pad and sit to pee.
Breasts? Wear clothing that's tailored to fit - not like there's a difference between a man's uniform and a women's uniform save for the design to fit body-shape differences. (ie: women in the military don't wear skirts).

*shrug*

Don't like it?
Go start a fashion company and get the **** out of the military, whiny baby.

It's not very complicated yet people really seem determine to make it ****ing complicated.
Click to expand...

Actually we can wear skirts as an option for our dress uniforms but they are not required uniform items (I had them issued with my dress uniforms when I first came in, but that is no longer the case). And there is some differences in men and women uniforms (and therefore what each are required to have within their "seabags" (for Navy) which is different and in fact cost different amounts, I got less money for my uniforms than the guys did when I made Chief due to the differences), in cut and style and in fact what is worn. But it can be accounted for.

As for the urinal/toilet thing, yeah, people really do overreact to that. The only real issue might be when we do urinalysis, since we are required to have an observer and if the person hasn't fully transitioned, it could be hard on or awkward for the observer or the person. Actually using the bathrooms though isn't going to be an issue for most units/divisions/people.
 
Jerry said:
Why would it matter? Because the military is a place where if your boots aren't perfectly compliant with FM670-1, if even a tiny bit of velcro shows from under your name tape, if your cover has a hint of a sweat stain, it's the end of the world your 1st Sergeant is freaking out and you get extra duty.

Magnify that hyper-overreaction by a million if a manly faced soldier shows up in a skirt.
Click to expand...

Right, and as long as said transgender person is compliant with the consistent standards of the gender that they identify as, I still don't see the problem. They can wear that skirt just make sure it's not creased in the slightest.

As others have said, an issue comes up when a soldier is unable to be consistent with their. If they cannot hold up to that standard of consistency then they should be discharged. However, it's pretty clear that that discharge wouldn't be because of their gender identity, but their inability to conform to military standards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom