• 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
DiAnna said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pitching tents is a military requirement and if there's a pill that can help then great!
 
Captain Adverse said:
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.
Click to expand...

Plenty of people join for the GI Bill and they serve well. What's the difference?
 
ecofarm said:
Plenty of people join for the GI Bill and they serve well. What's the difference?
Click to expand...

...and in my anecdotal experience, plenty joined for the G.I. Bill and didn't serve well. THAT's the "difference."

In any case, I see the G.I. Bill options as a reward for good service to help give a leg up to those servicemen who did a good job. (Not as a principle selling point for service.)

BTW, I wasn't ignoring your question about females in combat arms specialties. I was trying to find old posts from years ago expressing my opinions.

I'm not very good with the search option it appears.

In any case I found a lot of points I ended up agreeing with posted by cpwill, so I'll defer to him if he deigns to participate herein on that issue. Sorry. :)
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
What about the GI Bill? Plenty of people join for that.
Click to expand...

I see that as sort an investment in the future of someone who has served so that they have better options for employment post service, which is, overall, a net benefit for the U.S. as a whole. I see SRS as something more along the lines as breast enhancement, rhinoplasty or liposuction.
 
X Factor said:
I see that as sort an investment in the future of someone who has served so that they have better options for employment post service, which is, overall, a net benefit for the U.S. as a whole. I see SRS as something more along the lines as breast enhancement, rhinoplasty or liposuction.
Click to expand...

That last sentence is where you're wrong. Do some more research on the subject and you'll discover it's an investment in their future.

For the sake of argument, accept that premise for a moment. Then what's the difference?
 
Captain Adverse said:
...and in my anecdotal experience, plenty joined for the G.I. Bill and didn't serve well. THAT's the "difference."
Click to expand...

So we should get rid of the GI Bill, or should we allow incentives? If we're gonna allow incentives, how is SRS different than the GI Bill?

BTW, I wasn't ignoring your question about females in combat arms specialties. I was trying to find old posts from years ago expressing my opinions.

I'm not very good with the search option it appears.

In any case I found a lot of points I ended up agreeing with posted by cpwill, so I'll defer to him if he deigns to participate herein on that issue. Sorry. :)
Click to expand...

I served in combat arms, near the top of the food chain (airborne infantry). Gays were fine. Females would be fine. Trans would be fine. CP was not infantry, not combat arms iirc. I can't defer to him.
 
DiAnna said:
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.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand why the government sponsors that. No wonder why the Taliban is scared of us when they see a squad of soldiers chasing them through the mountains with 4 hour erections.
 
ecofarm said:
So we should get rid of the GI Bill, or should we allow incentives? If we're gonna allow incentives, how is SRS different than the GI Bill?



I served in combat arms, near the top of the food chain. Gays were fine. Females would be fine. Trans would be fine.
Click to expand...

What does that mean? You were a General grade officer? Because that's the top of the food chain.

I had no problem with gays, as long as they caused no problems with morale. I wasn't fond of most female service members I encountered while serving on division staff, but some did fine...in those service and support sections they were allowed to serve in back when I was active. I have no experience (in the military) with trans people. That wasn't an "issue" yet back in those days. :shrug:
 
Captain Adverse said:
What does that mean? You were a General grade officer? Because that's the top of the food chain.
Click to expand...

I meant in terms of MOS and unit. I decided to clarify with parenthesis.

I had no problem with gays, as long as they caused no problems with morale. I wasn't fond of most female service members I encountered while serving on division staff, but some did fine...in those service and support sections they were allowed to serve in back when I was active. I have no experience (in the military) with trans people. not a "thing" back in those days. :shrug:
Click to expand...

In my opinion, female and trans would be fine. You'll understand if I can't defer to someone (CP) who was not in combat arms, let alone infantry or elite infantry, on the subject.
 
ecofarm said:
I meant in terms of MOS and unit. I decided to clarify with parenthesis.

In my opinion, female and trans would be fine. You'll understand if I can't defer to someone (CP) who was not in combat arms, let alone infantry or elite infantry, on the subject.
Click to expand...

I was in combat arms my entire period of service, as an enlisted (E-3 to E-5 over 2 years) and after OCS an officer (0-1 to 0-3 over seven years). Total service 10 years.

Meanwhile, cpwill was a marine...but you say he is not combat arms? Did he declare a non-combat MOS?
 
Captain Adverse said:
I was in combat arms my entire period of service, as an enlisted (E-3 to E-5 over 2 years) and after OCS an officer (0-1 to 0-3 over seven years).
Click to expand...

Nice. I did one enlistment with the 82nd. After my enlistment, I choose the GI Bill over Ranger School and 4 more years of peacetime training. I didn't join for the GI Bill. I left an expensive private university to enlist during war (Gulf 1). I joined to go to war on the front line, not to camp.

Meanwhile, cpwill was a marine...but you say he is not combat arms? Did he declare a non-combat mos?
Click to expand...

IIRC, he was a truck driver. I could be wrong.
 
Glowpun said:
How many sex change procedures have been done in the military? The number is zero.
Click to expand...
Could be but I heard that Manning was scheduled to get one, has been in the pipeline.
 
X Factor said:
Oh good grief, ignore option 5.
Click to expand...

Why? It might not sound pc to agitated ears, but the reminder might be worth keeping in mind.
 
X Factor said:
Hot topic of the day, it seems. Poll on the way. Personally, and this may come as a surprise, I don't think this is a fight worth having and so long as they, or anyone, can measure up to the physical standards and conduct parameters, I see no problem with it.
Click to expand...

As a former member of the US military, all I cared about back then was that whomever is beside me in combat is capable of helping me accomplish our mission and surviving the effort.

If a person is capable of meeting the mission requirements, will comply with the UCMJ, and is committed to duty, honor, country, and not some ulterior motive like Manning and others were, then nothing else matters. I couldn't care less who they bump uglies with at night, or what body parts they have under their clothing (with the sole exception as to what actions I may need to take to give them proper medical care in the field). If you can do the job, successfully, and are not a burden to the mission (casualties excluded), then I would be proud to serve with you, and so should anyone else.

Now, one argument that makes a little sense to me is in regard to when should a trans person serve? Either pre or post op? It makes sense to me to have them serve post-op. If a person joins the military pre-op and then decides to take the major step of having the surgeries and hormone treatments, etc. pre-op, then that person may not be able to meet the mission readiness requirements for an extended period of time for what is not a mission or service related medical issue. If a person has non-service related mental medical issues that effect their ability to serve, they are discharged or put into the reserves until the medical issue is resolved. If a person has a non-service related physical medical issue, like heart failure, then they are usually discharged. If a person wants to have trans-surgery then they should go for it, but the military has a duty to the country to maintain it's readiness and a person that cannot maintain that readiness should be removed from active service, at least during the time period that they are not medically capable of maintaining mission readiness. However, once they've completed the transmission, there's no reason at all that I can think of as to why they shouldn't be able to serve.

As for whether the tax payer should pay for the surgeries and other treatments for a pre-op trans, well, on that I don't know and I'm not as supportive. As a fiscal conservative I don't think that any non-service related cost should be born by the services. On the other hand, in many ways, the military pays for non-service related issues to help maintain the members mission readiness, like family/marriage counseling, and other such costs. Like I said, that's the only part I'm not sure about.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
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.
Click to expand...

Gays were around in the Navy as long as I could remember. The first friend I had on base in Argentia NFLD was gay. He wouldn't admit it, but we all knew after a while and it was fine with us. He was a great cook and well liked throughout the command. I had a Division Officer on the Fulton AS-11 that had a man living with him during his entire career and nobody ever seemed to care. I retired off the USS Inchon right when the TARS were taking over, and she had a many gays on board at the time. You would never know it until you were out in town at night and wandered into certain clubs around Corpus Christie. The ship never had any issues with straight/gay thing. I hung out with a few over beers or a round of golf from time to time, and they fit right in with us that were straight.

The Navy was the one branch that was more than willing to turn a blind eye on gays as long as they did their jobs, and that goes way before the "don't ask don't tell" era. There were some commands in the military that actively went out of their way to go after gay people, but most of them were not Navy.
 
I say........ come aboard shipmate!

Then shut up, do your job, and don't expect the Navy to pay for your sex change.
 
Anyone should be able to serve if they can pass the necessary training with no special accommodations being made.
 
ecofarm said:
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.
Click to expand...



They should stop paying for boner meds.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I think typically they would only require estrogen if they were male to female, or testosterone if they were female to male. Neither of those are very expensive at all as they are both cheap generics. The military spends 5 times more on viagra than transgender services. The Pentagon spends 5 times more on Viagra than transgender services - Business Insider
Click to expand...


Why does no one have a problem with this? I keep seeing this thrown up as if it's acceptable? Why is the military paying for someone to get a hard on? Cut that $$ from the budget now!
 
ecofarm said:
That last sentence is where you're wrong. Do some more research on the subject and you'll discover it's an investment in their future.

For the sake of argument, accept that premise for a moment. Then what's the difference?
Click to expand...

An "investment" suggests the potential for positive returns for the person putting their money into it. In the case of the GI Bill, it is a good thing, beneficial to the US as a whole for someone who's served in the military to be able to support themselves financially, not to mention paying into the system now with taxes. People with good jobs, made possible through higher education, to share the tax burden is the potential positive return.

I don't know much about trans people really and most of what I do know, I've gotten from DP and what I've been made aware of is that being trans does not make it easier to get a job or career and is, in fact, a hindrance. To call it an "investment" is an inaccurate use of the term. SRS would be more of a onesided benefit.

Can you tell me why SRS is different than cosmetic surgery?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom