If you remove costs from the equation (and tweet), they are still a distraction.

 

How do you know?

How do you know?

 

I've asked people in the military and former military. I have plenty in my family to choose from. I have yet to find anyone who likes the idea of serving with a transgender.

I've asked people in the military and former military. I have plenty in my family to choose from. I have yet to find anyone who likes the idea of serving with a transgender.

I asked a few of the younger military members I know and none of them cared a bit. Maybe an age thing?

Really? Are transgender people also homosexual? I wasn't aware of that.

 

The close-minded portion of my post should indicate they would assume transgender people are also homosexuals.

 

Are you saying those folks don't have an issue serving with gay people, only transgender?

Honestly, there's probably guys who get to basic uncomfortable serving with atheists or black guys or white guys or brown guys or women or people from New York or Jews or guys from the South or anybody different from who you grew up with.

 

To me, I get the argument that maybe it is t prudent to take somebody out of service while providing them the means to have surgical gender reassignment, but using something not relating to fitness to serve to deny the opportunity seems shortsighted at best. That doesn't even touch on what happens to the transgender individuals currently serving. With this policy are they now considered unfit to serve? Do they become dishonorably discharged? Do they lose all accrued benefits? Do we expect them to be able to get a job with that mark? Let's go ahead and halphazardly throw in another setback to people who statistically suffer from the some of the highest levels of depression.

The close-minded portion of my post should indicate they would assume transgender people are also homosexuals.

 

Are you saying those folks don't have an issue serving with gay people, only transgender?

 

I didn't ask. I don't compare gay people with transgenders. Only one has a mental disorder, imo.

Only one has a mental disorder, imo.

 

Do they have an issue serving with those who suffer from depression or PTSD?

More than 80% of transgender folks who join the military do so just to get their surgeries paid for and are out of the service within a year following the procedure..

 

Considering transgender were only allowed to openly serve since last year and procedures were not covered until then, I find it hard to believe.

Do they have an issue serving with those who suffer from depression or PTSD?

 

I didn't ask.

I didn't ask.

 

No need.

Do they have an issue serving with those who suffer from depression or PTSD?

 

I think I would. If I'm in battle I won't only the sharpest of minds covering my back.

I think I would. If I'm in battle I won't only the sharpest of minds covering my back.

 

And I agree. That would be a legitimate concern, one that would be worthy of further research.

 

Blaming it on healthcare costs is a cop out, and a lie.

Out of 2MM

 

Exactly. So the argument that some were making that this is about lost time doesn't work either.

Exactly. So the argument that some were making that this is about lost time doesn't work either.

 

My military expertise might not be as sophisticated as yours, but troop cohesion is a big deal. We had very little of it in Vietnam and saw the results. Today, we have outstanding cohesion especially, with our SF, who spends more time with their units than their families.

My military expertise might not be as sophisticated as yours, but troop cohesion is a big deal. We had very little of it in Vietnam and saw the results. Today, we have outstanding cohesion especially, with our SF, who spends more time with their units than their families.

 

I'm not an expert in either.

These excuses don't really hold water.

 

Honestly, how long is this soldier going to be away from their unit to bust up that cohesive unit?