CDZ What is the argument FOR banning transgenders from military service?

[DandyDonovan]

What if a 400 lb man wants to be a Navy SEAL and kills himself because they wouldn't let him in ? What if 100K 400 lb guys kill themselves because they couldn't be SEALs ? Should the SEALs change their standards?

 

[Dekster]

Friendly reminder, this is in the "clean debate forum".

I generally support Trump, but I'm not sold that his desired ban of transgenders from military service is really needed or warranted. Now, I've never served in the military so I cannot say whether transgenders serving have a positive or negative impact on the rest of the armed forces. I've not heard of major transgressions by transgenders, but perhaps I missed them. I do know that Bradley Manning leaked classified materials but, then again, so have some heterosexual service members. I guess I'm of the adage of "If it isn't broke..." So, what is the argument for banning transgenders from military service? Thanks in advance.

Simple, gender dysphoria is a mental illness. Why liberals ant mentally ill folks having access to military weapons is beyond me.

I don't disagree with you, but I'm looking for some hard evidence that would support Trump's argument. Thanks for your response.

I don't know what Trump's logic is. My logic is more a slippery slope issue. All military jobs are now open to both genders. Depending on where the person was in their transition that might be problematic, Sure either can sit at a desk and push papers, but if someone were say a post-op male to female trans, my understanding is that they have to dilate their new vagina 6 times a day for the first few months tapering off to a couple times a week after the first year. If they don't, their new vagina could grow shut permanently. Add into that the hormones and such, and I could see it is logistically difficult to supply them the necessary meds and allow them time to do their required dilations if they are in a COP in the middle of Afghanistan.

Why this is a slippery slope is because all or nothing is easier than trying to draw a line somewhere in between that will get erased by some court somewhere anyway. I would like to think there is middle ground on the issue, but there is going to always be radical activist with an ax to grind looking for a chance to play victim, so it is easier at this point to just say no to all trans people.

 

[Picaro]

Most of them also end up having to wear diapers, as they lose muscle control over their urinary tracts disappear. Incontinence is not a good situation in a combat soldier or for the unit in the fleld .

 

[Picaro]

What if a 400 lb man wants to be a Navy SEAL and kills himself because they wouldn't let him in ? What if 100K 400 lb guys kill themselves because they couldn't be SEALs ? Should the SEALs change their standards?

Faux 'Progressivism' ="NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained."

Stirling S. Newberry

 

[Pete7469]

I don't really care, but since moonbats support it, it's probably a bad idea.

 

[2aguy]

Friendly reminder, this is in the "clean debate forum".

I generally support Trump, but I'm not sold that his desired ban of transgenders from military service is really needed or warranted. Now, I've never served in the military so I cannot say whether transgenders serving have a positive or negative impact on the rest of the armed forces. I've not heard of major transgressions by transgenders, but perhaps I missed them. I do know that Bradley Manning leaked classified materials but, then again, so have some heterosexual service members. I guess I'm of the adage of "If it isn't broke..." So, what is the argument for banning transgenders from military service? Thanks in advance.

Suicide rates.....

Study Shows Shocking Rates of Attempted Suicide Among Trans Teens | Human Rights Campaign

Suicide and Suicidal Behavior among Transgender Persons

 

[DandyDonovan]

Plus this entire argument is backwards anyway. The military doesn't have to PROVE why letting certain people in is good for the military. That's just dumb. The onus is to prove why letting certain people in would HELP the military accomplish its goals.

I'd even extend this to woman in combat. It's stupid to say "letting women in combat is good for women who want to be in combat" I mean that's fine a far as it goes, but the military doesn't exist to help women who want to be in combat, the military exists to prevent war and then win war if it should become necessary. So the question SHOULD have been, does letting women in combat roles help the military accomplish its goals?

 

[candycorn]

Friendly reminder, this is in the "clean debate forum".

I generally support Trump, but I'm not sold that his desired ban of transgenders from military service is really needed or warranted. Now, I've never served in the military so I cannot say whether transgenders serving have a positive or negative impact on the rest of the armed forces. I've not heard of major transgressions by transgenders, but perhaps I missed them. I do know that Bradley Manning leaked classified materials but, then again, so have some heterosexual service members. I guess I'm of the adage of "If it isn't broke..." So, what is the argument for banning transgenders from military service? Thanks in advance.

There is no good argument.


The funny thing is that Trump thinks he can pass a rule and ban someone from service. The service members I know have one thing in common for the most part. Military service is a calling; not a career choice. If someone is LGBT, they will still serve.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Friendly reminder, this is in the "clean debate forum".

I generally support Trump, but I'm not sold that his desired ban of transgenders from military service is really needed or warranted. Now, I've never served in the military so I cannot say whether transgenders serving have a positive or negative impact on the rest of the armed forces. I've not heard of major transgressions by transgenders, but perhaps I missed them. I do know that Bradley Manning leaked classified materials but, then again, so have some heterosexual service members. I guess I'm of the adage of "If it isn't broke..." So, what is the argument for banning transgenders from military service? Thanks in advance.

There is no good argument.


The funny thing is that Trump thinks he can pass a rule and ban someone from service. The service members I know have one thing in common for the most part. Military service is a calling; not a career choice. If someone is LGBT, they will still serve.

no,the funny part is you don't realize that the UCMJ already ban mentally ill people from serving and Obama unilaterally declared that that rule would be ignored in the case of "transgenders"

Or worse you actually knew that and are fine with one President just ignoring laws and making stuff up as he goes, but not with another President reversing that decision.

And another thing, Congress could at ANY time change the UCMJ. Do you hear ANY Democrats talking about changing the UCMJ to LEGALLY allow mentally ill people to serve? No you do not.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Friendly reminder, this is in the "clean debate forum".

I generally support Trump, but I'm not sold that his desired ban of transgenders from military service is really needed or warranted. Now, I've never served in the military so I cannot say whether transgenders serving have a positive or negative impact on the rest of the armed forces. I've not heard of major transgressions by transgenders, but perhaps I missed them. I do know that Bradley Manning leaked classified materials but, then again, so have some heterosexual service members. I guess I'm of the adage of "If it isn't broke..." So, what is the argument for banning transgenders from military service? Thanks in advance.

There is no good argument.


The funny thing is that Trump thinks he can pass a rule and ban someone from service. The service members I know have one thing in common for the most part. Military service is a calling; not a career choice. If someone is LGBT, they will still serve.

Once again they CAN NOT be deployed thus they are useless to the military.

 

[K9Buck]

Plus this entire argument is backwards anyway. The military doesn't have to PROVE why letting certain people in is good for the military. That's just dumb. The onus is to prove why letting certain people in would HELP the military accomplish its goals.

I'd even extend this to woman in combat. It's stupid to say "letting women in combat is good for women who want to be in combat" I mean that's fine a far as it goes, but the military doesn't exist to help women who want to be in combat, the military exists to prevent war and then win war if it should become necessary. So the question SHOULD have been, does letting women in combat roles help the military accomplish its goals?

Great points.

 

[Rando Caucasian]

You know OP, you really made me think...

Trannies sound like perfect front line cannon fodder!
- Psychotic delusional
- Suicidal
- No family could possibly give a shit about them
- Perfect shock troops, enemy will be like WTF is this ?!?!?

Sounds perfect, well done OP!