[subego]

I think the takeaway here is numerous possibilities seem more probable than "this is what Trump thinks is best for our military".

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Pretty sure Mad Dog is pushing this one.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think the takeaway here is numerous possibilities seem more probable than "this is what Trump thinks is best for our military".

That's obviously the last reason mainly because it doesn't sound like the military is that concerned about it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Pretty sure Mad Dog is pushing this one.

If so, Trump jumped the gun.

The Pentagon didn't have a statement prepared.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I wouldn't be surprised if Mattis mentioned it in passing at lunch and Trump jumped on Twitter before the table was even cleared.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I wouldn't be surprised if Mattis mentioned it in passing at lunch and Trump jumped on Twitter before the table was even cleared.

That's the other thing... if I felt Mattis was on-board I would have name-checked him in my announcement.

I think the rational opinion, even if I were a hard-charging heartbreaker and life-taker like Mattis (which I'm totally not), is the argument damages the mission more than the policy does. We had moved on from this. Reopening it for political gain is irresponsible.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

or they ran into some very bad consequences due to the integration.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

or they ran into some very bad consequences due to the integration.

Certainly possible, though again, the more solid the reason, the more confusing the reaction of "wat" from the Pentagon.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think the takeaway here is numerous possibilities seem more probable than "this is what Trump thinks is best for our military".

Politico actually has some interesting reporting on this. My revised theory is way off, and actually this relates to that surprising vote in the House last week.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...-scenes-240990

The transgender fight first surfaced in the House a few weeks ago. With the backing of almost the entire GOP conference, Hartzler offered an amendment to a defense authorization bill that would ban funding for gender reassignment surgeries and treatments for transgender active-duty personnel.

Republican supporters were shocked when a group of 24 mostly moderate Republicans teamed up with 190 Democrats to kill the effort in a 209-214 vote.

Republicans spent much of a closed-door GOP conference meeting the next morning steaming about what happened.

Supporters of Hartzler's proposal were determined to try again. Last week, they began pushing GOP leadership to use a procedural trick to automatically include the controversial proposal in a Pentagon spending package set for a floor vote this week. The idea was to tuck the provision into a rules package governing the legislation, sidestepping a second potentially unsuccessful amendment vote and adding it to the bill without a floor fight.

Under intense pressure from moderates in the Tuesday Group to reject the idea, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and his team shied away from the strategy, worried that it would make them look hypocritical for circumventing regular order.

Numerous House conservatives and defense hawks this week had threatened to derail their own legislation if it did not include a prohibition on Pentagon funding for gender reassignment surgeries, which they deem a waste of taxpayer money. But GOP leaders were caught in a pinch between those demands and moderate Republicans who felt the proposal was blatantly discriminatory.

…

That’s why House lawmakers took the matter to the Trump administration. And when Defense Secretary James Mattis refused to immediately upend the policy, they went straight to the White House. Trump — never one for political correctness — was all too happy to oblige.

…

The president’s directive, of course, took the House issue a step beyond paying for gender reassignment surgery and other medical treatment. House Republicans were never debating expelling all transgender troops from the military.

"This is like someone told the White House to light a candle on the table and the WH set the whole table on fire,” said one senior House Republican aide. The source said that while GOP leaders asked the White House for help on the taxpayer matter specifically, they weren't expecting — and got no heads up on — Trump's far-reaching directive.

The announcement, multiple sources said, did not sit well with Mattis, who appeared to be trying to avoid the matter in recent weeks. An extensive Defense Department review of the policy was already underway, but a decision wasn't expected for months.

Insiders say Mattis felt there was no need to rush upending the policy, arguing the Pentagon needed time to study the issue. Their decision would affect at least 2,450 transgender active-military personnel, according to a Rand report — though military LGBT activist groups say as many as 15,000 soldiers fall into that category.

That timeline, however, wasn't good enough for House Republicans.

Sounds they like they got more than they bargained for. Since no real directive exists outside of a tweet, I won't be surprised if a pared back order is what gets sent to the Pentagon in a few weeks.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

Certainly possible, though again, the more solid the reason, the more confusing the reaction of "wat" from the Pentagon.

Mattis pushed back the trans integration initiative in the first place, from July 1, 2017, to Jan 1, 2018. That's why I'm assuming it was him, that could be wrong, though.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Mattis pushed back the trans integration initiative in the first place, from July 1, 2017, to Jan 1, 2018. That's why I'm assuming it was him, that could be wrong, though.

The rumor I heard was Pence has been working congress.

Mattis did roll back the initiative to let transgendered people join, but let the policy about transitioning while serving slide, so I feel it's hard to pin him down.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Feels like a convergence of trad-cons and Pentagon.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

A good read regarding the "Oppression Olympics", subego. Parts of it left me laughing: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...ejsp.2244/full

[subego]

I assume at some point there'll be an official Pentagon statement. The tell will be how much it focuses on it being a C-in-C call.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

A good read regarding the "Oppression Olympics", subego. Parts of it left me laughing: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...ejsp.2244/full

I already like "competitive victimhood".

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Politico actually has some interesting reporting on this. My revised theory is way off, and actually this relates to that surprising vote in the House last week.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...-scenes-240990

Sounds they like they got more than they bargained for. Since no real directive exists outside of a tweet, I won't be surprised if a pared back order is what gets sent to the Pentagon in a few weeks.

Whoops! Missed this post.

"Lit the table on fire" is apt.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Go to bed, John.

[Chongo]

Ah, the strawberries That's where I knew I had them.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Go to bed, John.

Did you read the article?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Yep.

[subego]

It would be nice to have it in link form.

[subego]

Found the first one.

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/736588

Headline doesn't really match the story. McCain's beef was he felt the Armed Services Committee should get a heads-up when the Pentagon is going to enact major policy shifts. He wanted study and a review. I don't disagree with him.

I can't find the other story, but I can find a Reuters article where McCain complains about Trump enacting major policy shifts through Twitter. He wants a study and review. I don't disagree with him.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

Headline doesn't really match the story. McCain's beef was he felt the Armed Services Committee should get a heads-up when the Pentagon is going to enact major policy shifts. He wanted study and a review. I don't disagree with him.

He wanted to know the impact trans people would have on combat effectiveness, and I agree with him. When a group has a >40% suicide rate, you may not want to hand them firearms and place them in stressful situations, like war.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

He wanted to know the impact trans people would have on combat effectiveness, and I agree with him. When a group has a >40% suicide rate, you may not want to hand them firearms and place them in stressful situations, like war.

That's what basic training is for, to assess these things.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

and when they aren't in a completely controlled environment, with an instructor within arm's reach? Basic rarely "breaks" anyone, it's not intended to. We lost one person out of our platoon, and it wasn't due to psychological stress, it was because he broke his ankle. Again, I repeat, placing individuals from a group that already has a >40% suicide rate into armed combat is a mistake.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

The modern military is much "softer" than it was just a few decades ago: http://content.time.com/time/magazin...138095,00.html

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

and when they aren't in a completely controlled environment, with an instructor within arm's reach? Basic rarely "breaks" anyone, it's not intended to. We lost one person out of our platoon, and it wasn't due to psychological stress, it was because he broke his ankle. Again, I repeat, placing individuals from a group that already has a >40% suicide rate into armed combat is a mistake.

Looks like you are right: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...es-not-mental/

Still not sure I like this argument though. It seems like mental health is a crapshoot for everybody. Statistically you may find more transgender suicides, but you might find a greater percentage of rape, anger management, various mental illness, etc. in other populations. Therefore basing admission solely on this stat seems unfair, and doesn't really address the overall issue of mental fitness.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

You're against mentally ill people buying firearms, as the vast majority of people are, yet you're okay with giving a group, who has an astronomically high suicide rate, loaded weapons and sending them into combat?

If we could place them through a very strenuous psychological evaluation upon joining, sure. However, that would just draw extreme criticism that the military is "subjecting trans people to mental/emotional abuse" that others don't have to endure.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You're against mentally ill people buying firearms, as the vast majority of people are, yet you're okay with giving a group, who has an astronomically high suicide rate, loaded weapons and sending them into combat?

Know why their suicide rate is so high? Its because of all the assholes who keep banning them from doing stuff that everyone else gets to do.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You're against mentally ill people buying firearms, as the vast majority of people are, yet you're okay with giving a group, who has an astronomically high suicide rate, loaded weapons and sending them into combat?

I could take a page out of the Chongo and Badkosh global warming playbook and question the veracity of this data and suggest some sort of global conspiracy, but let's assume this stat is accurate for this conversation...

If, hypothetically, people that didn't graduate college/university statistically rape more, would you want to deny entrance to people without a college/university degree? Should we deny entrance to women given that they are more likely to be raped, or deny entrance to men because they are more likely to rape somebody? Should we deny entrance to gay people? Being in the military is obviously tough for them too, and I wouldn't be surprised if their suicide rates were higher too.

My point is this... We have a data point on transgender suicide rates, great. We are (to my knowledge) missing a lot of data on other populations not only pertaining to suicide but a whole host of other issues. Maybe we should act on the data we have, but it also seems kind of unfair to discriminate based on this data while not committing to collect more data about these other issues and populations?

That's an expensive proposition though. Maybe it is better to not discriminate at all? At least suicide doesn't impact other people the way rape does.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Know why their suicide rate is so high? Its because of all the assholes who keep banning them from doing stuff that everyone else gets to do.

I'm sure being treated as weird freaky things doesn't help.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Know why their suicide rate is so high? Its because of all the assholes who keep banning them from doing stuff that everyone else gets to do.

It's not just general stigma, it's also tied to sexual fitness (M>F transsexuals often lose the ability to orgasm entirely), hormonal imbalance, botched reassignment surgery, and their own perception that their transition isn't as appealing as their naturally born sex of choice.

Compound that with certain facts; F>M TG individuals aren't as strong, tall, or durable as naturally born males, meaning they'll rarely (if ever) be near the top in physical fitness, and even though M>F persons will generally have some physical advantages over naturally born counterparts, the intake of estrogen to maintain their femininity brings about greatly increased cancer risks, and an increase to risk of injury, due to having a substantially larger frame, yet less dense bone and weaker muscle and soft tissue.

So no, it isn't about, "assholes who keep banning them from doing stuff", as usual, it's much more complicated than you're believing something to be. Allowing open TG recruitment adds a layer of complexity to a system that was never designed to cater to them; infantry is hard and the advanced testing is often brutal, and with good reason, because it mimics what a person can expect during war. Simply put, even in training, it's reckless to place other GIs at greater risk by including TG soldiers, who will always have special needs, while being much less likely to endure high levels of emotional stress.

Ever taken antidepressants? You can't join the armed forces. Ever taken medication for ADHD? You can't join. Ever even contemplated suicide? You're ineligible. In fact, there's already a vehicle in place to restrict all trans people, extended use of hormonal replacements bars anyone from joining the military, due to frequent emotional and mental complications. The only reason why a relative few trans persons were allowed to remain was because they began such treatments after enlisting.

[Waragainstsleep]

You know they let women in the military these days right? Because it sounds like you don't.

Lets not pretend for a fraction of a second that Trump agonised over psychological and physiological data and statistics before issuing this ban. As far as most people can tell, he didn't even bother to consult the military at all. It likely came to him while he was weeping over his pathetic approval rating during one of his 3am coke dumps. He probably figured it would creep up a notch or two if he gave a few more bigots a hard-on.

I'm sure feeling like you were born the wrong gender is more than enough to make you deeply miserable at times, but thats all the more reason not to treat someone like shit isn't it? I bet TG people just want to be treated the same way as anyone else of their preferred gender, instead of being banned from public restrooms and military service as part of the latest ass-backwards political discourse.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You know they let women in the military these days right? Because it sounds like you don't.

You know women didn't start life as men and don't need to go through extreme body chemistry changes, and surgery, to transition from one sex to another, don't you?

Lets not pretend for a fraction of a second that Trump agonised over psychological and physiological data and statistics before issuing this ban. As far as most people can tell, he didn't even bother to consult the military at all. It likely came to him while he was weeping over his pathetic approval rating during one of his 3am coke dumps. He probably figured it would creep up a notch or two if he gave a few more bigots a hard-on.

Let's not pretend that he's only going on what you believe are his gut feelings for a moment, while we're at it. There's a reason why policy changes WRT admission of TG persons was stalled and pushed back before. Your assumptions regarding Trump's intentions are pointless if the reasons for disallowing trans people to enlist are sound. Maybe you should analyze this matter logically, rather than let your flights of fancy over Trump's extracurricular activities further cloud your judgement?

I'm sure feeling like you were born the wrong gender is more than enough to make you deeply miserable at times, but thats all the more reason not to treat someone like shit isn't it? I bet TG people just want to be treated the same way as anyone else of their preferred gender, instead of being banned from public restrooms and military service as part of the latest ass-backwards political discourse.

More assumptions? Are people who are disallowed due to having asthma being "treated like shit"? What about those who suffer from clinical depression? Or diabetes? How about Eczema? You think enlisting is a right for all, regardless of physical, mental, or emotional limitations? Well, I have news for you, it isn't. Millions have been denied and it isn't shameful or a blot against them as people, it's merely deemed that they can't handle combat or wartime conditions.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You know women didn't start life as men and don't need to go through extreme body chemistry changes, and surgery, to transition from one sex to another, don't you?

This has little or nothing to do with the points you raised that are identical to those used to argue against women being in the military.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Your assumptions regarding Trump's intentions are pointless if the reasons for disallowing trans people to enlist are sound.

Millions would disagree. Because it speaks to his judgement. Not that anyone seems to care how awful it is.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

More assumptions? Are people who are disallowed due to having asthma being "treated like shit"? What about those who suffer from clinical depression? Or diabetes? How about Eczema? You think enlisting is a right for all, regardless of physical, mental, or emotional limitations? Well, I have news for you, it isn't. Millions have been denied and it isn't shameful or a blot against them as people, it's merely deemed that they can't handle combat or wartime conditions.

Try telling one of those groups they need their own bathroom because they can't be trusted not to rape children and see how they feel about that kind of treatment.
Excluding someone for a physical condition or a mental health issue is just common sense where it affects the performance of their duties, as disappointing as it is for those impacted. Excluding someone for their gender alone is totally different and cannot ever be justified and that is what is happening when POTUS says that no-one TG can serve. You can be TG and depressed, or suffer from eczema etc in case you didn't realise. Being TG is not a mental illness.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Compound that with certain facts; F>M TG individuals aren't as strong, tall, or durable as naturally born males, meaning they'll rarely (if ever) be near the top in physical fitness, and even though M>F persons will generally have some physical advantages over naturally born counterparts, the intake of estrogen to maintain their femininity brings about greatly increased cancer risks, and an increase to risk of injury, due to having a substantially larger frame, yet less dense bone and weaker muscle and soft tissue.

None of this disqualifies transgender from serving, all you need to do is apply existing fitness standards and you are fine. Plus, not all roles in the military have the same physical requirements, so this is just a red herring.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

So no, it isn't about, "assholes who keep banning them from doing stuff", as usual, it's much more complicated than you're believing something to be. Allowing open TG recruitment adds a layer of complexity to a system that was never designed to cater to them; infantry is hard and the advanced testing is often brutal, and with good reason, because it mimics what a person can expect during war. Simply put, even in training, it's reckless to place other GIs at greater risk by including TG soldiers, who will always have special needs, while being much less likely to endure high levels of emotional stress.

How do you know that inclusion of transgender increases stress? Unless you have evidence, this is just conjecture on your part. Wouldn't that be something that would necessitate a review to see whether this has any factual basis? A review such as the one that began one month ago and will take five more months to complete?

I have surely heard some (former) members of the military voice the same concern, even though they usually weren't able to recall to have served with a single transgender person. And similar concerns were brought up when segregation in the army was lifted and when gays and lesbians were allowed to serve openly.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This has little or nothing to do with the points you raised that are identical to those used to argue against women being in the military.

Indeed it does, you don't want to see it (and are purposely avoiding my point). Radical changes in hormonal chemistry cause ongoing and permanent instability, compared to the rest of the general population, add in sexual disfunction and self-perception issues and it's plain to see why emotionally stressful situations (like combat) cause major problems.

Millions would disagree. Because it speaks to his judgement. Not that anyone seems to care how awful it is.

Your feelings about his judgement on other issues have no bearing on whether TG individuals are fit to serve in the military. You're merely using it as an excuse to disagree.

Try telling one of those groups they need their own bathroom because they can't be trusted not to rape children and see how they feel about that kind of treatment.
Excluding someone for a physical condition or a mental health issue is just common sense where it affects the performance of their duties, as disappointing as it is for those impacted. Excluding someone for their gender alone is totally different and cannot ever be justified and that is what is happening when POTUS says that no-one TG can serve. You can be TG and depressed, or suffer from eczema etc in case you didn't realise. Being TG is not a mental illness.

Being TG is a self-determined deficiency; you feel that you were born with the wrong parts. To correct this requires treatments that cause stress "break points" that are often unavoidable, making the person unfit for military service, where stress is often 10-20x more focused than practically any other vocations (possible exceptions are private aircraft testing, Alaskan snow crab fishing, and civilian bomb disposal services). The rest are just your emotional pleas which are irrelevant. Again, not being allowed in the armed forces isn't a blot on them, it's a common situation for people who have extraordinary needs.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

None of this disqualifies transgender from serving, all you need to do is apply existing fitness standards and you are fine. Plus, not all roles in the military have the same physical requirements, so this is just a red herring.

No, it isn't, and it indeed does now disqualify them from serving in the US military, that's the point of this discussion. Whether you agree with that or not is the argument. Being TG and the ongoing process of transition isn't a "fix it and it's done" scenario. Due to perpetual changes in body chemistry, that must be monitored very carefully, a person who is fine and dandy one day can be unstable and unfit for combat the next. While some other countries do allow TG persons to serve, those roles are ceremonial, as are most of their personnel, unlike the in the US. AFAIK, no TG persons are in combat positions in any active deployment, anywhere in the world. Though I would like to know if it's been tried and what the long term fitness evaluations found. None of our MOS standards are ceremonial or exclusively clerical, at any moment a soldier may be deployed for combat to defend this country. If that changes, I'm open to change my views.

How do you know that inclusion of transgender increases stress?

I didn't say it caused stress for others, soldiers will adapt. The issue is with proposed TG combatants themselves and how they handle ongoing wartime/combat stresses.

I have surely heard some (former) members of the military voice the same concern, even though they usually weren't able to recall to have served with a single transgender person. And similar concerns were brought up when segregation in the army was lifted and when gays and lesbians were allowed to serve openly.

This isn't about allowing homosexuals in the armed forces, a position I fully support.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Indeed it does, you don't want to see it (and are purposely avoiding my point). Radical changes in hormonal chemistry cause ongoing and permanent instability, compared to the rest of the general population, add in sexual disfunction and self-perception issues and it's plain to see why emotionally stressful situations (like combat) cause major problems.

All of which has precisely **** all to do with deficiency of physical strength and how many push-ups someone can do. Yet you brought that up and are now accusing me of deliberately avoiding your point by acting like I'm complaining about a different one.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Your feelings about his judgement on other issues have no bearing on whether TG individuals are fit to serve in the military. You're merely using it as an excuse to disagree.

His judgement has no bearing on whether they are fit to serve or not. It does have bearing on whether or not he should be issuing bans when he has no clue what the fudge he is talking about. Ever.

Its obviously just a distraction to get people away from the Russia debacle or the healthcare shitshow or whatever else we are about to hear about or discover that he has done badly or criminally.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Being TG is a self-determined deficiency; you feel that you were born with the wrong parts. To correct this requires treatments that cause stress "break points" that are often unavoidable, making the person unfit for military service, where stress is often 10-20x more focused than practically any other vocations (possible exceptions are private aircraft testing, Alaskan snow crab fishing, and civilian bomb disposal services). The rest are just your emotional pleas which are irrelevant. Again, not being allowed in the armed forces isn't a blot on them, it's a common situation for people who have extraordinary needs.

At best you have an argument for taking TG people on a case by case basis. Like everyone else.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

No, it isn't, and it indeed does now disqualify them from serving in the US military, that's the point of this discussion. Whether you agree with that or not is the argument. Being TG and the ongoing process of transition isn't a "fix it and it's done" scenario. Due to perpetual changes in body chemistry, that must be monitored very carefully, a person who is fine and dandy one day can be unstable and unfit for combat the next. While some other countries do allow TG persons to serve, those roles are ceremonial, as are most of their personnel, unlike the in the US. AFAIK, no TG persons are in combat positions in any active deployment, anywhere in the world. Though I would like to know if it's been tried and what the long term fitness evaluations found. None of our MOS standards are ceremonial or exclusively clerical, at any moment a soldier may be deployed for combat to defend this country. If that changes, I'm open to change my views.


I didn't say it caused stress for others, soldiers will adapt. The issue is with proposed TG combatants themselves and how they handle ongoing wartime/combat stresses.

You are failing to separate certain conditions here. You are either saying that all TG people are clinically depressed and incapable of ever handling stress normally or healthily, or that its the case with such a high percentage that its not worth bothering to give even one of them the benefit of the doubt.

Firstly, thats not a distinction you are remotely qualified to make. Do you even associate with (m)any TG people in your religious gated community in Tennessee? I can't imagine they flock there somehow. Even you are the elected leader of the local chapter/support group, I still want the person making the call to be a highly qualified expert psychologist with a panel of peers, not you.

You can't discriminate against a group based on higher incidence of particular conditions. I don't know if its still the case but there used to be scientific consensus that black males were statistically more prone to suffer from psychosis, something else you want to avoid in people whose job involves guns, bombs, tanks and missiles etc. Imagine the outcry if you tried to ban African American men from serving in the military.
You know this is wrong, I don't know why you're digging yourself a hole over it. I can only assume you get some perverse kick from agreeing with Trump to wind us up.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

No, it isn't, and it indeed does now disqualify them from serving in the US military, that's the point of this discussion.

That's not an argument: just because Trump decided to reverse Obama's decision on a whim (without letting the review finish or consult with the Pentagon), doesn't mean that it is justified or that his reasons are supported by the data. You listed a bunch of reasons that talked about the physique of transgender people. I don't know whether this is borne out by actual data, but even if they turn out to be correct, then a straightforward solution is to hold transgender to exactly the same physical standards as they exit now. If they pass, they can (and should) serve in certain roles, and if they don't, they can't.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Whether you agree with that or not is the argument. Being TG and the ongoing process of transition isn't a "fix it and it's done" scenario. Due to perpetual changes in body chemistry, that must be monitored very carefully, a person who is fine and dandy one day can be unstable and unfit for combat the next. While some other countries do allow TG persons to serve, those roles are ceremonial, as are most of their personnel, unlike the in the US.

Transgender have served in other militaries for decades, including combat roles.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

AFAIK, no TG persons are in combat positions in any active deployment, anywhere in the world.

That's incorrect, and all you need to do is google: the article lists a whole bunch of countries, including Canada, Sweden, the UK, Australia and Israel, some of whom allow transgender to serve since the 1990s. According to the article, there are examples of transgender serving in combat, e. g. for UK's armed forced (Deborah Penny who served in combat in Afghanistan).

Transgender also serve in combat roles for the US military:
Taken from here:

Originally Posted by CNN

Army Staff Sgt. Patricia King woke to her phone blowing up with calls and messages about the return of a ban on transgender people in the US military.

President Donald Trump announced the policy reversal on Twitter. The move left King and other transgender active-duty members wondering how the policy would affect those who have been serving openly.

[...]

Until she hears otherwise from her command, the infantry soldier said she plans to continue going to work. After 18 years of service and three tours of duty, she cannot imagine leaving the Army.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Though I would like to know if it's been tried and what the long term fitness evaluations found. None of our MOS standards are ceremonial or exclusively clerical, at any moment a soldier may be deployed for combat to defend this country. If that changes, I'm open to change my views.

Yup, it's been tried in other armies.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

This isn't about allowing homosexuals in the armed forces, a position I fully support.

Some of the main arguments against are the same as any major changes to the US military, including desegregation, allowing women and homosexuals to serve: There will be a negative impact on troop morale. And, in case of women, you have to lower physical standards or take things like periods into account.

[The Final Dakar]

Its pretty damn amusing how Trump is all words and no substance. It's been over a week right?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/penta...ry?id=48950918

The Pentagon still has not received guidance from the White House since President Trump tweeted that transgender individuals may not serve in the U.S. military, the Pentagon confirmed Monday.

More importantly, I'm kind of shocked at the response to his decree. Its been a little over 5 years since DADT was repealed, yet here we have high ranking military members standing up and speaking out for them.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1AH5CC

Fifty-six retired U.S. generals, admirals and other senior officers voiced opposition on Tuesday to President Donald Trump's announcement of a ban on transgender military service, saying it would be disruptive and degrade readiness.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ender-ban.html

The commandant of the Coast Guard said Tuesday he will not "break faith" with transgender members following President Trump's tweets about a total ban on their service in the military.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's not an argument:

Yes, it is. There's no "reversion", it hadn't even been implemented yet and had already been pushed back.

That's incorrect, and all you need to do is google: the article lists a whole bunch of countries, including Canada, Sweden, the UK, Australia and Israel, some of whom allow transgender to serve since the 1990s. According to the article, there are examples of transgender serving in combat, e. g. for UK's armed forced (Deborah Penny who served in combat in Afghanistan).

Transgender also serve in combat roles for the US military:
Taken from here:

Yup, it's been tried in other armies.

As I said, those are ceremonial and clerical positions. We don't have those positions, and pointing out a few TG exceptions, that didn't use hormone replacement therapies, or filled positions under extraordinary circumstances, doesn't make your case. Again, I want to see data, not left-wing puff pieces, but all of it is being purposely concealed.

Some of the main arguments against are the same as any major changes to the US military, including desegregation, allowing women and homosexuals to serve: There will be a negative impact on troop morale. And, in case of women, you have to lower physical standards or take things like periods into account.

Not even. Last time I heard, gays and women don't take hormones that radically change their physiology on a regular basis (and must be taken for the rest of their lives, or they face sexual reversion).

[Cap'n Tightpants]

This isn't looking good.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

All of which has precisely **** all to do with deficiency of physical strength and how many push-ups someone can do. Yet you brought that up and are now accusing me of deliberately avoiding your point by acting like I'm complaining about a different one.

Pointless vitriolic rebuttal.

His judgement has no bearing on whether they are fit to serve or not. It does have bearing on whether or not he should be issuing bans when he has no clue what the fudge he is talking about. Ever.

Its obviously just a distraction to get people away from the Russia debacle or the healthcare shitshow or whatever else we are about to hear about or discover that he has done badly or criminally.

Attacks against Trump.

At best you have an argument for taking TG people on a case by case basis. Like everyone else.

Finally, something useful. As I said before, a TG individual who tests out well one week can change radically with hormonal imbalances. This isn't like a woman being on her period, but more like a child when they hit puberty, and it shifts regularly. I've talked this over with F>M pre and post-op trans persons and it's hellish, and mistakes cause breakdowns and oftentimes violent mood swings and depression.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Finally, something useful. As I said before, a TG individual who tests out well one week can change radically with hormonal imbalances. This isn't like a woman being on her period, but more like a child when they hit puberty, and it shifts regularly. I've talked this over with F>M pre and post-op trans persons and it's hellish, and mistakes cause breakdowns and oftentimes violent mood swings and depression.

As an aside, people transitioning from FtM start in on testosterone often say things along the lines of "now that I've experienced it, I'm surprised more men aren't violent and/or rapists".

[Cap'n Tightpants]

^^I've also heard it likened to a man being regularly injected with anabolic steroids (something that will also get you rejected for enlistment).

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Pointless vitriolic rebuttal.

It was your moaning about women that was pointless. Wholly predictable, but pointless.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Attacks against Trump.

And?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Finally, something useful. As I said before, a TG individual who tests out well one week can change radically with hormonal imbalances. This isn't like a woman being on her period, but more like a child when they hit puberty, and it shifts regularly. I've talked this over with F>M pre and post-op trans persons and it's hellish, and mistakes cause breakdowns and oftentimes violent mood swings and depression.

This sounds like something that people would get in check with practice. Even if thats not the case, anyone can have a breakdown or a mood swing, you're still talking about statistics which has never been an excuse to write off any individual. My point stands. Maybe they need better or longer testing periods.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

It was your moaning about women that was pointless. Wholly predictable, but pointless.

I wasn't "moaning" about women. WTF? Point out where I was.

And?

When whining about Trump is your only debate strategy, you usually don't do very well.

This sounds like something that people would get in check with practice. Even if thats not the case, anyone can have a breakdown or a mood swing, you're still talking about statistics which has never been an excuse to write off any individual. My point stands. Maybe they need better or longer testing periods.

Pay attention. This isn't about someone having a "downer" day, and a little case of the "Mondays", it's about psychotic breaks, panic attacks, and violent mood swings. Are you paying attention to the conversation I'm having w/ subego, or are you now just arguing because it's me and you don't know how to stop?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I wasn't "moaning" about women. WTF? Point out where I was.

If you want to play dumb, you can stay dumb. I'm not going to spell out your own nonsense for you.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

When whining about Trump is your only debate strategy, you usually don't do very well.

Only because you don't think anything he says or does is remotely wrong.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Pay attention. This isn't about someone having a "downer" day, and a little case of the "Mondays", it's about psychotic breaks, panic attacks, and violent mood swings. Are you paying attention to the conversation I'm having w/ subego, or are you now just arguing because it's me and you don't know how to stop?

Or maybe I reject the notion that you have the slightest clue what you're talking about just because you say you do. I'm quite certain there are TG people who aren't unstable, dangerous liabilities to everyone around them.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

If you want to play dumb, you can stay dumb. I'm not going to spell out your own nonsense for you.

You're the one being "dumb". I didn't do what you said, own it and move on.

Only because you don't think anything he says or does is remotely wrong.

I do, but I don't lose my mind over him. You give the guy rent-free space in your head, 24/7. It infects everything you try to discuss, making your arguments worthless. You automatically just blame Trump and shut down. It's uncanny.

Or maybe I reject the notion that you have the slightest clue what you're talking about just because you say you do. I'm quite certain there are TG people who aren't unstable, dangerous liabilities to everyone around them.

Again, we finally get to something useful. Let's say 98% of the time you're right, that person is fine, but what about the other 2% when they aren't. They're in a combat situation and can't simply be extracted, have no access to the therapies they need, are under constant enemy fire; bullets whizzing by, constantly suppressing the fight or flight response, and are going to be in that position for another 1-2 weeks? This isn't uncommon in war, 99% of it is waiting and anxiety over waiting, while staying in the same place for extended periods of time, oftentimes without external contact.

Hell, even people who aren't on hormone replacement treatments sometimes go nuts, they're just a lot less likely to do so. If hormone-triggered temporary insanity is enough of a consideration to be used as part of a murder trial defense, when the person wasn't even in combat, it's certainly enough to give a commander cause for serious concern regarding his/her units. If the military wants to create a strictly non-combat MOS, that's another thing, but I have a feeling that won't be good enough for many who are hot for full TG integration, due to it being the current cause du jour.