Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
The closest statement to my reaction is:
Good. Transgender people do not belong in the military. 4 (23.5%)
Trump was right to follow what the military experts recommended. 3 (17.6%)
Trump could have expressed this with more empathy & nuance, but the new policy is probably right. 2 (11.8%)
I feel very conflicted about this, but Trump's form of expression was brutal. 1 (5.9%)
Obama changed the policy too abruptly, but at this point it would be best to maintain the openness in the military. 1 (5.9%)
Discrimination against transgender people is wrong, even in the military, and Trump's statement is horrendous. 6 (35.3%)
Total Votes: 17
Trump says no Transgender in Military
Topic Started: Jul 26 2017, 06:24 AM (598 Views)
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
A Poll at Althouse also.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/trump-transgender-military.html?smid=pl-share
Quote:
 
President Trump announced on Wednesday that the United States will not “accept or allow” transgender people in the United States military, saying American forces “must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory” and could not afford to accommodate them.

Mr. Trump made the surprise declaration in a series of posts on Twitter, saying he had come to the decision after talking to generals and military experts, whom he did not name.

“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,” Mr. Trump wrote. “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.”

The sweeping policy decision reverses the gradual transformation of the military under President Barack Obama, whose administration announced last year that transgender people could serve openly in the military. Mr. Obama’s defense secretary, Ashton B. Carter, also opened all combat roles to women and appointed the first openly gay Army secretary.

It was not clear what prompted Mr. Trump’s announcement on Wednesday. In June, the administration delayed a decision on whether to allow transgender recruits to join the military. At the time, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said an extra six months would give military leaders a chance to review its potential impact.

The president’s announcement came amid a debate on Capitol Hill over the Obama-era practice of requiring the Pentagon to pay for medical treatment related to gender transition. The dispute has unfolded as Congress considers a nearly $700 billion spending bill to fund the Pentagon. Representative Vicky Hartzler, Republican of Missouri, has proposed an amendment that would bar the Pentagon from spending money on transition surgery or related hormone therapy.

The same measure narrowly failed this month in the House, with some Republicans joining Democrats to reject it. But some conservative Republicans have said they would not support the military spending measure without the language banning money for gender transition.

The policy would affect only a small portion of the approximately 1.3 million active-duty members of the military. About 2,450 are transgender, according to a study by the RAND Corporation, though the estimated number of transgender service members has varied.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop

Send them all to Sweden.

The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
It's way past time to cull the herd....
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/israel-s-first-openly-transgender-soldier-paves-way-others-n742876


http://forward.com/news/israel/367907/meet-shachar-erez-israels-first-transgender-idf-officer/

i dont understand why some folks make such a big deal about this

i dont think the IDF's fighting fitness is affected by anyones orientation
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
I think orientation is one thing. Transformation is quite another. I see no reason the armed services should pay for or be required to accommodate that process. Once done, fine. But during? I can see how that hinders the mission.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
The discussion is PC limited. Not just regarding the current transgender issue, but in previous social changes which took place in the military.

They always bring it down to some "zero-sum" assessment e.g., how much does it cost for the surgery and hormone treatments, etc.

What about other costs?

For example, I receive a quarterly NAVY email which lists court martial completions, brief overview of charges, sentencing.

There are a lot of young people in jail that otherwise would not be there, except for doing or saying something not allowed. Sure, rape, assault are wrong everywhere, civil or military, but setting up a new system will have a ripple effect.

My daughter (NAVY 6 years) was accused by a guy she couldn't stand of a slightly higher rank, that reported he overheard her say "well, there's always the rape card" to a group of girl friends at lunch as a private conversation, talking and laughing about how to increase time off.

That evening, NCIS arrived, and arrested her. The formal charge against her was an "implication" and she was hauled off and questioned. Ended up in Captain's Mast, which is a final level before court martial, where the Captain decides whether to continue to full court martial. We hired an attorney. Hiring an attorney is offered, but also implies guilt according to her Chief who was technically not allowed to interact, but did as a friend. He was right, in my opinion.

End result, case dismissed with no charges. But, months of jerking around by the system. lots of letters, phone calls, tears.
BTW - the lawyer we hired was my daughter's nephew. After JAG corps, he opened up a private practice defending soldiers against The System. He travels the world to U.S. bases, and is overwhelmed by clients suddenly forced to deal with what could be very serious. From fines, decrease in rank, personnel file, and jail for what in the old days didn't even exist as a charge, are now his business.

My point? How many soldiers end up in jail for saying something not allowed. How many lawyers and bureaucrats (costs/time) are worth the benefits of social changes experimented with by the military? How many young immature people get suddenly caught up in a whirlwind of awful, nothing to do with being a soldier for saying or doing something otherwise not harmful? And how much do those costs enter into what should be an objective decision, as opposed to social desire? It's not all about money. Maybe if it were, money and effectiveness would the driving force, not social change. Women in the military is great, I fully support. But like so many things, snowballing occurs as there is always the "next best change" brought forward as a "progressive" society.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Improviso
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
First, it was the LGB's...

Now it's the T's...

Can the Q's be far behind???

Although honestly, I'm not sure what in the hell a Q is. :whome:
Identifying narcissists isn't difficult. Just look for the person who is constantly fishing for compliments
and admiration while breaking down over even the slightest bit of criticism.

We have the freedom to choose our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Why is the gender relevant at all? The requirements should be related to the work the soldiers have to do. If that rules out some groups of people, no problem. But there's not really a reason to even ask for gender.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop

If the Academy Awards can't drop gender bias how can we expect the military to do it?
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
It seems as a general principle that anyone who is not psychologically and emotionally comfortable in their own skin should not be given access to military grade weapons.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
You have a point there, IT, but I assume there are other features of applicants that correlate more strongly with emotional stability than (trans)gender.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Klaus
Jul 26 2017, 10:00 AM
You have a point there, IT, but I assume there are other features of applicants that correlate more strongly with emotional stability than (trans)gender.
I think there are a lot of necessary qualifiers that need to be considered, but that for cultural reasons cannot...
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I think one point that people frequently misunderstand about job applications is that from the perspective of the employer his/her decision is a guess based on very incomplete knowledge. It's not possible to measure how the applicant would perform on the job directly, hence the employer has to look for factors that he can determine easily and that have some meaningful correlation to future job performance. In some cases, sex, or gender, or age, or race, or beauty, do correlate with job performance. This is in such cases not a statement against a "minority" in general but just statistical data. It doesn't say anything about an individual; only about likelihoods given incomplete information. It becomes discrimination when there is no correlation to job performance, or if the correlation is given too much weight compared to other factors.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Klaus
Jul 26 2017, 09:50 AM
Why is the gender relevant at all? The requirements should be related to the work the soldiers have to do. If that rules out some groups of people, no problem. But there's not really a reason to even ask for gender.
Yes, but that's just your opinion. And, I have mine, and everyone else has theirs.

My point was, at least in part, that serious discussion and ramifications of decisions are continuously underscored by "that word which cannot be used, that phrase that must not be stated, that subject which is not allowed in public discourse, even if based on data and (limited by agreed upon restrictions) research."

And it seems that progressive governments spend inordinate amounts of time assuring that unacceptable words or phrases will have consequences, even in some cases (Ireland?) where you can get a knock on your door for something you posted on social media. Not sure if that's true, but there does seem to be considerable differences on what is permitted, depending on the country and their masters, which mean all those in control of what is disseminated to the populace as current and appropriate given the confines and restrictions.

"...there's not really a reason to even ask for gender." Huh? Why is that not relevant? Males and females are built different, at least I have noticed such things. Could you get pregnant? Do you have severe cramping every month which could limit your ability on the battlefield? No issues, no problems, welcome! But, "no problems" can easily be the correct answer and only permissible one, especially when no accommodations are then implemented because a frank discussion is not held based on "that which must not be asked."

I fully support women in the military. I do not support decisions which are based on lack of full discourse and lack of accommodations which could be implemented if necessary for the benefit. If women need to prove "I'm just as capable as that man" then why allow women in the first place? And if women are in the military, why can't additional accommodations be provided as needed?
In some cases, we are talking about soldiers' lives at stake. Not asking a question does not resolve potential underlying issues which should be discussed. Deciding "women should be in the military" and then making it happen without difficult conversations and consequent adjustments, is just one example of wanting an outcome without question, and then building the mechanism to make it happen. But like I said, I do support women in the military, so the above may seem rather contradictory unless it is obvious I am not talking just about the military, but things in general.

I certainly don't have answers. All I want I guess, are more questions, with serious and sometimes very uncomfortable discussions resulting from honest expressible concerns. This is not just about the military, but is part of so many issues these days.
"Not necessary to ask" is not an argument. "Not allowed to ask" could be worse.

If the above is over the top, my apologies. Not looking for arguments, just dishing out some thoughts on the general subject area.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Klaus
Jul 26 2017, 09:50 AM
Why is the gender relevant at all? The requirements should be related to the work the soldiers have to do. If that rules out some groups of people, no problem. But there's not really a reason to even ask for gender.
If you compromise the mission, you are a detriment. The military should be the last place where social experimentation takes place, unless it advances the mission.

This does not advance the mission.

See Rainman's statements above. The military is currently being negatively impacted by societal silliness, promulgated by a sector of society that has never served.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
So you disagree with the proposition that the requirements for being a soldier should be related to the work the soldiers have to do, Jolly?
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Klaus
Jul 26 2017, 11:04 AM
So you disagree with the proposition that the requirements for being a soldier should be related to the work the soldiers have to do, Jolly?
I disagree with social experimentation compromising the effectiveness of the military's mission.

The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
You haven't answered the question.

Here's another one: Smokers are on average significantly less powerful than non-smokers. On the battlefield this may make the difference between live and death. Do you support a ban on smokers in the military, and if you do not, why?
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Improviso
Jul 26 2017, 09:27 AM
First, it was the LGB's...

Now it's the T's...

Can the Q's be far behind???

Although honestly, I'm not sure what in the hell a Q is. :whome:
Queer...

from back when it was ok to call a spade a spade.


Remember back when we were told that if we would just let homosexuals "out of the closet" that that would be enough? Where were all of these "born in the wrong gender" people back then? Obviously there weren't very many of them then, because the total percentage of dick sucking males in the US was about 3 %. "No, we won't try to 'convert' your children". "no, we don't have a social agenda"... yada yada..

But here we are today, kids being taught in school before they even reach puberty that it's ok to be gay, colleges with growing numbers of spoiled rotten little snowflakes who claim they are "gender fluid", we're in a nationwide fight over who can take a piss with your daughter, entire religious organizations being brought to their knees by having been infested with them..

It's time to thin the herd.

And anyone that disagrees with me is denying evolutionary process........ lol
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Klaus
Jul 26 2017, 11:04 AM
So you disagree with the proposition that the requirements for being a soldier should be related to the work the soldiers have to do, Jolly?
If you want them in the military, put them in their own platoon together. Give them some pink tanks and purple guns, put some frills on their uniforms, and set them out to do battle.

Just don't throw a bunch of pansy assed sissies in with real men trying to fight a war.


Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Posted Image
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Klaus
Jul 26 2017, 11:16 AM
You haven't answered the question.

Here's another one: Smokers are on average significantly less powerful than non-smokers. On the battlefield this may make the difference between live and death. Do you support a ban on smokers in the military, and if you do not, why?
Already in place. Smoking is not allowed. Most recently, so is vaping, as there are other goodies that can be inserted into the contraption.

Off the military base, or certain small areas still provided for now (for example, few square yards on auxiliary military bases around the world)? Yes, still smokers and those that use the new technology.

Peripherally, one of the very first questions my doctor asked had to do with smoking and drinking. I was looking forward to being asked if I have access to a gun, but we're not quite there yet, at least in the state where I live. Top of the questionnaire page, even before really knowing what brought me to the doc.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
I was asked if I had a gun right before they put me to sleep for my recent sinus surgery. I forget now what I said to the nurse when she asked me, but I assure you it was sarcastic and funny....
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Improviso
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Jul 26 2017, 11:28 AM
Queer...

from back when it was ok to call a spade a spade.


Remember back when we were told that if we would just let homosexuals "out of the closet" that that would be enough? Where were all of these "born in the wrong gender" people back then? Obviously there weren't very many of them then, because the total percentage of dick sucking males in the US was about 3 %. "No, we won't try to 'convert' your children". "no, we don't have a social agenda"... yada yada..

But here we are today, kids being taught in school before they even reach puberty that it's ok to be gay, colleges with growing numbers of spoiled rotten little snowflakes who claim they are "gender fluid", we're in a nationwide fight over who can take a piss with your daughter, entire religious organizations being brought to their knees by having been infested with them..
I know it means Queer, but I thought that was covered with the "G".

What I don't understand is what is the difference between a "G" and a "Q". To me, it's the same thing. Why is it they need their own letter?

And yes, I remember very well, the whole "out of the closet" conversation in this nation. As far as I'm concerned, that whole normalization and acceptance in society of "LBG" is ultimately what led to my divorce. The acceptance... that it's perfectly OK to be bisexual and act on those feelings, even though you've been married in a heterosexual relationship for 30 years and society won't even blink an eye if that occurs.

While we read here, years ago, about Dewey's marriage coming to an end, and his justifications for that, all I could think about at the time was how Mrs. Dewey was handling this life changing circumstance, after years and years of marriage. I couldn't help but think she was devastated and that she came to the conclusion that THIS was not what she signed up for. But we never heard her side, did we?

Yea... turns out my EX admitted in court, under oath, that she was Bi. She came "out of the closet" to admit her "gender fluidity" and because of the general societal acceptance of it, was emboldened to act on it. And yet, she asked for and was granted by the court, that the public record be sealed from public scrutiny.

And while that did not directly end my marriage, it gave her the impetus to act on an old fashioned way marriages usually end... that being an affair with a married man. I suppose that's why she identifies as Bi. She can swing both ways.

So yes, I remember it well.

But I'm remarried now to a wonderful women, who has absolutely no designs on other women. She's a hard working, giving person who has absolutely no sense of entitlement and knows the value of everything.

What a difference from what I was used to. She was and is worth the wait. My only regret is that I can't get back those 31 years and give them to her.
Identifying narcissists isn't difficult. Just look for the person who is constantly fishing for compliments
and admiration while breaking down over even the slightest bit of criticism.

We have the freedom to choose our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Klaus
Jul 26 2017, 11:16 AM
You haven't answered the question.

Here's another one: Smokers are on average significantly less powerful than non-smokers. On the battlefield this may make the difference between live and death. Do you support a ban on smokers in the military, and if you do not, why?
A weaker smoker gets weeded out in basic training.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1