• 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!

Should transgender people be allowed to serve in the military?

Should transgender people be allowed to serve in the military?


  • Total voters
    99
I didn't say it was a burden. I said it was a comfort issue.

It would also depend on whether the role was combat or not.

My unit (elite infantry) had no problem with gays. All we cared about was someone being a good soldier. When ones life is at stake, it's amazing how nothing matters except the ability of teammates.
 
Good. Neither the military nor the prison system should be paying for anybody's personal choices. It pisses me off that they do it at all... stealing our money like that.

Boner meds... $80m/y. Trans surgeries would be much less.
 
They shouldn't be giving out those meds either...

As long as they are, it's wrong to discriminate. How can we spend $80m/y on boner meds and cry about a small fraction of that for trans surgeries.

And what's wrong with people joining for the surgery? Plenty of people join for the GI Bill, should we get rid of that?
 
Boner meds... $80m/y. Trans surgeries would be much less.

They don't give those out to active duty enlisted though, I'm guessing. Maybe the VA covers that for discharged vets, and you're exaggerating?
 
They don't give those out to active duty enlisted though, I'm guessing. Maybe the VA covers that for discharged vets, and you're exaggerating?

They do. It's actually $84m/y iirc.
 
It's .004 - .017% of DoD healthcare expense.

The military pays for boner meds, to the tune of $80 million/year. Trans surgeries would be 10 times less.

False comparison. You're talking about the costs for a very large group of people vs the costs of a very small group of people. What are the costs averaged out for every male who has ever served vs the costs for transgender medical care?
 
Leadership didn't have anything to do with trusting each other, performance did. We had gays (at least 2 were pretty obvious) in our company (this was during 'don't ask don't tell') and none of us cared. They were good soldiers. We could count on them.

The first ship I served on had two gay guys I knew. One of them was in my Squadron and I got to know him personally. Everyone in the Squadron knew he was gay, but it wasn't a problem. He was a pretty cool guy, performed his duties admirably and was an above average Sailor. Never gave anyone any problems.

Served with a female First Class Petty Officer (Operations Specialist, First Class) who was just as tough and as good a leaders as most enlisted men I knew. Got outta line and she put you in your place quick! She was assigned to the Amphibious Group my Squadron was under. As such, she often times had to do grunge work. She wasn't afraid to get her hands dirty, but the thing was as tough as she came across, she was just as prissy as any women I knew out of uniform.

To me, it doesn't matter who you are how you "identify". If you're willing to serve your country and put your life on the line to defend it, who am I to stop you from putting on the uniform of any branch of our military? Pick up a weapon and man a post!
 
Last edited:
They do. It's actually $84m/y iirc.

Seems counter intuitive, although some of my vet buddies have told tales of many female personnel becoming pregnant while on duty, and being removed to maternity wards, so maybe it is as you say.
 
Do you suppose that Trump thinks he's letting Corporal Maxwell Klinger finally go home?
 
I agree with that, just as I'd feel that same way about any elective or cosmetic surgery or treatments.

That's how I see it, but if there's some other extenuating circumstance I'm not aware of that allows for these elective/cosmetic surgeries to take place with active duty servicemen/women or veterans, someone please share your info on the matter.
 
False comparison. You're talking about the costs for a very large group of people vs the costs of a very small group of people. What are the costs averaged out for every male who has ever served vs the costs for transgender medical care?

We're talking about total expense vs. trans expense. An entirely legitimate comparison. And trans is .004%. Nothing.

Comparing boner meds and trans cost is also legitimate, and trans cost would be less than the $80m/y for boner meds.
 
As long as they are, it's wrong to discriminate. How can we spend $80m/y on boner meds and cry about a small fraction of that for trans surgeries.

And what's wrong with people joining for the surgery? Plenty of people join for the GI Bill, should we get rid of that?

GI Bill is about home loans and education, right? Been a long time since I read about it.
 
Do you suppose that Trump thinks he's letting Corporal Maxwell Klinger finally go home?

He watched MASH last night and got all "let that man go home!"
 
GI Bill is about home loans and education, right? Been a long time since I read about it.

Education. People join for it. They serve well. What's the difference?
 
We're talking about total expense vs. trans expense. An entirely legitimate comparison. And trans is .004%. Nothing.

Comparing boner meds and trans cost is also legitimate, and trans cost would be less than the $80m/y for boner meds.

Yes, you're talking about net costs, not an actual cost/benefit ration. It's as valid as saying that profit margins and net profits are the same thing. They aren't. They are entirely different things.
 
Yes, but not in combat arms specialties, and no "government paid" sex changes.

A reminder, I don't support females in the combat specialties either.

I don't want transgender personnel to think military service is a free ride to sex-change medical procedures.

But it's okay for male personnel to think military service is a free ride to erectile disfunction medication: https://www.armytimes.com/news/2017...etirees-erections-than-on-transgender-troops/

According to cable news anchors, the military spends between 2-8 million on transgender personnel, and over 90 million on Viagra and Cialis. Using "cost savings" as a basis for blatant discrimination against a single class of people is ludicrous on its face.
 
Education. People join for it. They serve well. What's the difference?

A lot... IMO. Gotta go.... pick up the kids. More later.
 
Yes, you're talking about net costs, not an actual cost/benefit ration. It's as valid as saying that profit margins and net profits are the same thing. They aren't. They are entirely different things.

It puts the cost of trans in perspective, by comparing it to total cost and boner med cost. Perspective is something many people obviously need. It's entirely legitimate to put things in perspective.
 
But it's okay for male personnel to think military service is a free ride to erectile disfunction medication: https://www.armytimes.com/news/2017...etirees-erections-than-on-transgender-troops/

According to cable news anchors, the military spends between 2-8 million on transgender personnel, and over 90 million on Viagra and Cialis. Using "cost savings" as a basis for blatant discrimination against a single class of people is ludicrous on its face.

Sorry, my service was back in the 70's and 80's.

So don't expect me to support "erectile dysfunction" medication any more than I would sex reassignment surgery and all the treatments before, during, and after.

Other's have mentioned people joining for the G.I. Bill education benefits.

I didn't. I joined to serve my country, after I'd already paid for my own college.

IMO people who join merely for the expected benefits have a wrong-headed way of looking at things.
 
Back
Top Bottom