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

If you want to deflect or change the subject, why post at all?

US Joint Chiefs blindsided by Trump's transgender ban

By Barbara Starr, Zachary Cohen and Jim Sciutto, CNN
Updated 12:43 PM ET, Thu July 27, 2017

Washington (CNN)The Joint Chiefs of Staff, including chairman General Joseph Dunford, were not aware President Donald Trump planned to tweet a ban on transgender service members, three US defense officials told CNN -- the latest indication that top military leaders across all four service branches were blindsided by the President's announcement.

For now, Dunford has informed service members that there will be "no modifications to the current policy until the President's direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidelines."

"In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect," Dunford wrote in a memo to the military that was obtained by CNN. "As importantly, given the current fight and the challenges we face, we will all remain focused on accomplishing our assigned missions."

Trump announced Wednesday that transgender individuals would no longer be allowed to enlist or serve in the military.

"After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military," Trump said in a series of tweets. "Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail."

His tweets came less than a month into the six-month delay set by Defense Secretary James Mattis to review the US military's policy on transgender service members.

A US official told CNN that Mattis was consulted on Trump's plan to announce a ban, but Sen. John McCain said on Thursday that he was surprised by the announcement.

"I think they realize they made a mistake," the Arizona Republican said. "I think generally speaking, it's accepted you consult the secretary of defense before you make a decision that has to do with defending the nation. Mattis was going through a study that they'd done for six months, and he had just extended."

"I know what Mattis said, that he wanted to complete the study, and he was surprised," added McCain, who chairs the armed services committee.

But while Trump's tweet states that he consulted with his generals and military experts ahead of making the announcement, US defense officials have indicated that many of the top brass were caught off guard by the policy change.

One of the heads of the military branches was informed by a staffer of the President's tweets on transgender policy and had no idea it was coming, an official said.

Adding to the confusion is that Trump's decision came without a plan in place to implement it.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders did not have an answer Wednesday on what would happen to active transgender military members but said the White House and the Defense Department would work together "as implementation takes place and is done so lawfully."

But how those next steps would play out still remains unclear.

The Pentagon has asked the White House for a written directive spelling out its intentions and directions on transgender policy so the military can begin implementing guidance, according to a defense official with direct knowledge.

A major issue now is whether currently serving members will be discharged and whether they will receive an honorable discharge so they can continue to receive whatever medical and retiree benefits they are entitled to based on their years of service, a defense official said.

Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer blasted Trump for keeping top military leaders in the dark during an interview with CNN's Kate Bolduan on Thursday.

"When I hear the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had no idea he was going to do this, it's another indication, the only reason it was done was to appeal to some House members and those who wanted to and offered an amendment to discriminate against those transgender members of the armed forces," Hoyer said.

CNN's Ryan Browne and Jeremy Herb contributed to this report.

CNN

If you followed your own advice you wouldn't post much.

It is CNN so one must dig for the Real News in the story.

CNN says a lot but right there in the middle they state...

But while Trump's tweet states that he consulted with his generals and military experts ahead of making the announcement, US defense officials have indicated that many of the top brass were caught off guard by the policy change.

Trump never said he consulted with ALL the Generals, he consulted with HIS Generals and Military experts.

Now what I also find interesting is that Subordinate Officers to the Commander in Chief would comment at all, to the Press, on the issue.
Unless of course they lack Military discipline which would seem strange.

And CNN's source for the story is? Wait for it!

three US defense officials told CNN

I will wait to decide what has happened thank you.

You didn't wait at all.

You took what your idol told you then repeated it as gospel.

To piggyback off the article you posted.....


Navy: Transgender sailors can still serve and get medical treatment until further notice
Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY Published 11:31 a.m. ET July 27, 2017 | Updated 1:17 p.m. ET July 27, 2017

WASHINGTON – The Navy will not immediately discharge transgender sailors and will continue to provide them with medical treatment despite the tweets fired off by President Trump on Wednesday, according to an email obtained by USA TODAY.

The email from Vice Adm. Robert Burke also acknowledges that Trump's announcement is "causing concern for some of our sailors and that they likely have questions."

His email represents the military's first known steps to deal with the tumult unleashed by Trump's tweets.

What's more, it indicates that the Trump's tweets – that the U.S. military will not accept transgender troops into its ranks or allow them to serve in any capacity – caught military brass unawares.

Burke notes that the office of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis is "working to quickly discern the President's intent." Mattis was on vacation when Trump made his announcement.

In the meantime, Burke said that no transgender sailors – nor likely troops from other services – will be discharged until there is clear guidance from the White House.

The Defense Secretary, and by extension, the Navy "will not take any personnel actions or change any policy until further guidance from the President is received," Burke wrote, adding that transgender sailors receiving medical care will continue "to receive all necessary medical care."

He concluded by saying, "treating service members with dignity and respect is something we expect from our Sailors at all times."

Also on Thursday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Joe Dunford sent a memo to the service chiefs saying there will be no change in current policy on transgender troops until Mattis receives direction from Trump.

That indicates there has been no formal policy guidance issued from the White House about reversing the policy that started last year under the Obama administration to allow transgender troops to serve openly.

In July 2016, then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter outlined a plan to allow transgender troops to receive treatment that ranges from counseling to hormone treatment to gender reassignment surgery. Before that, those service members could have been discharged for medical reasons. There may be as many as 6,600 transgender troops on the military's active duty force of 1.3 million, according to a RAND Corp. report.

Trump's hair-trigger decision to ban transgender troops in three tweets left the White House and Pentagon scrambling to determine how to proceed.

As civil liberties and LGBTQ groups railed against Trump's decision, the White House could not answer questions about whether transgender service members would be immediately thrown out of the military – or sent home if they are currently deployed to conflict zones such as Afghanistan.

“Implementation policy is going to be something that the White House and the Department of Defense have to work together to lawfully determine,” White House spokesperson Sarah Sanders said Wednesday. “And I would imagine the Department of Defense will be the lead on that.”

That process, senior administration officials on Thursday said, could take weeks or months.

Explaining his rationale on Wednesday, Trump said the U.S. military "must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail."

Yet any saving Trump hoped to achieve by denying transgender troops medical care will be dwarfed by the cost of replacing them. Hundreds of troops have identified themselves as transgender in order to receive medical treatment, including about 150 sailors in the Navy, according to two U.S. officials who were not authorized to speak publicly about medical issues.

The RAND Corp., a non-partisan think tank commissioned by the Pentagon to study the issue, found that only a few hundred of the estimated 6,600 transgender troops would seek medical treatment in any year. RAND found those costs would total no more than $8 million per year.

Replacing those 6,600 transgender troops would likely be far more costly. The Army, for example, is spending $300 million this year on bonuses and ads to recruit 6,000 soldiers. That does not include the money needed to train, equip and pay them.

Though Trump's tweets said he made the decision after consulting "with my generals and military experts," it remains unclear who took part in those discussions.

Navy Capt. Greg Hicks declined to comment on whether Trump consulted Dunford on repealing the policy. Those conversations are private and confidential, said Hicks, Dunford’s spokesman.

Article

LMAO.. so "HIS" generals are not the joint chiefs or General Mattis, who is being reported, none of them were aware of it.. he went farther down the chain to consult generals that would agree with him.. that's what it sounds like.


If they had confirmed Trump's story, you would be posting like a victory, like a new kid with a lollipop, showing it off.. you only don't like "leaked" information when it doesn't suit your purpose... you are just like Trump, no wonder you like him so much. You are both unapologetically lacking in objectivity.


No you won't. You will wait for the next piece of news and figure out how to defend Trump.. We've all been watching it for months.. stop pretending like you haven't already made up your mind.

Is that what I said? I must be reading comments from a Pittsburgh site then.

Of course Mattis is his, Gen. John Kelly is another. Perhaps he still talks to Gen. Michael Flynn. He also mentions Military experts.

You sound like Perfect now. I am done.

Hey Haus,

Did anyone ever consider that Trump did not sign an executive order, did not write up a new policy or anything official when it comes to banning Transgenders? He Tweeted it!

I wonder if he is floating the idea out there to see the reaction before he makes it the rule?

Before Trumps Tweet the Pentagon was implementing new rules and regulations allowing Transgenders to serve in the Military. I guess they know how he feels about what they are doing now.

There is more to this than any of us know.

If I had a sex change, I'd never have to leave the house.



Does this shirt make me look fat? Black always adds 5 lbs.

Could be. Or it could be that the Pres with his now long history of knee jerk Tweeting is just being a bad leader.

It's a possibility although that is not my read on the situation. The people who are complaining about this are the same ones who complain about everything Trump does. Trump's actual base is not very sympathetic to the transgender lifestyle-- I'm sure there are some exceptions.

This dynamic might actually come into play as soon as the 2018 midterms. Look at all the Democratic senators up for reelection in the midwest. What do they campaign on? Doubling down on increasingly-left wing identity politics is losing proposition in this part of the country. Do the Ds cut their losses with that strategy and start addressing things of substance? Time will tell.

The Democrats will run on their National Platform...

Everything Immoral and Hate Trump!

HOPE they don't look at our emails.
and
CHANGE everything in America to fit a hand full of others.

What's immoral about Transgenders serving in the military?

Perfect and I disagree a lot.. sometimes we agree.. he's not a bad dude though, you should try actually having a conversation with him.

That's exactly what they used to say about everything Obama proposed...


If they are smart, they will move a little to the center on their positions.. they will campaign on being dignified in their defense against Trump policies and restoring some level of decency to Washington.. and the general tone of the message will be, we have to survive the next couple years.. I think this would be attractive to a lot of moderates and others outside of the Trump base who may have voted for Trump but are underwhelmed with what they have seen..

That is what I think they SHOULD do.. what I expect them to do is move left, dig their heels in, get nasty, and fight hate with hate... which I think won't be nearly as successful..

Can't because 99 percent of the time he says...

I don't care about the morality. I care about combat readiness. That's up for the military leaders to decide, and they should leave politics and PC out of it. They do a disservice to the troops if they dont.

What I don't like is the idea that the military, our tax dollars, will pay for srs. No one else in the military gets that kind of paid benefit, so they shouldn't either.

Well, according to swish we do pay for boob jobs, so...that's also as elective as gender reassignment surgery.

Why should the world have to tolerate people who act in such a heinous and unnatural way as transgenders.

It's the ultimate in selfishness for those, to expect to serve this great country while disfiguring their own body in an abhoration, because they feel different.

Of course the transgenders in Russia, or Iran, are treated worse, if not rounded up and capital punished.

And Thank God Hillary, or some other Democrat is not the president, they'd be doing their worst to make things the other way, probably asking or commanding everybody to endorse or acknowledge the transgenders because of their choice to do that which is against all things sane.

TheHill opinion piece: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/th...-issue-military


Trump's right: Transgender patriotism isn't the issue — military readiness is

At a campaign event with veterans in Virginia, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump responded to a question about “social engineering and political correctness” in the military — including “transgender rights” — by saying, “We’re gonna get away from political correctness … some of the things they’re asking you to do and be politically correct about are ridiculous.”

President Trump is now fulfilling that promise by reversing a radical policy imposed by the Obama administration, without a thorough review, on July 1, 2016. Trump announced this week “that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.”

Although liberals are howling about the reversal of the Obama policy, all President Trump has done is return to the policy that was the status quo throughout American history, until 2016. Military medical standards had listed a “(h)istory of major abnormalities or defects of the genitalia such as change of sex” as a disqualifying physical condition, and under the heading of “Learning, Psychiatric, and Behavioral,” conditions that are disqualifying were, “Current or history of psychosexual conditions . . . including but not limited to transsexualism . . . (and) transvestitism.”

It was nothing but “social engineering and political correctness” — not any new medical research — that led the Obama administration to reverse this policy. Since the reversal, service members have been allowed to “come out” by publicly identifying as transgender. A second phase of the Obama policy, allowing the military to recruit people who identify as transgender, was due to take effect on July 1, until Defense Secretary James Mattis announced a last-minute delay of 6 months.

The service chiefs reportedly requested a longer delay of two years, and Air Force General Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress there was “disagreement on the science.” Perhaps they realized that “gender reassignment surgery” — at a cost to taxpayers of up to $110,000 per person — could not be deemed “medically necessary” when even President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services had concluded that “the clinical evidence is inconclusive” on this point.
In any case, President Trump’s “consultation with . . . Generals and military experts” resulted in the right decision.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) also deserves tremendous credit for raising this issue in Congress. Her amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which would have prohibited the use of taxpayer money to pay for gender reassignment surgery or hormone treatments intended to change the gender of a service member, was narrowly defeated — but it helped focus attention on this issue. Since the historical policy, as well as the Obama policy that overturned it, were both administrative (not statutory) in nature, Trump resolving the issue through executive action was actually the more appropriate solution, and resulted in a rollback of the entire Obama policy, not just the funding provisions.

President Trump was right to be concerned about “the tremendous medical costs and disruption” caused by allowing those who identify as transgender to serve in the military. The Family Research Council’s own analysis of the potential costs — showed that the direct medical costs (surgery and hormones) could be nearly $1 billion dollars over 10 years. Meanwhile, the lost time due to service members not being deployable or taking special leave could drive the total cost to anywhere from $1.9 billion to $3.7 billion over 10 years.

For service members to be considered medically fit, they are supposed to be deployable anywhere in the world at any time, without the need for specialized medical care. Yet those who have had gender reassignment surgery do need specialized medical care, and they require hormones for the rest of their lives. This — not the question of whether such individuals are patriotic or want to serve their country — must be the decisive factor in setting military policy.

Unfortunately, the policy’s price tag only tells part of the story; the cost in military readiness is just as steep.

An estimated 1.5 million hours would be wasted on “sensitivity” classes that include lessons on how to handle biological men in women’s showers, “male pregnancies,” and off-duty drag. As Defense Secretary James Mattis complained as recently as this week, “Service members (are) spending too much time on senseless training that is really a waste of time.”

Every cent spent on this politically-correct exercise is money that could prepare our troops for war. Every second wasted in transgender etiquette is time that could be spent on the rifle range. President Trump was exactly right to say, “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory” over our nation’s enemies. Every American should thank him for prioritizing our military’s war-fighting capabilities by lifting this unnecessary burden from those preparing and fighting to achieve that victory.

Tony Perkins, a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, is president of the Family Research Council in Washington D.C., a policy organization advancing faith, family and freedom. Follow him on Twitter @tperkins.

Funny how one by one he fulfills his promises while the Liberals on these boards cry LIAR.

Yet, after Orlando he campaigned that there "was no better friend to the LGBT community than Donald Trump". So, tell me....was he lying back then or, was he lying to the Evangelical Christians whose vote he needed?

It was not a lie, he is still a friend of the LGBTQ community.
He is also the Commander in Chief, responsible for the readiness of our Military to fight and defeat every foe.
Priorities dear lad, Priorities.

I'm thinking that if somebody wants to proudly serve their country then the priority should be to serve. Afterall, if they have your back are you really going to care what gender they are or aren't? Of course not.

Except, according to Swish, people sign up for different reasons than to serve their country. A lot of them sign up just for srs.

I can understand they dont want people with mental instability problems. If they are just signing up so they can have a surgery and their gender is changing or whatever.

Dont need that sort of drama on the battlefield.

But they did this wrong. They should have just changed their policy, so elective surgeries are no longer funded. It would save a LOT of money, and people would be more genuine about their intentions to serve the country.

Sure. School paid for etc. But, one also goes in knowing that at any given time you could be deployed to a hot zone. Especially since 2001 but, even before it. In fact, since Korea we have had hot zones.

So, if you are in a hot war zone and somebody is covering your back, you honestly wont care what gender, what race, what sexuality they are. At the end of the day you are both Americans and they are your comrade and you are theirs.

Sure, and if it were me, I wouldnt want some mentally unstable tranny covering my back when they are more focused on surgery and being a he/she, and which platoon they are with next a males or females, and how will they fit in. And all the drama/distraction that goes with that.

No thanks.

This is exactly why the decision to keep them out was made. Just like all the other discrimatory reasons they keep people out. (weight/age/health/etc) The military is all about only wanting the ideal soldier. Otherwise people get killed.

If they're too busy recovering from some transitional surgery, they can't be very effective. I don't understand why we're paying for elective surgeries in the first place.

Other than basic health care, if you want to alter your appearance or gender, that's on you.

From the site on military benefits I read today, they will do repairs, not augmentation. They will correct congenital defects, mastectomy repairs, and the like, but not a boob job for boob job sake.

Waiting for this to be more than a tweet. When this comes down as an executive order, military policy, or however it is going to be enforced I think the courts will step in and put a stop to it. Trump should just change his name to "can't get right".

His childlike reaction to the 3rd health care bill defeat in as many days was expected by most, how sad is it that we expect the President to throw a twitter tantrum as he continually fails? We have normalized brat-ish behavior from the highest office in the land.

We have the WH Comms Director talking like a thug, the president acting like a child, most everybody else in the whitehouse scared and under investigation for high crimes. Then you have the GOP in congress so divided that they can't come together to pass a repeal of Obama care which is something most of them were elected for promising to do! Funny how the pendulum swings in Washington, huh 40?

I don't know....

GM brought up some very good points about the military. And Haus' article brought up more good points. I don't like that time and money is being spent on Sensitivity Training instead of preparing themselves for combat. I don't like how female soldiers have to shower w/a person who has male body parts. I don't like the military paying for the surgeries and then having those soldiers not ready for active duty for long periods of time.

I'm okay w/this decision.

I'm neutral about his decision but he has failed at everything so why would this be any different... ?

I think there are points on both sides. This is one of those issues where I feel like the military needs to decide for itself. It does not appear that the policy has been backed by the military, at least at the higher levels. So, that is concerning. I'll just put out there that the CSAF sent out an email yesterday, and it wasn't exactly a glowing endorsement of the new policy.

There have been a lot of points about physical ability, and that nobody has a right to be in the military. I don't disagree with that. However, in my opinion, if a transgender has the physical tools, and scores well in everything (e.g. combat training, etc.), I can't see the rationale for keeping them out of the military because of their gender decision.

I do get the distraction angle. That makes sense, but I presume it was also distracting (at least on some scale) when the military became racially integrated, and also when it began accepting women.

You bring up an excellent point about the shower/locker room situation. I hadn't considered that.

I do agree with doing away with elective medical procedures, and I've made that a point since the beginning of this thread.

Good discussion.

And what act is so heinous and unnatural of all these transgenders?

Supporting their families?

Protecting American's?

Serving their country honorably?

What?

So? That wasn't the the question.

What's immoral about Transgenders serving in the military?

The prevalence of suicide attempts among respondents
to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey
(NTDS), conducted by the National Gay and Lesbian
Task Force and National Center for Transgender Equality,
is 41 percent, which vastly exceeds the 4.6 percent of
the overall U.S. population who report a lifetime suicide
attempt, and is also higher than the 10-20 percent
of lesbian, gay and bisexual adults who report ever
attempting suicide.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf

And again, I don't care about that. If they can do the job and don't upset combat readiness, who cares?

Nice deflect. Who cares?... You sound like Hillary and 40. And neither of you can answer a straight forward question. What's immoral about Transgenders serving in the military?