- Joined
- Aug 1, 2014
- Messages
- 26,719
- Reaction score
- 6,278
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Mindless bigotry.
Have you seen the schools ran by Isil in Afghanistan? Probably not.
Mindless bigotry.
Good point...
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.
Have you seen the schools ran by Isil in Afghanistan? Probably not.
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.
Well, this explains a lot.
They shouldn't be giving out those meds either...
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?
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.
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.
They do. It's actually $84m/y iirc.
I agree with that, just as I'd feel that same way about any elective or cosmetic surgery or treatments.
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?
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?
Do you suppose that Trump thinks he's letting Corporal Maxwell Klinger finally go home?
GI Bill is about home loans and education, right? Been a long time since I read about it.
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.
Oh good grief, ignore option 5.
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.
Education. People join for it. They serve well. What's the difference?
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.
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.