DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Transsexuals Barred From Serving in Military

The Truth really gets you Liberals reeling don't she?

Alternative Facts .... not Truth !

"Reeling" - lmbfao. You're funny, not annoying. Trust me when I say anything to you it's always with a smile on my face because I anticipate the answer you will respond with that tries to goad ... It's a like having Skip Bayless on the board.

Your continued attention reeks of jealousy.

Well, that's the added benefit of having served in this day and age during time of war. Glad you got that!

it's cool. which is why i don't understand why trans people are getting targeted while they signed up during a time of war.

which only enforces my belief that clearly we all aren't considered equal.

Just how effective a service member can you be if you're recovering from transitional surgery every few months? And after you've completed the transition, what unit do you go to? There are no (that I know of) coed combat platoons.

Also, like I said, I don't want to pay for someone to have an elective surgery.

I don't think that all people are equal.

elective surgeries/medication happen all the time in the military. chicks get boob jobs, i gotta pay for viagra cause dude's crap stopped working, etc.

but if the issue is elective surgery. then it's whatever. have a policy to change that. i still fully disagree with banning trans people from serving. that's unamerican to me.

Boob jobs? Really? Why are we paying for cosmetic surgery? Viagra, that's due to age, it's not elective. No guy wants to admit that he needs that at any age, but giving up the alternative is also not an option.

sounds elective to me.

and it still doesn't change the fact that i completely disagree with outright ban on trans people in the military.

it's discriminatory.

Even being the man of faith that I am, I wouldn't outright ban them either. You can serve without me paying for you to have an operation.

and here we go:

Pentagon officials are not even trying to sound coordinated with Trump on his military transgender ban

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pentagon-officials-not-even-trying-162100341.html

President Donald Trump's announcement on Wednesday morning to "not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military" seems to have come as a shock to defense officials contacted by Business Insider and other outlets.

Although Trump announced he had consulted with his top military personnel — apparently including Secretary of Defense James Mattis — on the decision, other Pentagon officials seemed out of the loop.

“The tweet was the first we heard about it,” a defense official told the Wall Street Journal.

CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr similarly reported that Pentagon officials were initially unaware of the ban.

Asked directly for a statement, a Pentagon spokesperson bounced Business Insider back to the White House on all questions about the ban.

"We refer all questions about the President's statements to the White House. We will continue to work closely with the White House to address the new guidance provided by the Commander-in-Chief on transgender individuals serving the military. We will provide revised guidance to the Department in the near future," the statement read.

The ban has already generated considerable backlash and confusion. A report from Politico cites multiple congressional sources as saying Mattis opposed the ban, and may not have been party to the decision.

________

so did he actually get advisement from military officials, or is this a lame attempt to pander to his base?

We don't have to 'here we go'. Most of these articles are always citing 'sources'. Rarely is someone named.

In this day and age, someone has to be named for there to be any credibility in my book.

Man this country is in trouble. . . . .

Both perspectives have that perspective...

I haven't and will not check, but I bet if you google it, you will find all the answers to your questions.

To add: it's definitely elective. Plus, the country is not saying they can't take it...just that they'd have to pay for it.

Now, I would personally change that stance if the dude has to take Viagra because it's causally related to something he experienced in active combat and a doc signs off to it.

I have to share this from a friend this morning.

Nobody has a "right" to serve in the Military. Nobody.

What makes people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer? Very far from it.

The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short.

Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers. Poor eyesight will disqualify you, as well as bad teeth. Malnourished? Drug addiction? Bad back? Criminal history? Low IQ? Anxiety? Phobias? Hearing damage? Six arms? Hear voices in your head? Self-identify as a Unicorn? Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair? Can't run the requred course in the required time? Can't do the required number of pushups?

Not really a "morning person" and refuse to get out of bed before noon?

All can be reasons for denial.

The Military has one job. War. Anything else is a distraction and a liability.

Did someone just scream "That isn't Fair"? War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful.

YOU change yourself to meet Military standards. Not the other way around.

I say again: You don't change the Military... you must change yourself.

The Military doesn't need to accomodate anyone with special issues. The Military needs to Win Wars.

If any of your personal issues are a liability that detract from readiness or lethality... Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors. Who's next in line?

It all becomes clear when you screw up your military and end up standing in the surrender line with your wife and kids as your enemies tell you how it will be from now on.

Don't do social experiments on the line that stands between us and them. Focus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jve60OM2drE

j\c
but...but I sick of paying for free birth control so SANDRA FLUKE can get laid safely you know the girl that the DNC so proudly pranced out on stage at their convention LMAO

That's the spirit. We miss all that hate and bigotry that spewed from the right during the election. Good job.

why do you ask? seriously I made a joke and was insulted for no reason and you just insulted me also but why the heck are you being vicious to me

sorry haus the post was for VERS but his post to me was deleted and my answer to perfect was deleted ???????

No fighting allowed.

But I hang on your every word.

Fixed

Is that a threat?

No worries. Some tempers flared last night in the McCain thread and many off-topic posts were removed. Yet, some other ones remained. It makes me think that there could be some tech/forum issues (not moderator related) going on here?

I was referring that given enough rope you usually hang yourself with your words around here.

I would assume they aren't considered "elective" because they have been deemed psychologically necessary..

That's a very good response GM. The only point I would make is that most of your 'issues' that would disqualify a person from service have to do with physical limitations, metal limitations or criminal/medical history. None of the limitations apply to transgender people or LGBTQ people. In proper uniform (not klinger-like from mash), you can not tell the difference between them and any other soldier. Gay people are allowed to serve, so sexual preference can not be used. So this is basically about the operation or bathrooms, both of which are very poor excuses.

If a well trained officer or enlisted man has any other expensive health issue that does not affect their ability to perform their duty, they will not be discharged or disqualified for medical reasons.

The bathroom thing is what it is, but I doubt any male trans are going to female bootcamp with male genitalia...

I'm truly neutral in this debate, I see the disqualification due to the reaction of others as a viable point, but I also agree that being trans does not keep one from performing the job.

And by other's reactions I mean prejudices against trans people. On a human rights basis, this makes that wrong morally but not for military readiness.

My own personal opinion is.... if they have had the operation already let them serve. I know some folks won't agree with that either lol

I agree. That's why I asked the question asking if a post operation transgender person is still transgender. In my opinion, once the operation is had they are no longer transgender.

.

I am sure their are legalities to cutting off funding you once provided to a certain group of people etc.

It is easier to just say "Banned". and be done with it.
Blame it on unit cohesion and war readiness.

Luckily my dad taught me that usually the easiest thing isn't the right thing.

Did he run anything where the constant threat of massive lawsuits was a consideration for the health of the company or in this case, the Nation?

There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong.

H.L. Mencken

I see your point there 40, but I wonder if that opens him up for legal issues too? I mean didn't the court get involved in the gay service issue?

Do you have any idea of how many lawsuits Trump has filed?

Doing the right thing is far more important than doing the easy thing. Every.....Single.....Time.

Especially when the nation we live in is concerned. Our nation is not a real estate business.

I don't know, I can only go by what I see...

Trump signs no orders, only tweets.
Trump says he discussed it with Generals and they agreed.
The Defense Dept. refers all questions to the White House.
The White House says it has to do with unit cohesion and war fighting capability.
What is there to sue?