No, Mr. President.

[TemplarKormac]

I think banning "transgendered" people from serving in the military is a bit much. Armies for tens of thousands of years have thrived on strength of numbers and collective experience, thus in present day, that strength and experience is unaffected by being transgender. However, you also cannot have a man identifying as a woman running around the barracks filled with female soldiers/personnel and vise versa, as such in addition to thriving on strength of numbers and collective experience, armies also thrive on uniformity.

If a transgendered person is to serve in our military, this proverbial man identifying as a woman should be assigned to missions and facilities that match the capabilities and characteristics of his biological sex. If they refuse, charge them with insubordination under the UCMJ. Furthermore, when a soldier who identifies as the opposite sex wants a sex change, it should not be the responsibility of the government, and subsequently the taxpayer, to pay for it.

Our defense money is meant for DEFENSE. Getting a sex change does not have a modicum of impact on national defense. The will to serve this country should outweigh a gender preference; and if one places their gender identity over their willingness to serve, they don't belong in the military. Period. Duty above all.

With all that being said, you should never ban someone from serving our country. You take power away from our fighting force when you keep fully capable individuals from serving in our military. You limit the pool of prospective soldiers and personnel that you can draw from.

So, while I voted for you President Trump, I must disagree with this particular decision made by you and your generals. A compromise must be made to keep our fighting force strong and ready.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Additionally, I am not insinuating that there are more than two genders or the like. I think transgender people suffer from a psychological disorder. But if that disorder doesn't affect the way they serve, then let them. They just need to know they will be assimilated into the ranks of the sex they were born with, not the sex they identify with.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Bump.

 

[tycho1572]

Thank you, President Trump, for understanding the importance of protecting this country, and taking steps to weed out those who are mentally confused.

 

[aaronleland]

I'm sorry to hear your people are banned from the military, TK. You could have used the exercise.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm sorry to hear your people are banned from the military, TK. You could have used the exercise.

Such insolence!!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Bump.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just a question... how does being transgendered affect the potency of our military? Can anyone answer that for me?

 

[OKTexas]

Just a question... how does being transgendered affect the potency of our military? Can anyone answer that for me?

It undercuts it, spending money to make soldiers weaker just doesn't make sense. It's just that simple.


.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just a question... how does being transgendered affect the potency of our military? Can anyone answer that for me?

It undercuts it, spending money to make soldiers weaker just doesn't make sense. It's just that simple.


.

Okay, Tex, let me clarify something.

I don't want the government or the military to accommodate them in any way, other than what other soldiers and personnel are provided with. They are there to serve, not to play Mr. Potato with their nether regions on the taxpayer dime.

My whole idea is to let them serve, but stipulate they must bunk and serve with members who match their biological sex. Men with men, women with women. But to expound, I'll redirect you to the OP:

"However, you also cannot have a man identifying as a woman running around the barracks filled with female soldiers/personnel and vise versa, as such in addition to thriving on strength of numbers and collective experience, armies also thrive on uniformity.

If a transgendered person is to serve in our military, this proverbial man identifying as a woman should be assigned to missions and facilities that match the capabilities and characteristics of his biological sex. If they refuse, charge them with insubordination under the UCMJ. Furthermore, when a soldier who identifies as the opposite sex wants a sex change, it should not be the responsibility of the government, and subsequently the taxpayer, to pay for it.

Our defense money is meant for DEFENSE. Getting a sex change does not have a modicum of impact on national defense. The will to serve this country should outweigh a gender preference; and if one places their gender identity over their willingness to serve, they don't belong in the military. Period. Duty above all."

 

[TemplarKormac]

I thought I'd get more of a reaction than this...

Well then.

 

[CubanTexan]

I think banning "transgendered" people from serving in the military is a bit much. Armies for tens of thousands of years have thrived on strength of numbers and collective experience, thus in present day, that strength and experience is unaffected by being transgender. However, you also cannot have a man identifying as a woman running around the barracks filled with female soldiers/personnel and vise versa, as such in addition to thriving on strength of numbers and collective experience, armies also thrive on uniformity.

If a transgendered person is to serve in our military, this proverbial man identifying as a woman should be assigned to missions and facilities that match the capabilities and characteristics of his biological sex. If they refuse, charge them with insubordination under the UCMJ. Furthermore, when a soldier who identifies as the opposite sex wants a sex change, it should not be the responsibility of the government, and subsequently the taxpayer, to pay for it.

Our defense money is meant for DEFENSE. Getting a sex change does not have a modicum of impact on national defense. The will to serve this country should outweigh a gender preference; and if one places their gender identity over their willingness to serve, they don't belong in the military. Period. Duty above all.

With all that being said, you should never ban someone from serving our country. You take power away from our fighting force when you keep fully capable individuals from serving in our military. You limit the pool of prospective soldiers and personnel that you can draw from.

So, while I voted for you President Trump, I must disagree with this particular decision made by you and your generals. A compromise must be made to keep our fighting force strong and ready.

Your idea is good, but you have to remember that these people are mentally ill. They need serious help to cure their mental condition. With the high rates of transgender suicide, highly pressing military combat scenarios won't help them. It would just up the numbers and worsen the situation. You have to be both mentally and physically fit to serve in the US military, and them thinking that they're the other gender (or a completely made up internet gender) isn't qualifying.

Also, about limiting the pool of prospective soldiers, transgenders make up very little of the population (about 0.6% of adults, according to a Williams Institute study from UCLA School of Law). There's still plenty of able-bodied Americans.

 

[The Original Tree]

The military is not a social experiment.
End of story.

Obama was a traitor to this country and slept with our enemies and did everything he could to destroy the fighting spirit of our military.

Trust Science and Chromosomes, not Your lucky st for hairy man butt!

Taxpayers should not be paying to some emotionally damages person's wiener off.

I think banning "transgendered" people from serving in the military is a bit much. Armies for tens of thousands of years have thrived on strength of numbers and collective experience, thus in present day, that strength and experience is unaffected by being transgender. However, you also cannot have a man identifying as a woman running around the barracks filled with female soldiers/personnel and vise versa, as such in addition to thriving on strength of numbers and collective experience, armies also thrive on uniformity.

If a transgendered person is to serve in our military, this proverbial man identifying as a woman should be assigned to missions and facilities that match the capabilities and characteristics of his biological sex. If they refuse, charge them with insubordination under the UCMJ. Furthermore, when a soldier who identifies as the opposite sex wants a sex change, it should not be the responsibility of the government, and subsequently the taxpayer, to pay for it.

Our defense money is meant for DEFENSE. Getting a sex change does not have a modicum of impact on national defense. The will to serve this country should outweigh a gender preference; and if one places their gender identity over their willingness to serve, they don't belong in the military. Period. Duty above all.

With all that being said, you should never ban someone from serving our country. You take power away from our fighting force when you keep fully capable individuals from serving in our military. You limit the pool of prospective soldiers and personnel that you can draw from.

So, while I voted for you President Trump, I must disagree with this particular decision made by you and your generals. A compromise must be made to keep our fighting force strong and ready.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The military is not a social experiment.
End of story.

I never said it should be.

Are any of you actually reading all of the post or succumbing to knee jerk prevaricated responses?

 

[CubanTexan]

The military is not a social experiment.
End of story.

I never said it should be.

Are any of you actually reading all of the post or succumbing to knee jerk prevaricated responses?

I read it. And I replied in the exact same coherent manner in which you originally posted.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The military is not a social experiment.
End of story.

I never said it should be.

Are any of you actually reading all of the post or succumbing to knee jerk prevaricated responses?

I read it. And I replied in the exact same coherent manner in which you originally posted.

Well, with the exception of you.

 

[OKTexas]

Just a question... how does being transgendered affect the potency of our military? Can anyone answer that for me?

It undercuts it, spending money to make soldiers weaker just doesn't make sense. It's just that simple.


.

Okay, Tex, let me clarify something.

I don't want the government or the military to accommodate them in any way, other than what other soldiers and personnel are provided with. They are there to serve, not to play Mr. Potato with their nether regions on the taxpayer dime.

My whole idea is to let them serve, but stipulate they must bunk and serve with members who match their biological sex. Men with men, women with women. But to expound, I'll redirect you to the OP:

"However, you also cannot have a man identifying as a woman running around the barracks filled with female soldiers/personnel and vise versa, as such in addition to thriving on strength of numbers and collective experience, armies also thrive on uniformity.

If a transgendered person is to serve in our military, this proverbial man identifying as a woman should be assigned to missions and facilities that match the capabilities and characteristics of his biological sex. If they refuse, charge them with insubordination under the UCMJ. Furthermore, when a soldier who identifies as the opposite sex wants a sex change, it should not be the responsibility of the government, and subsequently the taxpayer, to pay for it.

Our defense money is meant for DEFENSE. Getting a sex change does not have a modicum of impact on national defense. The will to serve this country should outweigh a gender preference; and if one places their gender identity over their willingness to serve, they don't belong in the military. Period. Duty above all."

Are you suggesting the military give people time off to have surgery and recovery, even if they pay for it themselves?


.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You have to be both mentally and physically fit to serve in the US military, and them thinking that they're the other gender (or a completely made up internet gender) isn't qualifying.

Interestingly, this is a mental disorder that would not compromise their ability to perform their duty. Succumbing to their gender preference would.

 

[CubanTexan]

You have to be both mentally and physically fit to serve in the US military, and them thinking that they're the other gender (or a completely made up internet gender) isn't qualifying.

Interestingly, this is a mental disorder that would not compromise their ability to perform their duty. Succumbing to their gender preference would.

Their mental illness is primarily fueled by feeling. Their feeling that they're the wrong gender. That could cause them to not do their duty.

 

[peach174]

It's a complex situation with transgender people.
It seems to be more in males than females.
At a young age, even before they become aware of the difference between male and female. They feel trapped in the sex the were born with. In their mind they are female or male.
They feel like a female or male in their mind and was born with the wrong sex.
So I think this needs to be looked at more closely as to why they feel trapped in their sex.
As for military for right now , they should not be allowed. Too many in the country doesn't understand it, I think male land female soldiers would be uncomfortable with it.
Most have great depression because of it, the military does not need to be accepting depressed soldiers.