Donald Trump to kick transgender troops out of US military

[Couchpotato]

.

No one is completely wrong about what they believe. I'm certain the military accrues sick leave at the same rate as do civilian workers. It's simply kept for official data rather than stated as such to the troops. They have to gauge medical use somehow and a baseline would prove helpful.

what is that belief based on? You wanting it to be true doesn’t make it so.

 

[daveman]

No one is completely wrong about what they believe. I'm certain the military accrues sick leave at the same rate as do civilian workers. It's simply kept for official data rather than stated as such to the troops. They have to gauge medical use somehow and a baseline would prove helpful.

Oh, just stop. This is ******* pathetic.

There is no sick leave in the military. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

 

[Mushroom]

The only ones throwing a tantrum about tranies in the military are you idiots. Get over yourselves already. Or simply get out of you can't deal with life.

And where exactly have I done anything even close to that?

Once again, it seems that your only response is attacks and blanket statements.

Now please tell me when I "threw a tantrum". Come on now, surely if I have done that you can quote me. Come on, don't just spew random nonsense, back up your claim.

 

[skye]

No disrespect to our military from me here, but i just can't see a platoon of Corporal Klingers being a threat.......~S~

Exactly, more like a joke.....a pathetic joke.

 

[Mushroom]

I'm certain the military accrues sick leave at the same rate as do civilian workers.

And once again, we spin right back to how you do not know your arse from a hole in the ground.

How many times now have myself and others who have actually served told you that the military does not have "sick leave". I served for over two decades, and did not accrue a single day of "sick leave". It simply does not exist.

This is the problem, we tell you repeatedly that you are wrong, and you still continue to believe what you want to believe, regardless of actual facts. And if one of us dares to correct you, you throw a temper tantrum and still insist you are right and everybody else is wrong.

 

[Mushroom]

Stann, want to know something else that will probably blow your mind and you will refuse to believe?

The military also does not get paid over time. That's right, no such thing as overtime. I have actually had prolonged periods where I was putting in over 100+ hours a week, and I was still paid the exact same amount as when I was working only 60 hours a week. Or had "work days" that lasted over 48 hours. And yes, I mean work days, not work week. Go to work on say Saturday morning, not get off work until Monday morning. Then be right back to work on Wednesday for another 24 hour shift.

Or worked for a month and a half, doing 18 hour days with absolutely no days off.

The fact is, you seem to be under this mistaken belief that the military is no different than any other job. It is likely unlike any job you can ever imagine. And I find it kinda sad that you refuse to recognize that, or to admit you might possibly not know what you are talking about. In the military, you are one of those that probably would have been absolutely miserable. And likely exited after four years as an E-1.

 

[lafayette]

Trump can do that, but he can't mess with their benefits.

 

[eagle1462010]

I know what the military is about, I never suggested it was a 9 to 5 job. I can't say it enough, because I think some of you are purposely ignoring what I'm saying in order to make an argument, so I'll say it again: if a person is FULLY capable of discharging their duties, with no exceptions, then I don't see a problem.

Again, if a person is willing to die to defend your freedoms, do you really want you want to complain about what lifestyle they choose to live? If their existence doesn't weaken the military, if they are able bodied and mind to proficiently perform their duties, who's the problem?

Lol

Normal people dont want to serve with them. Its that simple


Deal with it.

 

[StatesRightsForever]

OK I guess I'm not understanding. If they are fully capable of discharging their duties in the military, what is the problem? Just that you don't like it?

Please explain it to me.

Trannies don't even care about their duty. They enlisted for the free medical care which otherwise they could never afford. Each of them will cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.

 

[StatesRightsForever]

It doesn't work that way anymore. Segregation is over in the military. Thought you guys. Would know that.

Segregation has been replaced with affirmative action. Blacks get special treatment in everything even though their IQ is half that of whites.

 

[Pappadave1]

I did the paperwork several times to process OUT of the Army gay soldiers under Army Regulation 635-89. The true basis for that regulation was "inimical to good discipline in the ranks."

 

[lafayette]

I did the paperwork several times to process OUT of the Army gay soldiers under Army Regulation 635-89. The true basis for that regulation was "inimical to good discipline in the ranks."

Stann and ThisIsMe far better understand this than the woke neo-fascists.

 

[Nobody911]

Why would it be bad for morale?

Seems the only people who would be upset would be the transphobes.

Should we have avoided desegregating the military in 1948 because the racists would be upset?



Do the math. 0.5% of the US population is transgender.

346,000,000 x 0.5 = 1.73MM transgenders.

The 2018 policy memo released by the Trump administration cited several reasons for the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. Some of the reasons mentioned in the memo included:

1. The need to maintain "military readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion"
2. Concerns about the cost of providing medical care for transgender service members, particularly those undergoing sex reassignment surgery
3. The potential for "undue stress and disruptions" caused by the presence of transgender individuals in the military
4. The need to ensure that military personnel are "deployable" and able to serve in a variety of roles and environments

However, many critics argued that these reasons were not supported by evidence and were instead motivated by a desire to discriminate against transgender individuals. The memo was widely criticized by LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, medical professionals, and many members of Congress.

A 2016 study by the RAND Corporation, a non-partisan think tank, found that allowing transgender individuals to serve openly in the military would have a "minimal impact" on military readiness and would not be a significant burden on the military's medical resources.

The RAND Corporation is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization that provides analysis and recommendations on a wide range of policy issues, including national security, healthcare, education, and more.

RAND is composed of a diverse group of experts from various fields, including researchers, analysts, and scientists. These experts use rigorous research methods and data analysis to provide objective and unbiased recommendations to policymakers, business leaders, and other stakeholders.

In the case of the 2016 study on transgender military service, the RAND Corporation assembled a team of experts in fields such as military personnel policy, healthcare, and social science. The team conducted a comprehensive review of existing research and data on the topic, and also consulted with military personnel, medical professionals, and other stakeholders.

The study's findings were based on a thorough analysis of the available evidence, and were intended to provide policymakers with a neutral and objective assessment of the potential impacts of allowing transgender individuals to serve openly in the military.

The RAND Corporation's study on transgender military service can be used as evidence in court, but its admissibility and weight would depend on various factors.

In the United States, expert reports and studies can be used as evidence in court if they meet certain criteria, such as:

1. Relevance: The study must be relevant to the case at hand.
2. Reliability: The study must be based on reliable methods and data.
3. Peer review: The study must have been peer-reviewed or subject to some other form of quality control.
4. Qualifications: The authors of the study must be qualified experts in their field.

The RAND Corporation's study on transgender military service is a well-regarded and widely-cited report that has been peer-reviewed and is based on rigorous research methods. As such, it could potentially be used as evidence in court.

However, the admissibility of the study as evidence would ultimately depend on the specific court and the judge's discretion. The opposing party may also challenge the study's methodology, findings, or conclusions, which could affect its weight as evidence.

In the case of the transgender military ban, the RAND Corporation's study was cited in several court cases challenging the ban, including a 2017 lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other advocacy groups. The study's findings were used to argue that the ban was not supported by evidence and was therefore unconstitutional.

LGBTQ+ people need to advocate for themselves. They must demonstrate that they are not a problem, but a solution.

 

[Couchpotato]

The 2018 policy memo released by the Trump administration cited several reasons for the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. Some of the reasons mentioned in the memo included:

1. The need to maintain "military readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion"
2. Concerns about the cost of providing medical care for transgender service members, particularly those undergoing sex reassignment surgery
3. The potential for "undue stress and disruptions" caused by the presence of transgender individuals in the military
4. The need to ensure that military personnel are "deployable" and able to serve in a variety of roles and environments

However, many critics argued that these reasons were not supported by evidence and were instead motivated by a desire to discriminate against transgender individuals. The memo was widely criticized by LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, medical professionals, and many members of Congress.

A 2016 study by the RAND Corporation, a non-partisan think tank, found that allowing transgender individuals to serve openly in the military would have a "minimal impact" on military readiness and would not be a significant burden on the military's medical resources.

The RAND Corporation is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization that provides analysis and recommendations on a wide range of policy issues, including national security, healthcare, education, and more.

RAND is composed of a diverse group of experts from various fields, including researchers, analysts, and scientists. These experts use rigorous research methods and data analysis to provide objective and unbiased recommendations to policymakers, business leaders, and other stakeholders.

In the case of the 2016 study on transgender military service, the RAND Corporation assembled a team of experts in fields such as military personnel policy, healthcare, and social science. The team conducted a comprehensive review of existing research and data on the topic, and also consulted with military personnel, medical professionals, and other stakeholders.

The study's findings were based on a thorough analysis of the available evidence, and were intended to provide policymakers with a neutral and objective assessment of the potential impacts of allowing transgender individuals to serve openly in the military.

The RAND Corporation's study on transgender military service can be used as evidence in court, but its admissibility and weight would depend on various factors.

In the United States, expert reports and studies can be used as evidence in court if they meet certain criteria, such as:

1. Relevance: The study must be relevant to the case at hand.
2. Reliability: The study must be based on reliable methods and data.
3. Peer review: The study must have been peer-reviewed or subject to some other form of quality control.
4. Qualifications: The authors of the study must be qualified experts in their field.

The RAND Corporation's study on transgender military service is a well-regarded and widely-cited report that has been peer-reviewed and is based on rigorous research methods. As such, it could potentially be used as evidence in court.

However, the admissibility of the study as evidence would ultimately depend on the specific court and the judge's discretion. The opposing party may also challenge the study's methodology, findings, or conclusions, which could affect its weight as evidence.

In the case of the transgender military ban, the RAND Corporation's study was cited in several court cases challenging the ban, including a 2017 lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other advocacy groups. The study's findings were used to argue that the ban was not supported by evidence and was therefore unconstitutional.

LGBTQ+ people need to advocate for themselves. They must demonstrate that they are not a problem, but a solution.

Does the study take into account billeting/berthing? Does it account for bathroom and shower facilities? Essentially all of which are communal when deployed? Did it take into account field operations where you don't necessarily get to bath regularly? And what's minimal? There are currently 15k transgendered people in the military currently, if 20% of them are nondeployable at any one time (that would be a conservative estimate I would think given the medical requirements and availability) that's 3000 deployment spaces that have to be filled by someone else. In other words, 3000 people will have to put their life at risk more than they otherwise would have so that we don't hurt transgendered people's feelings. 3000 people will have to spend additional time away from their family so as to not upset the LGBTQ lobby. These are the things I highly doubt these studies take into consideration. Not to mention that the Government is taking on a lifetime of care for a person with a preexisting condition. Go down the recruiter and tell them you want to enlist, but you have some other preexisting condition which the government will have to fund the care for in perpetuity. That you will be non-deployable for a significant period of time to recover from the surgery that you will require. I'll bet you they dont run you down to MEPS that same day.

 

[Mushroom]

Does the study take into account billeting/berthing?

We are already seeing a lot of women protest having to share bathrooms and show facilities with transgendered men. Imagine the disaster when they are told they have to share a room with one.

And that is a big thing in the military, if you are assigned somebody who is transgendered as your roommate, you simply have no choice. I can't count the number of times I have had a bad roommate while I was in, it was simply how things were. I would hate to imagine the nightmare if I was a female, and told I had no choice when they were putting a transgendered man in my room.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Lol

Normal people dont want to serve with them. Its that simple


Deal with it.

that may be, and they may very well get kicked out, still doesn't change my opinion.

again, that's just the libertarian in me

 

[ThisIsMe]

Trannies don't even care about their duty. They enlisted for the free medical care which otherwise they could never afford. Each of them will cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.

You don't think there are trans people who want to serve their country?

 

[lafayette]

Trans want to serve their country. Why not?

 

[daveman]

Trans want to serve their country. Why not?

IF their care and treatment allows them to deploy, and IF they can meet all the physical standards for their claimed gender, I really have no problem with it, provided those two conditions are met.

 

[StatesRightsForever]

You don't think there are trans people who want to serve their country?

Not a one. There are all scum trying to scam the system.