FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Trans in the Military
Trans in the Military
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"We'll see how far this actually goes. The military has actually be very accepting of various sexualities serving. Besides, the policy will likely be changed once he's out of office or in the near future. It's hard to sustain the US military in the numbers it requires. With people becoming more open about their sexuality necessity will eventually dictate acceptance, even if nothing else does." This.^ Like everything else Trump does it's just a storm in a teacup. Any update on that wall yet.  | |||
| |||
"We'll see how far this actually goes. The military has actually be very accepting of various sexualities serving. Besides, the policy will likely be changed once he's out of office or in the near future. It's hard to sustain the US military in the numbers it requires. With people becoming more open about their sexuality necessity will eventually dictate acceptance, even if nothing else does. This.^ Like everything else Trump does it's just a storm in a teacup. Any update on that wall yet. ". Yeah it's turned into a fence, roughly about the same size as the fence that's already there  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"A transgender women who lost both legs from an attack has challenged Trump to say this to her face. " Trump has twitted he wasn't going to stoop to her level. | |||
| |||
| |||
   | |||
"why does anyone listen to that moron?" Because he has golf courses and a fit as fuck daughter? | |||
"mind you,,why would ya join the army??? "Oh you'd rock the kakhi look I'M sure!! | |||
"mind you,,why would ya join the army???
Oh you'd rock the kakhi look I'M sure!!"of course I would,,lol,,ffs,,weird thing to say  | |||
"why does anyone listen to that moron? Because he has golf courses and a fit as fuck daughter?" you need sleep,,,sweet dreams,x | |||
"Like almost every Trump policy so far, I expect this one will be quickly slapped down by the Supreme Court. They have that funny old Constitution thing that they all seem rather keen on over there." Yeah I've been saying this for awhile, it wasn't there for nothing, when they wrote it they knew some knobend would try and gain from the Presidency... Oh there's been so many though | |||
"Like almost every Trump policy so far, I expect this one will be quickly slapped down by the Supreme Court. They have that funny old Constitution thing that they all seem rather keen on over there. Yeah I've been saying this for awhile, it wasn't there for nothing, when they wrote it they knew some knobend would try and gain from the Presidency... Oh there's been so many though "nice cock | |||
"Like almost every Trump policy so far, I expect this one will be quickly slapped down by the Supreme Court. They have that funny old Constitution thing that they all seem rather keen on over there. Yeah I've been saying this for awhile, it wasn't there for nothing, when they wrote it they knew some knobend would try and gain from the Presidency... Oh there's been so many though
nice cock "I prefer yours | |||
| |||
"Like almost every Trump policy so far, I expect this one will be quickly slapped down by the Supreme Court. They have that funny old Constitution thing that they all seem rather keen on over there. Yeah I've been saying this for awhile, it wasn't there for nothing, when they wrote it they knew some knobend would try and gain from the Presidency... Oh there's been so many though
nice cock
I prefer yours "I bet he does too | |||
 | |||
"A menage a trois Mexican stand off.... Don't get this everyday "shutup n let me sit on yer face | |||
"mind you,,why would ya join the army??? "Exactly!!! | |||
"What extra medical costs would be incurred? Do military personnel get free medical treatment? " Yes. But as has been published elsewhere, the US forces spend 5 times the predicted cost of transgender personnel on Viagra prescriptions for troops. | |||
"What extra medical costs would be incurred? Do military personnel get free medical treatment? Yes. But as has been published elsewhere, the US forces spend 5 times the predicted cost of transgender personnel on Viagra prescriptions for troops. " So they can fuck each other? | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"What extra medical costs would be incurred? Do military personnel get free medical treatment? Yes. But as has been published elsewhere, the US forces spend 5 times the predicted cost of transgender personnel on Viagra prescriptions for troops. " I see, thank you. Not to mention the personnel who will receive terrible injuries, get cancer and other life threatening diseases. The argument doesn't hold water then. | |||
"Like almost every Trump policy so far, I expect this one will be quickly slapped down by the Supreme Court. They have that funny old Constitution thing that they all seem rather keen on over there." I highly doubt it. The President has always had almost full control over the armed forces and the military had always been considered, by the judicial branch, to be a group for which the Constitution does not apply in the usual way (the military, prisons, and schools hold that special honor). And don't forget, he isn't doing much different to what military policy was pre-Obama. The only people who may have a case are those members who came out after Obama said he was making the policy change. Other than that, he probably has the legal authority to do what he wants in this regard. | |||
"By the time the U.S. TG's have finished applying their camo face paint and complained about the fit of the unisex uniforms the British forces will have already been sent in and won the war for them. No change there then." The same British forces which do allow transgender personnel to serve,with no problems? | |||
"He's just trying to cover up the Russia issue. I'm loving how other countries have released statements about how inclusive their armed forces are.
"this.. the rather sick and sad irony is that his mindset with this decision is closer to the thinking of extremist groups like IS and the Taliban than most people who are not worries about such things.. | |||
"He's just trying to cover up the Russia issue. I'm loving how other countries have released statements about how inclusive their armed forces are.
this..
the rather sick and sad irony is that his mindset with this decision is closer to the thinking of extremist groups like IS and the Taliban than most people who are not worries about such things.. "This raises a question about who the enemy is these days. IS is an obvious one. Would it not be a good thing to have soldiers with a vested interest in dis liking the enemy and all they stand for rather than soldiers who are prepared to do their duty but don't really care all that much. Seriously,what are the qualities that make a good soldier? Quick,calm thinking in a stressful situation,courage and a bit of aggression? I'd say trans people are the ideal candidates,particularly as this is not only applicable to MtoF trans people.F to M people,who make up a large percentage of those wanting to join the US military are possibly as determined if not more so, to prove themselves and they are pumped up on testosterone. I wouldn't want to fight them and I expect they'd love the chance to give IS a kicking too. | |||
"By the time the U.S. TG's have finished applying their camo face paint and complained about the fit of the unisex uniforms the British forces will have already been sent in and won the war for them. No change there then. The same British forces which do allow transgender personnel to serve,with no problems?" Yes the very same, in case you missed my point, I was 'bigging up' our British forces for efficiently doing their jobs, with a tongue in cheek observation that the U.S. will start a war but it's our squaddies that get sent in to win it for them and clean up the mess. | |||
"He's just trying to cover up the Russia issue. I'm loving how other countries have released statements about how inclusive their armed forces are.
this..
the rather sick and sad irony is that his mindset with this decision is closer to the thinking of extremist groups like IS and the Taliban than most people who are not worries about such things..
This raises a question about who the enemy is these days. IS is an obvious one. Would it not be a good thing to have soldiers with a vested interest in dis liking the enemy and all they stand for rather than soldiers who are prepared to do their duty but don't really care all that much.
Seriously,what are the qualities that make a good soldier? Quick,calm thinking in a stressful situation,courage and a bit of aggression? I'd say trans people are the ideal candidates,particularly as this is not only applicable to MtoF trans people.F to M people,who make up a large percentage of those wanting to join the US military are possibly as determined if not more so, to prove themselves and they are pumped up on testosterone. I wouldn't want to fight them and I expect they'd love the chance to give IS a kicking too."You are very right about F to M. The most weird of all, eager to prove that they are "real" men with all the wrong ideas what a real man is - loud, obnoxious, aggressive, merciless.... Add to this synthetic testosterone that wreck havoc in their whole body, brain and judgment included and they become the perfect non - thinking-Willing - to fight-stupid - wars for the motherfucking elite . Wars that have nothing to do with protecting the country. More and more people will realise the real reasons behind those wars and fewer will enlist. Unless the army becomes compulsory, they may not get enough soldiers. 15000 are trans reportedly. Of course, the state has ways to manipulate people's minds - mastermind another 9/11 or the like and people will rally round the president again. Simultaneously, the standard of education is deliberately lowered. Who needs too intelligent people anyway? Give then just about enough to be able to do their jobs, but not so much so they see what's behind the curtain. | |||
| |||
"why does anyone listen to that moron? Because he has golf courses and a fit as fuck daughter?" Your wifey Ada looks good too! | |||
"By the time the U.S. TG's have finished applying their camo face paint and complained about the fit of the unisex uniforms the British forces will have already been sent in and won the war for them. No change there then. The same British forces which do allow transgender personnel to serve,with no problems? Yes the very same, in case you missed my point, I was 'bigging up' our British forces for efficiently doing their jobs, with a tongue in cheek observation that the U.S. will start a war but it's our squaddies that get sent in to win it for them and clean up the mess." And I was agreeing with you. | |||
"He's just trying to cover up the Russia issue. I'm loving how other countries have released statements about how inclusive their armed forces are.
this..
the rather sick and sad irony is that his mindset with this decision is closer to the thinking of extremist groups like IS and the Taliban than most people who are not worries about such things..
This raises a question about who the enemy is these days. IS is an obvious one. Would it not be a good thing to have soldiers with a vested interest in dis liking the enemy and all they stand for rather than soldiers who are prepared to do their duty but don't really care all that much.
Seriously,what are the qualities that make a good soldier? Quick,calm thinking in a stressful situation,courage and a bit of aggression? I'd say trans people are the ideal candidates,particularly as this is not only applicable to MtoF trans people.F to M people,who make up a large percentage of those wanting to join the US military are possibly as determined if not more so, to prove themselves and they are pumped up on testosterone. I wouldn't want to fight them and I expect they'd love the chance to give IS a kicking too.
You are very right about F to M. The most weird of all, eager to prove that they are "real" men with all the wrong ideas what a real man is - loud, obnoxious, aggressive, merciless....
Add to this synthetic testosterone that wreck havoc in their whole body, brain and judgment included and they become the perfect non - thinking-Willing - to fight-stupid - wars for the motherfucking elite . Wars that have nothing to do with protecting the country.
More and more people will realise the real reasons behind those wars and fewer will enlist. Unless the army becomes compulsory, they may not get enough soldiers. 15000 are trans reportedly.
Of course, the state has ways to manipulate people's minds - mastermind another 9/11 or the like and people will rally round the president again.
Simultaneously, the standard of education is deliberately lowered. Who needs too intelligent people anyway? Give then just about enough to be able to do their jobs, but not so much so they see what's behind the curtain. "You raise very good arguments for not having anyone in the forces,indeed not having forces at all,never having wars and the whole human race living in peace and harmony.Unfortunately,there are some nasty people in the world who don't seem to feel that way and if someone,anyone is prepared to volunteer to defend us against them then I,for one,will not question that person about their personal business or say that they are not good enough,,,,for any reason. | |||
"By the time the U.S. TG's have finished applying their camo face paint and complained about the fit of the unisex uniforms the British forces will have already been sent in and won the war for them. No change there then. The same British forces which do allow transgender personnel to serve,with no problems? Yes the very same, in case you missed my point, I was 'bigging up' our British forces for efficiently doing their jobs, with a tongue in cheek observation that the U.S. will start a war but it's our squaddies that get sent in to win it for them and clean up the mess. And I was agreeing with you. "My misunderstanding, oh the joys of the written word  | |||
"By the time the U.S. TG's have finished applying their camo face paint and complained about the fit of the unisex uniforms the British forces will have already been sent in and won the war for them. No change there then. The same British forces which do allow transgender personnel to serve,with no problems? Yes the very same, in case you missed my point, I was 'bigging up' our British forces for efficiently doing their jobs, with a tongue in cheek observation that the U.S. will start a war but it's our squaddies that get sent in to win it for them and clean up the mess. And I was agreeing with you.
My misunderstanding, oh the joys of the written word "I have the greatest respect and admiration for all our soldiers,sailors,air force personell and marines,,,,,,,,especially marines | |||
"By the time the U.S. TG's have finished applying their camo face paint and complained about the fit of the unisex uniforms the British forces will have already been sent in and won the war for them. No change there then. The same British forces which do allow transgender personnel to serve,with no problems? Yes the very same, in case you missed my point, I was 'bigging up' our British forces for efficiently doing their jobs, with a tongue in cheek observation that the U.S. will start a war but it's our squaddies that get sent in to win it for them and clean up the mess. And I was agreeing with you.
My misunderstanding, oh the joys of the written word
I have the greatest respect and admiration for all our soldiers,sailors,air force personell and marines,,,,,,,,especially marines "Ooorahh! (I don't know what the Royal Marines yell) | |||
"By the time the U.S. TG's have finished applying their camo face paint and complained about the fit of the unisex uniforms the British forces will have already been sent in and won the war for them. No change there then. The same British forces which do allow transgender personnel to serve,with no problems? Yes the very same, in case you missed my point, I was 'bigging up' our British forces for efficiently doing their jobs, with a tongue in cheek observation that the U.S. will start a war but it's our squaddies that get sent in to win it for them and clean up the mess. And I was agreeing with you.
My misunderstanding, oh the joys of the written word
I have the greatest respect and admiration for all our soldiers,sailors,air force personell and marines,,,,,,,,especially marines
Ooorahh! (I don't know what the Royal Marines yell)"It depends what you do to them and when. | |||
"He's just trying to cover up the Russia issue. I'm loving how other countries have released statements about how inclusive their armed forces are.
this..
the rather sick and sad irony is that his mindset with this decision is closer to the thinking of extremist groups like IS and the Taliban than most people who are not worries about such things..
This raises a question about who the enemy is these days. IS is an obvious one. Would it not be a good thing to have soldiers with a vested interest in dis liking the enemy and all they stand for rather than soldiers who are prepared to do their duty but don't really care all that much.
Seriously,what are the qualities that make a good soldier? Quick,calm thinking in a stressful situation,courage and a bit of aggression? I'd say trans people are the ideal candidates,particularly as this is not only applicable to MtoF trans people.F to M people,who make up a large percentage of those wanting to join the US military are possibly as determined if not more so, to prove themselves and they are pumped up on testosterone. I wouldn't want to fight them and I expect they'd love the chance to give IS a kicking too.
You are very right about F to M. The most weird of all, eager to prove that they are "real" men with all the wrong ideas what a real man is - loud, obnoxious, aggressive, merciless....
Add to this synthetic testosterone that wreck havoc in their whole body, brain and judgment included and they become the perfect non - thinking-Willing - to fight-stupid - wars for the motherfucking elite . Wars that have nothing to do with protecting the country.
More and more people will realise the real reasons behind those wars and fewer will enlist. Unless the army becomes compulsory, they may not get enough soldiers. 15000 are trans reportedly.
Of course, the state has ways to manipulate people's minds - mastermind another 9/11 or the like and people will rally round the president again.
Simultaneously, the standard of education is deliberately lowered. Who needs too intelligent people anyway? Give then just about enough to be able to do their jobs, but not so much so they see what's behind the curtain.
You raise very good arguments for not having anyone in the forces,indeed not having forces at all,never having wars and the whole human race living in peace and harmony.Unfortunately,there are some nasty people in the world who don't seem to feel that way and if someone,anyone is prepared to volunteer to defend us against them then I,for one,will not question that person about their personal business or say that they are not good enough,,,,for any reason."I wouldn't say that we don't need army forces. However, since the end of WW2, there hasn't been a single war conflict in the world where it was justifiable to use the army. Especially when it concerns distant lands. It's all propaganda and brain washing that we are protected from enemies based in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. All cover up for pursuing other interests and profiteering from military contracts. | |||
| |||
"He's just trying to cover up the Russia issue. I'm loving how other countries have released statements about how inclusive their armed forces are.
this..
the rather sick and sad irony is that his mindset with this decision is closer to the thinking of extremist groups like IS and the Taliban than most people who are not worries about such things..
This raises a question about who the enemy is these days. IS is an obvious one. Would it not be a good thing to have soldiers with a vested interest in dis liking the enemy and all they stand for rather than soldiers who are prepared to do their duty but don't really care all that much.
Seriously,what are the qualities that make a good soldier? Quick,calm thinking in a stressful situation,courage and a bit of aggression? I'd say trans people are the ideal candidates,particularly as this is not only applicable to MtoF trans people.F to M people,who make up a large percentage of those wanting to join the US military are possibly as determined if not more so, to prove themselves and they are pumped up on testosterone. I wouldn't want to fight them and I expect they'd love the chance to give IS a kicking too.
You are very right about F to M. The most weird of all, eager to prove that they are "real" men with all the wrong ideas what a real man is - loud, obnoxious, aggressive, merciless....
Add to this synthetic testosterone that wreck havoc in their whole body, brain and judgment included and they become the perfect non - thinking-Willing - to fight-stupid - wars for the motherfucking elite . Wars that have nothing to do with protecting the country.
More and more people will realise the real reasons behind those wars and fewer will enlist. Unless the army becomes compulsory, they may not get enough soldiers. 15000 are trans reportedly.
Of course, the state has ways to manipulate people's minds - mastermind another 9/11 or the like and people will rally round the president again.
Simultaneously, the standard of education is deliberately lowered. Who needs too intelligent people anyway? Give then just about enough to be able to do their jobs, but not so much so they see what's behind the curtain.
You raise very good arguments for not having anyone in the forces,indeed not having forces at all,never having wars and the whole human race living in peace and harmony.Unfortunately,there are some nasty people in the world who don't seem to feel that way and if someone,anyone is prepared to volunteer to defend us against them then I,for one,will not question that person about their personal business or say that they are not good enough,,,,for any reason.
I wouldn't say that we don't need army forces. However, since the end of WW2, there hasn't been a single war conflict in the world where it was justifiable to use the army. Especially when it concerns distant lands. It's all propaganda and brain washing that we are protected from enemies based in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. All cover up for pursuing other interests and profiteering from military contracts.
"Not even to protect British citizens from an aggressor?....not even to protect innocent people from genocidal warlords? I bet those being rescued or defended wouldn't refuse help because their protectors were transgender. | |||
| |||
"He's just trying to cover up the Russia issue. I'm loving how other countries have released statements about how inclusive their armed forces are.
this..
the rather sick and sad irony is that his mindset with this decision is closer to the thinking of extremist groups like IS and the Taliban than most people who are not worries about such things..
This raises a question about who the enemy is these days. IS is an obvious one. Would it not be a good thing to have soldiers with a vested interest in dis liking the enemy and all they stand for rather than soldiers who are prepared to do their duty but don't really care all that much.
Seriously,what are the qualities that make a good soldier? Quick,calm thinking in a stressful situation,courage and a bit of aggression? I'd say trans people are the ideal candidates,particularly as this is not only applicable to MtoF trans people.F to M people,who make up a large percentage of those wanting to join the US military are possibly as determined if not more so, to prove themselves and they are pumped up on testosterone. I wouldn't want to fight them and I expect they'd love the chance to give IS a kicking too.
You are very right about F to M. The most weird of all, eager to prove that they are "real" men with all the wrong ideas what a real man is - loud, obnoxious, aggressive, merciless....
Add to this synthetic testosterone that wreck havoc in their whole body, brain and judgment included and they become the perfect non - thinking-Willing - to fight-stupid - wars for the motherfucking elite . Wars that have nothing to do with protecting the country.
More and more people will realise the real reasons behind those wars and fewer will enlist. Unless the army becomes compulsory, they may not get enough soldiers. 15000 are trans reportedly.
Of course, the state has ways to manipulate people's minds - mastermind another 9/11 or the like and people will rally round the president again.
Simultaneously, the standard of education is deliberately lowered. Who needs too intelligent people anyway? Give then just about enough to be able to do their jobs, but not so much so they see what's behind the curtain.
You raise very good arguments for not having anyone in the forces,indeed not having forces at all,never having wars and the whole human race living in peace and harmony.Unfortunately,there are some nasty people in the world who don't seem to feel that way and if someone,anyone is prepared to volunteer to defend us against them then I,for one,will not question that person about their personal business or say that they are not good enough,,,,for any reason.
I wouldn't say that we don't need army forces. However, since the end of WW2, there hasn't been a single war conflict in the world where it was justifiable to use the army. Especially when it concerns distant lands. It's all propaganda and brain washing that we are protected from enemies based in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. All cover up for pursuing other interests and profiteering from military contracts.
Not even to protect British citizens from an aggressor?....not even to protect innocent people from genocidal warlords? I bet those being rescued or defended wouldn't refuse help because their protectors were transgender."It seems that you misunderstand me. I don't say that transgender should not serve in the army. Quite the opposite actually. As long as the army is not compulsory let everyone do as they wish, serve or not serve. The other argument, about the necessity to wage wars. It's a different line of thought in this thread. When was the last time Britain was under attack from aggressors, as you put it? Historically, WW2 . What's your answer? | |||
"He's just trying to cover up the Russia issue. I'm loving how other countries have released statements about how inclusive their armed forces are.
this..
the rather sick and sad irony is that his mindset with this decision is closer to the thinking of extremist groups like IS and the Taliban than most people who are not worries about such things..
This raises a question about who the enemy is these days. IS is an obvious one. Would it not be a good thing to have soldiers with a vested interest in dis liking the enemy and all they stand for rather than soldiers who are prepared to do their duty but don't really care all that much.
Seriously,what are the qualities that make a good soldier? Quick,calm thinking in a stressful situation,courage and a bit of aggression? I'd say trans people are the ideal candidates,particularly as this is not only applicable to MtoF trans people.F to M people,who make up a large percentage of those wanting to join the US military are possibly as determined if not more so, to prove themselves and they are pumped up on testosterone. I wouldn't want to fight them and I expect they'd love the chance to give IS a kicking too.
You are very right about F to M. The most weird of all, eager to prove that they are "real" men with all the wrong ideas what a real man is - loud, obnoxious, aggressive, merciless....
Add to this synthetic testosterone that wreck havoc in their whole body, brain and judgment included and they become the perfect non - thinking-Willing - to fight-stupid - wars for the motherfucking elite . Wars that have nothing to do with protecting the country.
More and more people will realise the real reasons behind those wars and fewer will enlist. Unless the army becomes compulsory, they may not get enough soldiers. 15000 are trans reportedly.
Of course, the state has ways to manipulate people's minds - mastermind another 9/11 or the like and people will rally round the president again.
Simultaneously, the standard of education is deliberately lowered. Who needs too intelligent people anyway? Give then just about enough to be able to do their jobs, but not so much so they see what's behind the curtain.
You raise very good arguments for not having anyone in the forces,indeed not having forces at all,never having wars and the whole human race living in peace and harmony.Unfortunately,there are some nasty people in the world who don't seem to feel that way and if someone,anyone is prepared to volunteer to defend us against them then I,for one,will not question that person about their personal business or say that they are not good enough,,,,for any reason.
I wouldn't say that we don't need army forces. However, since the end of WW2, there hasn't been a single war conflict in the world where it was justifiable to use the army. Especially when it concerns distant lands. It's all propaganda and brain washing that we are protected from enemies based in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. All cover up for pursuing other interests and profiteering from military contracts.
Not even to protect British citizens from an aggressor?....not even to protect innocent people from genocidal warlords? I bet those being rescued or defended wouldn't refuse help because their protectors were transgender."I'm astonished by the level of stupidity on here by some posters. Myself as a serving officer in the British army would have no issue working standing side by side with a transgender soldier because I know they would be trained to the highest standard in the world. I might not agree with or even understand their personal life decisions but hey its their life. And when the shit hits the fan we are one. | |||
"He's just trying to cover up the Russia issue. I'm loving how other countries have released statements about how inclusive their armed forces are.
this..
the rather sick and sad irony is that his mindset with this decision is closer to the thinking of extremist groups like IS and the Taliban than most people who are not worries about such things..
This raises a question about who the enemy is these days. IS is an obvious one. Would it not be a good thing to have soldiers with a vested interest in dis liking the enemy and all they stand for rather than soldiers who are prepared to do their duty but don't really care all that much.
Seriously,what are the qualities that make a good soldier? Quick,calm thinking in a stressful situation,courage and a bit of aggression? I'd say trans people are the ideal candidates,particularly as this is not only applicable to MtoF trans people.F to M people,who make up a large percentage of those wanting to join the US military are possibly as determined if not more so, to prove themselves and they are pumped up on testosterone. I wouldn't want to fight them and I expect they'd love the chance to give IS a kicking too.
You are very right about F to M. The most weird of all, eager to prove that they are "real" men with all the wrong ideas what a real man is - loud, obnoxious, aggressive, merciless....
Add to this synthetic testosterone that wreck havoc in their whole body, brain and judgment included and they become the perfect non - thinking-Willing - to fight-stupid - wars for the motherfucking elite . Wars that have nothing to do with protecting the country.
More and more people will realise the real reasons behind those wars and fewer will enlist. Unless the army becomes compulsory, they may not get enough soldiers. 15000 are trans reportedly.
Of course, the state has ways to manipulate people's minds - mastermind another 9/11 or the like and people will rally round the president again.
Simultaneously, the standard of education is deliberately lowered. Who needs too intelligent people anyway? Give then just about enough to be able to do their jobs, but not so much so they see what's behind the curtain.
You raise very good arguments for not having anyone in the forces,indeed not having forces at all,never having wars and the whole human race living in peace and harmony.Unfortunately,there are some nasty people in the world who don't seem to feel that way and if someone,anyone is prepared to volunteer to defend us against them then I,for one,will not question that person about their personal business or say that they are not good enough,,,,for any reason.
I wouldn't say that we don't need army forces. However, since the end of WW2, there hasn't been a single war conflict in the world where it was justifiable to use the army. Especially when it concerns distant lands. It's all propaganda and brain washing that we are protected from enemies based in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. All cover up for pursuing other interests and profiteering from military contracts.
Not even to protect British citizens from an aggressor?....not even to protect innocent people from genocidal warlords? I bet those being rescued or defended wouldn't refuse help because their protectors were transgender.
It seems that you misunderstand me. I don't say that transgender should not serve in the army. Quite the opposite actually. As long as the army is not compulsory let everyone do as they wish, serve or not serve.
The other argument, about the necessity to wage wars. It's a different line of thought in this thread. When was the last time Britain was under attack from aggressors, as you put it?
Historically, WW2 . What's your answer? "Falklands | |||
"Ummm... I got the impression that the military covering all medical costs of personnel was the issue. As in the exorbitant fees for the transgender process. " Which shows what a non issue it is. A persons employer,including the armed forces, would not have to be responsible for their medical expenses. (which are not necessarily all that exorbitant anyway). | |||
"He's just trying to cover up the Russia issue. I'm loving how other countries have released statements about how inclusive their armed forces are.
this..
the rather sick and sad irony is that his mindset with this decision is closer to the thinking of extremist groups like IS and the Taliban than most people who are not worries about such things..
This raises a question about who the enemy is these days. IS is an obvious one. Would it not be a good thing to have soldiers with a vested interest in dis liking the enemy and all they stand for rather than soldiers who are prepared to do their duty but don't really care all that much.
Seriously,what are the qualities that make a good soldier? Quick,calm thinking in a stressful situation,courage and a bit of aggression? I'd say trans people are the ideal candidates,particularly as this is not only applicable to MtoF trans people.F to M people,who make up a large percentage of those wanting to join the US military are possibly as determined if not more so, to prove themselves and they are pumped up on testosterone. I wouldn't want to fight them and I expect they'd love the chance to give IS a kicking too.
You are very right about F to M. The most weird of all, eager to prove that they are "real" men with all the wrong ideas what a real man is - loud, obnoxious, aggressive, merciless....
Add to this synthetic testosterone that wreck havoc in their whole body, brain and judgment included and they become the perfect non - thinking-Willing - to fight-stupid - wars for the motherfucking elite . Wars that have nothing to do with protecting the country.
More and more people will realise the real reasons behind those wars and fewer will enlist. Unless the army becomes compulsory, they may not get enough soldiers. 15000 are trans reportedly.
Of course, the state has ways to manipulate people's minds - mastermind another 9/11 or the like and people will rally round the president again.
Simultaneously, the standard of education is deliberately lowered. Who needs too intelligent people anyway? Give then just about enough to be able to do their jobs, but not so much so they see what's behind the curtain.
You raise very good arguments for not having anyone in the forces,indeed not having forces at all,never having wars and the whole human race living in peace and harmony.Unfortunately,there are some nasty people in the world who don't seem to feel that way and if someone,anyone is prepared to volunteer to defend us against them then I,for one,will not question that person about their personal business or say that they are not good enough,,,,for any reason.
I wouldn't say that we don't need army forces. However, since the end of WW2, there hasn't been a single war conflict in the world where it was justifiable to use the army. Especially when it concerns distant lands. It's all propaganda and brain washing that we are protected from enemies based in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. All cover up for pursuing other interests and profiteering from military contracts.
Not even to protect British citizens from an aggressor?....not even to protect innocent people from genocidal warlords? I bet those being rescued or defended wouldn't refuse help because their protectors were transgender.
It seems that you misunderstand me. I don't say that transgender should not serve in the army. Quite the opposite actually. As long as the army is not compulsory let everyone do as they wish, serve or not serve.
The other argument, about the necessity to wage wars. It's a different line of thought in this thread. When was the last time Britain was under attack from aggressors, as you put it?
Historically, WW2 . What's your answer?
Falklands"You beat me to it,that was one of the examples I meant. The whole point of the discussion is about trans people serving in the military. As long as a person demonstrates their abilities to do a job,I can see no real reason why they should be barred from that job, certainly not because of something that is their own private business. | |||
| |||
"Trump has said transgender people cannot serve in the US Military due to "tremendous medical costs and disruption". Do you think this is the right or wrong call? Trump says US military will not 'accept or allow' transgender people to serve https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/26/trump-says-us-military-will-not-accept-or-allow-transgender-people-to-serve?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard" it's there country there rules live with it  | |||
| |||
"Trump has said transgender people cannot serve in the US Military due to "tremendous medical costs and disruption". Do you think this is the right or wrong call? Trump says US military will not 'accept or allow' transgender people to serve https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/26/trump-says-us-military-will-not-accept-or-allow-transgender-people-to-serve?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboardit's there country there rules live with it "Exactly mate you're on the ball and just because the rest of the world does not follow its his decision along with top brass in the Pentagon. | |||
"Ummm... I got the impression that the military covering all medical costs of personnel was the issue. As in the exorbitant fees for the transgender process. Which shows what a non issue it is. A persons employer,including the armed forces, would not have to be responsible for their medical expenses. (which are not necessarily all that exorbitant anyway)." In the USA? Medical anything is actually financially cripplingly expensive! | |||
"He's just trying to cover up the Russia issue. I'm loving how other countries have released statements about how inclusive their armed forces are.
this..
the rather sick and sad irony is that his mindset with this decision is closer to the thinking of extremist groups like IS and the Taliban than most people who are not worries about such things..
This raises a question about who the enemy is these days. IS is an obvious one. Would it not be a good thing to have soldiers with a vested interest in dis liking the enemy and all they stand for rather than soldiers who are prepared to do their duty but don't really care all that much.
Seriously,what are the qualities that make a good soldier? Quick,calm thinking in a stressful situation,courage and a bit of aggression? I'd say trans people are the ideal candidates,particularly as this is not only applicable to MtoF trans people.F to M people,who make up a large percentage of those wanting to join the US military are possibly as determined if not more so, to prove themselves and they are pumped up on testosterone. I wouldn't want to fight them and I expect they'd love the chance to give IS a kicking too.
You are very right about F to M. The most weird of all, eager to prove that they are "real" men with all the wrong ideas what a real man is - loud, obnoxious, aggressive, merciless....
Add to this synthetic testosterone that wreck havoc in their whole body, brain and judgment included and they become the perfect non - thinking-Willing - to fight-stupid - wars for the motherfucking elite . Wars that have nothing to do with protecting the country.
More and more people will realise the real reasons behind those wars and fewer will enlist. Unless the army becomes compulsory, they may not get enough soldiers. 15000 are trans reportedly.
Of course, the state has ways to manipulate people's minds - mastermind another 9/11 or the like and people will rally round the president again.
Simultaneously, the standard of education is deliberately lowered. Who needs too intelligent people anyway? Give then just about enough to be able to do their jobs, but not so much so they see what's behind the curtain.
You raise very good arguments for not having anyone in the forces,indeed not having forces at all,never having wars and the whole human race living in peace and harmony.Unfortunately,there are some nasty people in the world who don't seem to feel that way and if someone,anyone is prepared to volunteer to defend us against them then I,for one,will not question that person about their personal business or say that they are not good enough,,,,for any reason.
I wouldn't say that we don't need army forces. However, since the end of WW2, there hasn't been a single war conflict in the world where it was justifiable to use the army. Especially when it concerns distant lands. It's all propaganda and brain washing that we are protected from enemies based in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. All cover up for pursuing other interests and profiteering from military contracts.
Not even to protect British citizens from an aggressor?....not even to protect innocent people from genocidal warlords? I bet those being rescued or defended wouldn't refuse help because their protectors were transgender.
It seems that you misunderstand me. I don't say that transgender should not serve in the army. Quite the opposite actually. As long as the army is not compulsory let everyone do as they wish, serve or not serve.
The other argument, about the necessity to wage wars. It's a different line of thought in this thread. When was the last time Britain was under attack from aggressors, as you put it?
Historically, WW2 . What's your answer?
Falklands"Controversial and debatable
You know what you are fed to believe. Ask the Argentinians to see their side of the coin.
Go back over history to research if Britain should've settled there in the first place...
But anyway, let's say that Falkland is the correct answer. One and only. Merely an exeption to prove the general rule.
| |||
"When first joined it was against Service law (the new name for it) to be homosexual, and you would be discharged if found out! I am of the opinion, we are all people, and to me its irrelevant if you're male, female, black, white, gay, straight or bi, trans or not. I will take you as your personality, not you're looks. I once had a young female Sgt introduce her self to me as follows; "Morning Sir I'm Sgt ******, and I'm a lesbian." My Reply "Morning Sgt, I'm pleased you have informed me of your sexuality, however I don't see its relevance, but as we are talking about sexuality I'm hetrosexual. Now can you assemble the troops for a brief." To which she looked at me in the most gormless way, wondered off muttering under her breath and got the troops together." She made a point early on that she won't welcome sexual advances from you. | |||
"He's just trying to cover up the Russia issue. I'm loving how other countries have released statements about how inclusive their armed forces are.
this..
the rather sick and sad irony is that his mindset with this decision is closer to the thinking of extremist groups like IS and the Taliban than most people who are not worries about such things..
This raises a question about who the enemy is these days. IS is an obvious one. Would it not be a good thing to have soldiers with a vested interest in dis liking the enemy and all they stand for rather than soldiers who are prepared to do their duty but don't really care all that much.
Seriously,what are the qualities that make a good soldier? Quick,calm thinking in a stressful situation,courage and a bit of aggression? I'd say trans people are the ideal candidates,particularly as this is not only applicable to MtoF trans people.F to M people,who make up a large percentage of those wanting to join the US military are possibly as determined if not more so, to prove themselves and they are pumped up on testosterone. I wouldn't want to fight them and I expect they'd love the chance to give IS a kicking too.
You are very right about F to M. The most weird of all, eager to prove that they are "real" men with all the wrong ideas what a real man is - loud, obnoxious, aggressive, merciless....
Add to this synthetic testosterone that wreck havoc in their whole body, brain and judgment included and they become the perfect non - thinking-Willing - to fight-stupid - wars for the motherfucking elite . Wars that have nothing to do with protecting the country.
More and more people will realise the real reasons behind those wars and fewer will enlist. Unless the army becomes compulsory, they may not get enough soldiers. 15000 are trans reportedly.
Of course, the state has ways to manipulate people's minds - mastermind another 9/11 or the like and people will rally round the president again.
Simultaneously, the standard of education is deliberately lowered. Who needs too intelligent people anyway? Give then just about enough to be able to do their jobs, but not so much so they see what's behind the curtain.
You raise very good arguments for not having anyone in the forces,indeed not having forces at all,never having wars and the whole human race living in peace and harmony.Unfortunately,there are some nasty people in the world who don't seem to feel that way and if someone,anyone is prepared to volunteer to defend us against them then I,for one,will not question that person about their personal business or say that they are not good enough,,,,for any reason.
I wouldn't say that we don't need army forces. However, since the end of WW2, there hasn't been a single war conflict in the world where it was justifiable to use the army. Especially when it concerns distant lands. It's all propaganda and brain washing that we are protected from enemies based in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. All cover up for pursuing other interests and profiteering from military contracts.
Not even to protect British citizens from an aggressor?....not even to protect innocent people from genocidal warlords? I bet those being rescued or defended wouldn't refuse help because their protectors were transgender.
It seems that you misunderstand me. I don't say that transgender should not serve in the army. Quite the opposite actually. As long as the army is not compulsory let everyone do as they wish, serve or not serve.
The other argument, about the necessity to wage wars. It's a different line of thought in this thread. When was the last time Britain was under attack from aggressors, as you put it?
Historically, WW2 . What's your answer?
Falklands
Controversial and debatable
You know what you are fed to believe. Ask the Argentinians to see their side of the coin.
Go back over history to research if Britain should've settled there in the first place...
But anyway, let's say that Falkland is the correct answer. One and only. Merely an exeption to prove the general rule.
"I'm always right you're dismissed now.  | |||
"He's just trying to cover up the Russia issue. I'm loving how other countries have released statements about how inclusive their armed forces are.
this..
the rather sick and sad irony is that his mindset with this decision is closer to the thinking of extremist groups like IS and the Taliban than most people who are not worries about such things..
This raises a question about who the enemy is these days. IS is an obvious one. Would it not be a good thing to have soldiers with a vested interest in dis liking the enemy and all they stand for rather than soldiers who are prepared to do their duty but don't really care all that much.
Seriously,what are the qualities that make a good soldier? Quick,calm thinking in a stressful situation,courage and a bit of aggression? I'd say trans people are the ideal candidates,particularly as this is not only applicable to MtoF trans people.F to M people,who make up a large percentage of those wanting to join the US military are possibly as determined if not more so, to prove themselves and they are pumped up on testosterone. I wouldn't want to fight them and I expect they'd love the chance to give IS a kicking too.
You are very right about F to M. The most weird of all, eager to prove that they are "real" men with all the wrong ideas what a real man is - loud, obnoxious, aggressive, merciless....
Add to this synthetic testosterone that wreck havoc in their whole body, brain and judgment included and they become the perfect non - thinking-Willing - to fight-stupid - wars for the motherfucking elite . Wars that have nothing to do with protecting the country.
More and more people will realise the real reasons behind those wars and fewer will enlist. Unless the army becomes compulsory, they may not get enough soldiers. 15000 are trans reportedly.
Of course, the state has ways to manipulate people's minds - mastermind another 9/11 or the like and people will rally round the president again.
Simultaneously, the standard of education is deliberately lowered. Who needs too intelligent people anyway? Give then just about enough to be able to do their jobs, but not so much so they see what's behind the curtain.
You raise very good arguments for not having anyone in the forces,indeed not having forces at all,never having wars and the whole human race living in peace and harmony.Unfortunately,there are some nasty people in the world who don't seem to feel that way and if someone,anyone is prepared to volunteer to defend us against them then I,for one,will not question that person about their personal business or say that they are not good enough,,,,for any reason.
I wouldn't say that we don't need army forces. However, since the end of WW2, there hasn't been a single war conflict in the world where it was justifiable to use the army. Especially when it concerns distant lands. It's all propaganda and brain washing that we are protected from enemies based in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. All cover up for pursuing other interests and profiteering from military contracts.
Not even to protect British citizens from an aggressor?....not even to protect innocent people from genocidal warlords? I bet those being rescued or defended wouldn't refuse help because their protectors were transgender.
It seems that you misunderstand me. I don't say that transgender should not serve in the army. Quite the opposite actually. As long as the army is not compulsory let everyone do as they wish, serve or not serve.
The other argument, about the necessity to wage wars. It's a different line of thought in this thread. When was the last time Britain was under attack from aggressors, as you put it?
Historically, WW2 . What's your answer?
Falklands
Controversial and debatable
You know what you are fed to believe. Ask the Argentinians to see their side of the coin.
Go back over history to research if Britain should've settled there in the first place...
But anyway, let's say that Falkland is the correct answer. One and only. Merely an exeption to prove the general rule.
I'm always right you're dismissed now. "In your mind. Sure you are. There are special confined places with high walls and fences for people with this kind of condition  | |||
"He's just trying to cover up the Russia issue. I'm loving how other countries have released statements about how inclusive their armed forces are.
this..
the rather sick and sad irony is that his mindset with this decision is closer to the thinking of extremist groups like IS and the Taliban than most people who are not worries about such things..
This raises a question about who the enemy is these days. IS is an obvious one. Would it not be a good thing to have soldiers with a vested interest in dis liking the enemy and all they stand for rather than soldiers who are prepared to do their duty but don't really care all that much.
Seriously,what are the qualities that make a good soldier? Quick,calm thinking in a stressful situation,courage and a bit of aggression? I'd say trans people are the ideal candidates,particularly as this is not only applicable to MtoF trans people.F to M people,who make up a large percentage of those wanting to join the US military are possibly as determined if not more so, to prove themselves and they are pumped up on testosterone. I wouldn't want to fight them and I expect they'd love the chance to give IS a kicking too.
You are very right about F to M. The most weird of all, eager to prove that they are "real" men with all the wrong ideas what a real man is - loud, obnoxious, aggressive, merciless....
Add to this synthetic testosterone that wreck havoc in their whole body, brain and judgment included and they become the perfect non - thinking-Willing - to fight-stupid - wars for the motherfucking elite . Wars that have nothing to do with protecting the country.
More and more people will realise the real reasons behind those wars and fewer will enlist. Unless the army becomes compulsory, they may not get enough soldiers. 15000 are trans reportedly.
Of course, the state has ways to manipulate people's minds - mastermind another 9/11 or the like and people will rally round the president again.
Simultaneously, the standard of education is deliberately lowered. Who needs too intelligent people anyway? Give then just about enough to be able to do their jobs, but not so much so they see what's behind the curtain.
You raise very good arguments for not having anyone in the forces,indeed not having forces at all,never having wars and the whole human race living in peace and harmony.Unfortunately,there are some nasty people in the world who don't seem to feel that way and if someone,anyone is prepared to volunteer to defend us against them then I,for one,will not question that person about their personal business or say that they are not good enough,,,,for any reason.
I wouldn't say that we don't need army forces. However, since the end of WW2, there hasn't been a single war conflict in the world where it was justifiable to use the army. Especially when it concerns distant lands. It's all propaganda and brain washing that we are protected from enemies based in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. All cover up for pursuing other interests and profiteering from military contracts.
Not even to protect British citizens from an aggressor?....not even to protect innocent people from genocidal warlords? I bet those being rescued or defended wouldn't refuse help because their protectors were transgender.
It seems that you misunderstand me. I don't say that transgender should not serve in the army. Quite the opposite actually. As long as the army is not compulsory let everyone do as they wish, serve or not serve.
The other argument, about the necessity to wage wars. It's a different line of thought in this thread. When was the last time Britain was under attack from aggressors, as you put it?
Historically, WW2 . What's your answer?
Falklands
Controversial and debatable
You know what you are fed to believe. Ask the Argentinians to see their side of the coin.
Go back over history to research if Britain should've settled there in the first place...
But anyway, let's say that Falkland is the correct answer. One and only. Merely an exeption to prove the general rule.
I'm always right you're dismissed now.
In your mind. Sure you are. There are special confined places with high walls and fences for people with this kind of condition "You try too hard. | |||
"I can't see what medical cost trumpet Trump is trumpeting about? The army isn't the one to pay for their transgender surgeries and hormones. Or does he mean that an injured trans is more costly to treat than an injured man or a woman? Ultimately? Trump has very limited powers. He can't do much more than Tweet. One day they may even restrict what he tweets. Let him enjoy that feeling that he's the one to rule - everyone knows that's not the case ." Yes the military is paying these medical costs while other military members and families as well as retired dont get the treatment they need. Glad to see President Trump cleaning up the mess left by previous administration. Hopefully the prosecutions of the previous administration will start soon instead of the Russian witch hunt | |||
"I can't see what medical cost trumpet Trump is trumpeting about? The army isn't the one to pay for their transgender surgeries and hormones. Or does he mean that an injured trans is more costly to treat than an injured man or a woman? Ultimately? Trump has very limited powers. He can't do much more than Tweet. One day they may even restrict what he tweets. Let him enjoy that feeling that he's the one to rule - everyone knows that's not the case . Yes the military is paying these medical costs while other military members and families as well as retired dont get the treatment they need. Glad to see President Trump cleaning up the mess left by previous administration. Hopefully the prosecutions of the previous administration will start soon instead of the Russian witch hunt" Do the US military really pay for the costs of serving personnels gender transition? Or do the US military provide medical insurance for serving personnel? Don't most employers in the US provide this? | |||
| |||
"Ummm... I got the impression that the military covering all medical costs of personnel was the issue. As in the exorbitant fees for the transgender process. Which shows what a non issue it is. A persons employer,including the armed forces, would not have to be responsible for their medical expenses. (which are not necessarily all that exorbitant anyway). In the USA? Medical anything is actually financially cripplingly expensive! " Oddly enough,I once looked up an American surgeon on this subject.the prices were not much different from those charged in the UK. I don't believe that the US military actually pays for anyones GRS anyway. If they pay for anyones HRT (which I'm still unconvinced that they do),there are some quite reasonably priced and easily found places to source this. | |||
"Ummm... I got the impression that the military covering all medical costs of personnel was the issue. As in the exorbitant fees for the transgender process. Which shows what a non issue it is. A persons employer,including the armed forces, would not have to be responsible for their medical expenses. (which are not necessarily all that exorbitant anyway)." Ummm..a person's employer is usually responsible for someone's medical expenses in the U.S.. Including the armed forces. Trump could say transgenered people can be in the military but that their medical costs associated with transitioning will not be covered. I wonder how people would feel about that. | |||
"Ummm... I got the impression that the military covering all medical costs of personnel was the issue. As in the exorbitant fees for the transgender process. Which shows what a non issue it is. A persons employer,including the armed forces, would not have to be responsible for their medical expenses. (which are not necessarily all that exorbitant anyway). In the USA? Medical anything is actually financially cripplingly expensive! Oddly enough,I once looked up an American surgeon on this subject.the prices were not much different from those charged in the UK. I don't believe that the US military actually pays for anyones GRS anyway. If they pay for anyones HRT (which I'm still unconvinced that they do),there are some quite reasonably priced and easily found places to source this." The Pentagon has policies for transgenered people's health care. It was actually a big deal when Chelsea Manning was pardoned by Obama because her surgery was set to be covered by the Pentagon because she was in a military prison. Look it up. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm astonished by the level of stupidity on here by some posters. Myself as a serving officer in the British army would have no issue working standing side by side with a transgender soldier because I know they would be trained to the highest standard in the world. I might not agree with or even understand their personal life decisions but hey its their life. And when the shit hits the fan we are one." In my humble opinion this is by far the best statement on this thread. The opinion of one of our very own soldiers who chooses to defend our country and our freedom, willing to put his own views aside to do his job to protect all of us, irrelevant of sexual orientation, race or religion. Mr.Greystone I salute you. | |||
"Ummm... I got the impression that the military covering all medical costs of personnel was the issue. As in the exorbitant fees for the transgender process. Which shows what a non issue it is. A persons employer,including the armed forces, would not have to be responsible for their medical expenses. (which are not necessarily all that exorbitant anyway). Ummm..a person's employer is usually responsible for someone's medical expenses in the U.S.. Including the armed forces. Trump could say transgenered people can be in the military but that their medical costs associated with transitioning will not be covered. I wonder how people would feel about that." I don't believe that a persons medical expenses are covered by their employers,what a lovely world that would be if they did. The employers may offer a medical insurance plan as a benefit but that is not quite the same thing. It would then be up to the insurers whether or not to cover this treatment,some do some don't. I think the second point is quite reasonable,making it clear at the point of recruitment what benefits are and are not available. the employee then has a choice whether to sign a contract or not. | |||
"Ummm... I got the impression that the military covering all medical costs of personnel was the issue. As in the exorbitant fees for the transgender process. Which shows what a non issue it is. A persons employer,including the armed forces, would not have to be responsible for their medical expenses. (which are not necessarily all that exorbitant anyway). Ummm..a person's employer is usually responsible for someone's medical expenses in the U.S.. Including the armed forces. Trump could say transgenered people can be in the military but that their medical costs associated with transitioning will not be covered. I wonder how people would feel about that. I don't believe that a persons medical expenses are covered by their employers,what a lovely world that would be if they did. The employers may offer a medical insurance plan as a benefit but that is not quite the same thing. It would then be up to the insurers whether or not to cover this treatment,some do some don't. I think the second point is quite reasonable,making it clear at the point of recruitment what benefits are and are not available. the employee then has a choice whether to sign a contract or not." I get what you're saying, but there are two problems with it: (1) it's a bit of a semantic difference to be made between employers providing medical care and employers paying for medical insurance. If the issue for Trump is cost, the it's relevant in either scenario. And (2) in the case of the military you're wrong anyway. The military provides medical care directly, not necessarily through insurance. You get care at military hospitals (and VA hospitals for veterans). The armed forces in the U.S. operate differently than other employers. | |||
"Ummm... I got the impression that the military covering all medical costs of personnel was the issue. As in the exorbitant fees for the transgender process. Which shows what a non issue it is. A persons employer,including the armed forces, would not have to be responsible for their medical expenses. (which are not necessarily all that exorbitant anyway). Ummm..a person's employer is usually responsible for someone's medical expenses in the U.S.. Including the armed forces. Trump could say transgenered people can be in the military but that their medical costs associated with transitioning will not be covered. I wonder how people would feel about that. I don't believe that a persons medical expenses are covered by their employers,what a lovely world that would be if they did. The employers may offer a medical insurance plan as a benefit but that is not quite the same thing. It would then be up to the insurers whether or not to cover this treatment,some do some don't. I think the second point is quite reasonable,making it clear at the point of recruitment what benefits are and are not available. the employee then has a choice whether to sign a contract or not. I get what you're saying, but there are two problems with it: (1) it's a bit of a semantic difference to be made between employers providing medical care and employers paying for medical insurance. If the issue for Trump is cost, the it's relevant in either scenario. And (2) in the case of the military you're wrong anyway. The military provides medical care directly, not necessarily through insurance. You get care at military hospitals (and VA hospitals for veterans). The armed forces in the U.S. operate differently than other employers. " It's only a semantic difference if the healthcare premiums would be different for a trans person,specifically because they are trans. No doubt the US military takes care of its personnel,and if they are injured or become sick in the line of duty,no one would argue against that. Does the US military,or any military,actually pay for what is obviously being considered as incidental medical expenses? There could be a very good case for saying that they shouldn't and that would be far easier and less controversial than discharging serving personnel. That's why I maintain that the cost argument is a non issue.I believe there are other motivations behind this. You may say it's Americas problem,not ours but there could be knock on effects,attitudes can spread. | |||
"Ummm... I got the impression that the military covering all medical costs of personnel was the issue. As in the exorbitant fees for the transgender process. Which shows what a non issue it is. A persons employer,including the armed forces, would not have to be responsible for their medical expenses. (which are not necessarily all that exorbitant anyway). Ummm..a person's employer is usually responsible for someone's medical expenses in the U.S.. Including the armed forces. Trump could say transgenered people can be in the military but that their medical costs associated with transitioning will not be covered. I wonder how people would feel about that. I don't believe that a persons medical expenses are covered by their employers,what a lovely world that would be if they did. The employers may offer a medical insurance plan as a benefit but that is not quite the same thing. It would then be up to the insurers whether or not to cover this treatment,some do some don't. I think the second point is quite reasonable,making it clear at the point of recruitment what benefits are and are not available. the employee then has a choice whether to sign a contract or not. I get what you're saying, but there are two problems with it: (1) it's a bit of a semantic difference to be made between employers providing medical care and employers paying for medical insurance. If the issue for Trump is cost, the it's relevant in either scenario. And (2) in the case of the military you're wrong anyway. The military provides medical care directly, not necessarily through insurance. You get care at military hospitals (and VA hospitals for veterans). The armed forces in the U.S. operate differently than other employers. It's only a semantic difference if the healthcare premiums would be different for a trans person,specifically because they are trans. No doubt the US military takes care of its personnel,and if they are injured or become sick in the line of duty,no one would argue against that. Does the US military,or any military,actually pay for what is obviously being considered as incidental medical expenses? There could be a very good case for saying that they shouldn't and that would be far easier and less controversial than discharging serving personnel. That's why I maintain that the cost argument is a non issue.I believe there are other motivations behind this. You may say it's Americas problem,not ours but there could be knock on effects,attitudes can spread." I'm trying to correct blatantly false statements been mad on this subject regarding American health care, specifically as it relates to the armed forces. Someone in the U.S. military gets medical care by the military directly from military medical centers and hospitals. That's just just fact. They also get insurance to cover them at certain times from civilian medical institutions. But a majority of care is provided directly by the U.S. government through military medical institutions. Because of that, the cost of medical care for military personnel is directly relevant. If you want to know whether transition surgeries are covered for military personnel I suggest you look it up rather than make assumptions. I can tell you that based on the policies Obama put into effect for trans personnel Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley) was going to have her surgery done at a military hospital. It crwated a lot of noise in the U.S. at the time of her coming out because people were mad that taxpayers had to pay for the surgery (because Chelsea was in a military prison for treasonous offenses). I'm personally against what Trump has done here. However, that doesn't mean we can ignore the facts surrounding medical care for military personnel. We'd be better off if people made the moral argument and avoided the cost argument, really. As you said, it's it's non-issue, but it can't and shouldn't be brushed aside with assumptions and incorrect facts. | |||
| |||
"Ummm... I got the impression that the military covering all medical costs of personnel was the issue. As in the exorbitant fees for the transgender process. Which shows what a non issue it is. A persons employer,including the armed forces, would not have to be responsible for their medical expenses. (which are not necessarily all that exorbitant anyway). Ummm..a person's employer is usually responsible for someone's medical expenses in the U.S.. Including the armed forces. Trump could say transgenered people can be in the military but that their medical costs associated with transitioning will not be covered. I wonder how people would feel about that. I don't believe that a persons medical expenses are covered by their employers,what a lovely world that would be if they did. The employers may offer a medical insurance plan as a benefit but that is not quite the same thing. It would then be up to the insurers whether or not to cover this treatment,some do some don't. I think the second point is quite reasonable,making it clear at the point of recruitment what benefits are and are not available. the employee then has a choice whether to sign a contract or not. I get what you're saying, but there are two problems with it: (1) it's a bit of a semantic difference to be made between employers providing medical care and employers paying for medical insurance. If the issue for Trump is cost, the it's relevant in either scenario. And (2) in the case of the military you're wrong anyway. The military provides medical care directly, not necessarily through insurance. You get care at military hospitals (and VA hospitals for veterans). The armed forces in the U.S. operate differently than other employers. It's only a semantic difference if the healthcare premiums would be different for a trans person,specifically because they are trans. No doubt the US military takes care of its personnel,and if they are injured or become sick in the line of duty,no one would argue against that. Does the US military,or any military,actually pay for what is obviously being considered as incidental medical expenses? There could be a very good case for saying that they shouldn't and that would be far easier and less controversial than discharging serving personnel. That's why I maintain that the cost argument is a non issue.I believe there are other motivations behind this. You may say it's Americas problem,not ours but there could be knock on effects,attitudes can spread. I'm trying to correct blatantly false statements been mad on this subject regarding American health care, specifically as it relates to the armed forces. Someone in the U.S. military gets medical care by the military directly from military medical centers and hospitals. That's just just fact. They also get insurance to cover them at certain times from civilian medical institutions. But a majority of care is provided directly by the U.S. government through military medical institutions. Because of that, the cost of medical care for military personnel is directly relevant. If you want to know whether transition surgeries are covered for military personnel I suggest you look it up rather than make assumptions. I can tell you that based on the policies Obama put into effect for trans personnel Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley) was going to have her surgery done at a military hospital. It crwated a lot of noise in the U.S. at the time of her coming out because people were mad that taxpayers had to pay for the surgery (because Chelsea was in a military prison for treasonous offenses). I'm personally against what Trump has done here. However, that doesn't mean we can ignore the facts surrounding medical care for military personnel. We'd be better off if people made the moral argument and avoided the cost argument, really. As you said, it's it's non-issue, but it can't and shouldn't be brushed aside with assumptions and incorrect facts." well put now calm down dear its only a thread | |||
| |||
"Ummm... I got the impression that the military covering all medical costs of personnel was the issue. As in the exorbitant fees for the transgender process. Which shows what a non issue it is. A persons employer,including the armed forces, would not have to be responsible for their medical expenses. (which are not necessarily all that exorbitant anyway). Ummm..a person's employer is usually responsible for someone's medical expenses in the U.S.. Including the armed forces. Trump could say transgenered people can be in the military but that their medical costs associated with transitioning will not be covered. I wonder how people would feel about that. I don't believe that a persons medical expenses are covered by their employers,what a lovely world that would be if they did. The employers may offer a medical insurance plan as a benefit but that is not quite the same thing. It would then be up to the insurers whether or not to cover this treatment,some do some don't. I think the second point is quite reasonable,making it clear at the point of recruitment what benefits are and are not available. the employee then has a choice whether to sign a contract or not. I get what you're saying, but there are two problems with it: (1) it's a bit of a semantic difference to be made between employers providing medical care and employers paying for medical insurance. If the issue for Trump is cost, the it's relevant in either scenario. And (2) in the case of the military you're wrong anyway. The military provides medical care directly, not necessarily through insurance. You get care at military hospitals (and VA hospitals for veterans). The armed forces in the U.S. operate differently than other employers. It's only a semantic difference if the healthcare premiums would be different for a trans person,specifically because they are trans. No doubt the US military takes care of its personnel,and if they are injured or become sick in the line of duty,no one would argue against that. Does the US military,or any military,actually pay for what is obviously being considered as incidental medical expenses? There could be a very good case for saying that they shouldn't and that would be far easier and less controversial than discharging serving personnel. That's why I maintain that the cost argument is a non issue.I believe there are other motivations behind this. You may say it's Americas problem,not ours but there could be knock on effects,attitudes can spread. I'm trying to correct blatantly false statements been mad on this subject regarding American health care, specifically as it relates to the armed forces. Someone in the U.S. military gets medical care by the military directly from military medical centers and hospitals. That's just just fact. They also get insurance to cover them at certain times from civilian medical institutions. But a majority of care is provided directly by the U.S. government through military medical institutions. Because of that, the cost of medical care for military personnel is directly relevant. If you want to know whether transition surgeries are covered for military personnel I suggest you look it up rather than make assumptions. I can tell you that based on the policies Obama put into effect for trans personnel Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley) was going to have her surgery done at a military hospital. It crwated a lot of noise in the U.S. at the time of her coming out because people were mad that taxpayers had to pay for the surgery (because Chelsea was in a military prison for treasonous offenses). I'm personally against what Trump has done here. However, that doesn't mean we can ignore the facts surrounding medical care for military personnel. We'd be better off if people made the moral argument and avoided the cost argument, really. As you said, it's it's non-issue, but it can't and shouldn't be brushed aside with assumptions and incorrect facts." Well,I haven't made assumptions,I've asked questions and I have looked things up. I would say that the attitude 'do what you gotta do,as long as you can still do your duty but don't expect the taxpayers to hand it all to you on a plate' would seem to be a quite reasonable one. It could also be applied to many other areas of life too, lifelong cigarette smokers with lung cancer,people injured in their sporting activities etc. I guess if we all felt that way,we would not even have an NHS in the first place. In the case of a trans person receiving assistance with their medical costs,it could be argued that a depressed,potential suicide case who,after treatment becomes a fully functional,tax paying member of society is money well spent. | |||
"Ummm... I got the impression that the military covering all medical costs of personnel was the issue. As in the exorbitant fees for the transgender process. Which shows what a non issue it is. A persons employer,including the armed forces, would not have to be responsible for their medical expenses. (which are not necessarily all that exorbitant anyway). Ummm..a person's employer is usually responsible for someone's medical expenses in the U.S.. Including the armed forces. Trump could say transgenered people can be in the military but that their medical costs associated with transitioning will not be covered. I wonder how people would feel about that. I don't believe that a persons medical expenses are covered by their employers,what a lovely world that would be if they did. The employers may offer a medical insurance plan as a benefit but that is not quite the same thing. It would then be up to the insurers whether or not to cover this treatment,some do some don't. I think the second point is quite reasonable,making it clear at the point of recruitment what benefits are and are not available. the employee then has a choice whether to sign a contract or not. I get what you're saying, but there are two problems with it: (1) it's a bit of a semantic difference to be made between employers providing medical care and employers paying for medical insurance. If the issue for Trump is cost, the it's relevant in either scenario. And (2) in the case of the military you're wrong anyway. The military provides medical care directly, not necessarily through insurance. You get care at military hospitals (and VA hospitals for veterans). The armed forces in the U.S. operate differently than other employers. It's only a semantic difference if the healthcare premiums would be different for a trans person,specifically because they are trans. No doubt the US military takes care of its personnel,and if they are injured or become sick in the line of duty,no one would argue against that. Does the US military,or any military,actually pay for what is obviously being considered as incidental medical expenses? There could be a very good case for saying that they shouldn't and that would be far easier and less controversial than discharging serving personnel. That's why I maintain that the cost argument is a non issue.I believe there are other motivations behind this. You may say it's Americas problem,not ours but there could be knock on effects,attitudes can spread. I'm trying to correct blatantly false statements been mad on this subject regarding American health care, specifically as it relates to the armed forces. Someone in the U.S. military gets medical care by the military directly from military medical centers and hospitals. That's just just fact. They also get insurance to cover them at certain times from civilian medical institutions. But a majority of care is provided directly by the U.S. government through military medical institutions. Because of that, the cost of medical care for military personnel is directly relevant. If you want to know whether transition surgeries are covered for military personnel I suggest you look it up rather than make assumptions. I can tell you that based on the policies Obama put into effect for trans personnel Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley) was going to have her surgery done at a military hospital. It crwated a lot of noise in the U.S. at the time of her coming out because people were mad that taxpayers had to pay for the surgery (because Chelsea was in a military prison for treasonous offenses). I'm personally against what Trump has done here. However, that doesn't mean we can ignore the facts surrounding medical care for military personnel. We'd be better off if people made the moral argument and avoided the cost argument, really. As you said, it's it's non-issue, but it can't and shouldn't be brushed aside with assumptions and incorrect facts." You site one instance only. Of someone in prison for treason. Of course, there would be a lot of upheaval . Why should the cost of this transition be covered by the military? But have you got any actual information as to whether the military takes care of all and any medical procedures of their personnel, however urgent or fanciful these may be? From Trump's tweet it seems so, but we are English,we don't know, so we thought you'd know what's what in your country. | |||
"Ummm... I got the impression that the military covering all medical costs of personnel was the issue. As in the exorbitant fees for the transgender process. Which shows what a non issue it is. A persons employer,including the armed forces, would not have to be responsible for their medical expenses. (which are not necessarily all that exorbitant anyway). Ummm..a person's employer is usually responsible for someone's medical expenses in the U.S.. Including the armed forces. Trump could say transgenered people can be in the military but that their medical costs associated with transitioning will not be covered. I wonder how people would feel about that. I don't believe that a persons medical expenses are covered by their employers,what a lovely world that would be if they did. The employers may offer a medical insurance plan as a benefit but that is not quite the same thing. It would then be up to the insurers whether or not to cover this treatment,some do some don't. I think the second point is quite reasonable,making it clear at the point of recruitment what benefits are and are not available. the employee then has a choice whether to sign a contract or not. I get what you're saying, but there are two problems with it: (1) it's a bit of a semantic difference to be made between employers providing medical care and employers paying for medical insurance. If the issue for Trump is cost, the it's relevant in either scenario. And (2) in the case of the military you're wrong anyway. The military provides medical care directly, not necessarily through insurance. You get care at military hospitals (and VA hospitals for veterans). The armed forces in the U.S. operate differently than other employers. It's only a semantic difference if the healthcare premiums would be different for a trans person,specifically because they are trans. No doubt the US military takes care of its personnel,and if they are injured or become sick in the line of duty,no one would argue against that. Does the US military,or any military,actually pay for what is obviously being considered as incidental medical expenses? There could be a very good case for saying that they shouldn't and that would be far easier and less controversial than discharging serving personnel. That's why I maintain that the cost argument is a non issue.I believe there are other motivations behind this. You may say it's Americas problem,not ours but there could be knock on effects,attitudes can spread. I'm trying to correct blatantly false statements been mad on this subject regarding American health care, specifically as it relates to the armed forces. Someone in the U.S. military gets medical care by the military directly from military medical centers and hospitals. That's just just fact. They also get insurance to cover them at certain times from civilian medical institutions. But a majority of care is provided directly by the U.S. government through military medical institutions. Because of that, the cost of medical care for military personnel is directly relevant. If you want to know whether transition surgeries are covered for military personnel I suggest you look it up rather than make assumptions. I can tell you that based on the policies Obama put into effect for trans personnel Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley) was going to have her surgery done at a military hospital. It crwated a lot of noise in the U.S. at the time of her coming out because people were mad that taxpayers had to pay for the surgery (because Chelsea was in a military prison for treasonous offenses). I'm personally against what Trump has done here. However, that doesn't mean we can ignore the facts surrounding medical care for military personnel. We'd be better off if people made the moral argument and avoided the cost argument, really. As you said, it's it's non-issue, but it can't and shouldn't be brushed aside with assumptions and incorrect facts. You site one instance only. Of someone in prison for treason. Of course, there would be a lot of upheaval . Why should the cost of this transition be covered by the military? But have you got any actual information as to whether the military takes care of all and any medical procedures of their personnel, however urgent or fanciful these may be? From Trump's tweet it seems so, but we are English,we don't know, so we thought you'd know what's what in your country. " On the fact sheet issued by the DoD after policy changes announced by Obama in 2016 it says the following: "Service members with a diagnosis from a military medical provider indicating that gender transition is medically necessary will be provided medical care and treatment for the diagnosed medical condition, in the same manner as other medical care and treatment." I mentioned Manning becaue it was a famous case I could remember off the top of my head. I don't care enough about it to do research on how many reassignment surgeries have been paid for by the U.S. military thus far, but the fact of the matter is that such surgeries, under current military guidlines, would be done by military medical personnel at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer should such surgery be found to be required after they join the military. I don't work for the military, and I don't work for their medical branches. What I know is that military personnel have their health covered by the military as I outlined earlier in the thread. If you want more specifics, especially as to "fanciful" procedures, you can do research same as I would have to. I assume you being English wouldn't prevent you from using Google? | |||
"Ummm... I got the impression that the military covering all medical costs of personnel was the issue. As in the exorbitant fees for the transgender process. Which shows what a non issue it is. A persons employer,including the armed forces, would not have to be responsible for their medical expenses. (which are not necessarily all that exorbitant anyway). Ummm..a person's employer is usually responsible for someone's medical expenses in the U.S.. Including the armed forces. Trump could say transgenered people can be in the military but that their medical costs associated with transitioning will not be covered. I wonder how people would feel about that. I don't believe that a persons medical expenses are covered by their employers,what a lovely world that would be if they did. The employers may offer a medical insurance plan as a benefit but that is not quite the same thing. It would then be up to the insurers whether or not to cover this treatment,some do some don't. I think the second point is quite reasonable,making it clear at the point of recruitment what benefits are and are not available. the employee then has a choice whether to sign a contract or not. I get what you're saying, but there are two problems with it: (1) it's a bit of a semantic difference to be made between employers providing medical care and employers paying for medical insurance. If the issue for Trump is cost, the it's relevant in either scenario. And (2) in the case of the military you're wrong anyway. The military provides medical care directly, not necessarily through insurance. You get care at military hospitals (and VA hospitals for veterans). The armed forces in the U.S. operate differently than other employers. It's only a semantic difference if the healthcare premiums would be different for a trans person,specifically because they are trans. No doubt the US military takes care of its personnel,and if they are injured or become sick in the line of duty,no one would argue against that. Does the US military,or any military,actually pay for what is obviously being considered as incidental medical expenses? There could be a very good case for saying that they shouldn't and that would be far easier and less controversial than discharging serving personnel. That's why I maintain that the cost argument is a non issue.I believe there are other motivations behind this. You may say it's Americas problem,not ours but there could be knock on effects,attitudes can spread. I'm trying to correct blatantly false statements been mad on this subject regarding American health care, specifically as it relates to the armed forces. Someone in the U.S. military gets medical care by the military directly from military medical centers and hospitals. That's just just fact. They also get insurance to cover them at certain times from civilian medical institutions. But a majority of care is provided directly by the U.S. government through military medical institutions. Because of that, the cost of medical care for military personnel is directly relevant. If you want to know whether transition surgeries are covered for military personnel I suggest you look it up rather than make assumptions. I can tell you that based on the policies Obama put into effect for trans personnel Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley) was going to have her surgery done at a military hospital. It crwated a lot of noise in the U.S. at the time of her coming out because people were mad that taxpayers had to pay for the surgery (because Chelsea was in a military prison for treasonous offenses). I'm personally against what Trump has done here. However, that doesn't mean we can ignore the facts surrounding medical care for military personnel. We'd be better off if people made the moral argument and avoided the cost argument, really. As you said, it's it's non-issue, but it can't and shouldn't be brushed aside with assumptions and incorrect facts. You site one instance only. Of someone in prison for treason. Of course, there would be a lot of upheaval . Why should the cost of this transition be covered by the military? But have you got any actual information as to whether the military takes care of all and any medical procedures of their personnel, however urgent or fanciful these may be? From Trump's tweet it seems so, but we are English,we don't know, so we thought you'd know what's what in your country. On the fact sheet issued by the DoD after policy changes announced by Obama in 2016 it says the following: "Service members with a diagnosis from a military medical provider indicating that gender transition is medically necessary will be provided medical care and treatment for the diagnosed medical condition, in the same manner as other medical care and treatment." I mentioned Manning becaue it was a famous case I could remember off the top of my head. I don't care enough about it to do research on how many reassignment surgeries have been paid for by the U.S. military thus far, but the fact of the matter is that such surgeries, under current military guidlines, would be done by military medical personnel at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer should such surgery be found to be required after they join the military. I don't work for the military, and I don't work for their medical branches. What I know is that military personnel have their health covered by the military as I outlined earlier in the thread. If you want more specifics, especially as to "fanciful" procedures, you can do research same as I would have to. I assume you being English wouldn't prevent you from using Google? " Either way.it's still not a very stromg argument for discharging trans people from the military (wasting all the money spent on their training) or denying trans people the opportunity to join up.It's only an argument for saying 'some of your medical expenses are down to you,not us'. | |||
| |||
"Ummm... I got the impression that the military covering all medical costs of personnel was the issue. As in the exorbitant fees for the transgender process. Which shows what a non issue it is. A persons employer,including the armed forces, would not have to be responsible for their medical expenses. (which are not necessarily all that exorbitant anyway). Ummm..a person's employer is usually responsible for someone's medical expenses in the U.S.. Including the armed forces. Trump could say transgenered people can be in the military but that their medical costs associated with transitioning will not be covered. I wonder how people would feel about that. I don't believe that a persons medical expenses are covered by their employers,what a lovely world that would be if they did. The employers may offer a medical insurance plan as a benefit but that is not quite the same thing. It would then be up to the insurers whether or not to cover this treatment,some do some don't. I think the second point is quite reasonable,making it clear at the point of recruitment what benefits are and are not available. the employee then has a choice whether to sign a contract or not. I get what you're saying, but there are two problems with it: (1) it's a bit of a semantic difference to be made between employers providing medical care and employers paying for medical insurance. If the issue for Trump is cost, the it's relevant in either scenario. And (2) in the case of the military you're wrong anyway. The military provides medical care directly, not necessarily through insurance. You get care at military hospitals (and VA hospitals for veterans). The armed forces in the U.S. operate differently than other employers. It's only a semantic difference if the healthcare premiums would be different for a trans person,specifically because they are trans. No doubt the US military takes care of its personnel,and if they are injured or become sick in the line of duty,no one would argue against that. Does the US military,or any military,actually pay for what is obviously being considered as incidental medical expenses? There could be a very good case for saying that they shouldn't and that would be far easier and less controversial than discharging serving personnel. That's why I maintain that the cost argument is a non issue.I believe there are other motivations behind this. You may say it's Americas problem,not ours but there could be knock on effects,attitudes can spread. I'm trying to correct blatantly false statements been mad on this subject regarding American health care, specifically as it relates to the armed forces. Someone in the U.S. military gets medical care by the military directly from military medical centers and hospitals. That's just just fact. They also get insurance to cover them at certain times from civilian medical institutions. But a majority of care is provided directly by the U.S. government through military medical institutions. Because of that, the cost of medical care for military personnel is directly relevant. If you want to know whether transition surgeries are covered for military personnel I suggest you look it up rather than make assumptions. I can tell you that based on the policies Obama put into effect for trans personnel Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley) was going to have her surgery done at a military hospital. It crwated a lot of noise in the U.S. at the time of her coming out because people were mad that taxpayers had to pay for the surgery (because Chelsea was in a military prison for treasonous offenses). I'm personally against what Trump has done here. However, that doesn't mean we can ignore the facts surrounding medical care for military personnel. We'd be better off if people made the moral argument and avoided the cost argument, really. As you said, it's it's non-issue, but it can't and shouldn't be brushed aside with assumptions and incorrect facts. You site one instance only. Of someone in prison for treason. Of course, there would be a lot of upheaval . Why should the cost of this transition be covered by the military? But have you got any actual information as to whether the military takes care of all and any medical procedures of their personnel, however urgent or fanciful these may be? From Trump's tweet it seems so, but we are English,we don't know, so we thought you'd know what's what in your country. On the fact sheet issued by the DoD after policy changes announced by Obama in 2016 it says the following: "Service members with a diagnosis from a military medical provider indicating that gender transition is medically necessary will be provided medical care and treatment for the diagnosed medical condition, in the same manner as other medical care and treatment." I mentioned Manning becaue it was a famous case I could remember off the top of my head. I don't care enough about it to do research on how many reassignment surgeries have been paid for by the U.S. military thus far, but the fact of the matter is that such surgeries, under current military guidlines, would be done by military medical personnel at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer should such surgery be found to be required after they join the military. I don't work for the military, and I don't work for their medical branches. What I know is that military personnel have their health covered by the military as I outlined earlier in the thread. If you want more specifics, especially as to "fanciful" procedures, you can do research same as I would have to. I assume you being English wouldn't prevent you from using Google? Either way.it's still not a very stromg argument for discharging trans people from the military (wasting all the money spent on their training) or denying trans people the opportunity to join up.It's only an argument for saying 'some of your medical expenses are down to you,not us'. " Right. By I already agreed with you on that. The other poster was asking a specific question about what is covered, medically, in the military. | |||
"Ummm... I got the impression that the military covering all medical costs of personnel was the issue. As in the exorbitant fees for the transgender process. Which shows what a non issue it is. A persons employer,including the armed forces, would not have to be responsible for their medical expenses. (which are not necessarily all that exorbitant anyway). Ummm..a person's employer is usually responsible for someone's medical expenses in the U.S.. Including the armed forces. Trump could say transgenered people can be in the military but that their medical costs associated with transitioning will not be covered. I wonder how people would feel about that. I don't believe that a persons medical expenses are covered by their employers,what a lovely world that would be if they did. The employers may offer a medical insurance plan as a benefit but that is not quite the same thing. It would then be up to the insurers whether or not to cover this treatment,some do some don't. I think the second point is quite reasonable,making it clear at the point of recruitment what benefits are and are not available. the employee then has a choice whether to sign a contract or not. I get what you're saying, but there are two problems with it: (1) it's a bit of a semantic difference to be made between employers providing medical care and employers paying for medical insurance. If the issue for Trump is cost, the it's relevant in either scenario. And (2) in the case of the military you're wrong anyway. The military provides medical care directly, not necessarily through insurance. You get care at military hospitals (and VA hospitals for veterans). The armed forces in the U.S. operate differently than other employers. It's only a semantic difference if the healthcare premiums would be different for a trans person,specifically because they are trans. No doubt the US military takes care of its personnel,and if they are injured or become sick in the line of duty,no one would argue against that. Does the US military,or any military,actually pay for what is obviously being considered as incidental medical expenses? There could be a very good case for saying that they shouldn't and that would be far easier and less controversial than discharging serving personnel. That's why I maintain that the cost argument is a non issue.I believe there are other motivations behind this. You may say it's Americas problem,not ours but there could be knock on effects,attitudes can spread. I'm trying to correct blatantly false statements been mad on this subject regarding American health care, specifically as it relates to the armed forces. Someone in the U.S. military gets medical care by the military directly from military medical centers and hospitals. That's just just fact. They also get insurance to cover them at certain times from civilian medical institutions. But a majority of care is provided directly by the U.S. government through military medical institutions. Because of that, the cost of medical care for military personnel is directly relevant. If you want to know whether transition surgeries are covered for military personnel I suggest you look it up rather than make assumptions. I can tell you that based on the policies Obama put into effect for trans personnel Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley) was going to have her surgery done at a military hospital. It crwated a lot of noise in the U.S. at the time of her coming out because people were mad that taxpayers had to pay for the surgery (because Chelsea was in a military prison for treasonous offenses). I'm personally against what Trump has done here. However, that doesn't mean we can ignore the facts surrounding medical care for military personnel. We'd be better off if people made the moral argument and avoided the cost argument, really. As you said, it's it's non-issue, but it can't and shouldn't be brushed aside with assumptions and incorrect facts. You site one instance only. Of someone in prison for treason. Of course, there would be a lot of upheaval . Why should the cost of this transition be covered by the military? But have you got any actual information as to whether the military takes care of all and any medical procedures of their personnel, however urgent or fanciful these may be? From Trump's tweet it seems so, but we are English,we don't know, so we thought you'd know what's what in your country. On the fact sheet issued by the DoD after policy changes announced by Obama in 2016 it says the following: "Service members with a diagnosis from a military medical provider indicating that gender transition is medically necessary will be provided medical care and treatment for the diagnosed medical condition, in the same manner as other medical care and treatment." I mentioned Manning becaue it was a famous case I could remember off the top of my head. I don't care enough about it to do research on how many reassignment surgeries have been paid for by the U.S. military thus far, but the fact of the matter is that such surgeries, under current military guidlines, would be done by military medical personnel at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer should such surgery be found to be required after they join the military. I don't work for the military, and I don't work for their medical branches. What I know is that military personnel have their health covered by the military as I outlined earlier in the thread. If you want more specifics, especially as to "fanciful" procedures, you can do research same as I would have to. I assume you being English wouldn't prevent you from using Google? " Google isn't the best source of info, as you probably gathered what my opinion is from other threads where we pulled out our swords
I'd rather hear it from someone who knows where to find it, in this instance someone like yourself. So thanks
It looks like if the transition is medically necessary as opposed to just being fanciful.
So no hope for me to have DD cups at the expense of the US army if I was to join them? Oh well, what can I do?  | |||
"Sing in this thread yet the fact addressed that while these people that want to change their sex during that process they will be taken out of service and put into a lesser capacity within their unit which causes undue hardship upon that unit now that they're operating a person short or maybe multiple people short. While all of us might have our Kings we are definitely in the right Forum in fabswingers for this however in the military transgenders are definitely not in the right forum. Originally from the UK but have served 25 years in the US both countries are dear to my heart and can see both sides and the cultures of both sides of the Atlantic here" You appear to be saying that transgender people can't possibly be useful members of a fighting unit. I disagree and I know of at least one who was and even now is quite good at her civilian job. (a useful,tax paying member of society as I recently put it). Admittedly this person never had any surgery or treatment at anyone elses expense but your assertion that trans people (either undergoing treatment or having already undergone treatment) are in any way less capable,is incorrect. | |||
| |||
"What extra medical costs would be incurred? Do military personnel get free medical treatment? " A lot of people who enlist in the US military do so just to treat it as a welfare state, everything gets paid for. | |||
