ADVERTISEMENT

Trump moves to ban most transgender troops

He had to do something to make the base happy after the budget he signed and the upcoming Stormy interview.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigmac76
He had to do something to make the base happy after the budget he signed and the upcoming Stormy interview.

Precisely. It will probably not survive the courts. But with Stormy Sunday coming up, he needs a redirection attempt.

It's pathetically obvious. Not much nuance here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RBB89
While meeting with reporters to discuss the new spending bill, President Trump enjoys a passing epiphany that he can have two scoops of ice cream any time he wants, because he's the President of the United States. "And my hair looks great," the President reminds himself.

90
 
This is just red meat that will likely be implemented in a very limited fashion, will be further limited by court order, and will have very few real world effects. It's just a distraction.

Edit: Just to be extra clear, I'm not saying there won't be individuals who are affected by this. There will be. But the overall effect on our military will be negligible. There really is no reason to bother with this other than to give the base something to cheer about for the weekend.
 
Last edited:
The thing about this is that it's all him. It's not a thing his base is up in arms about or the Pentagon is pushing. It's something visceral to him that must have been inculcated when he was young -- perhaps when his dad was showing him how to keep black people out of his residential properties. He's just being an ignorant asshole to people who serve all of us because he is small. Just like he was small when he defamed John McCain's Vietnam War service -- a war he sat out with bone spurs while McCain was tortured at the Hanoi Hotel.

Trump is an awful human being. There's a story to tell about how he became a sociopath. Then there's a story about how 62 million Americans thought it would be a good idea to put a sociopath in the White House -- and how 80-odd percent of Republicans still think that was a good idea.

I'm not going to hear anyone tell me that Trump isn't the Republican Party. Republicans elected him, and Republicans overwhelmingly support him. Whatever Republicans may want to tell themselves, they are now members of Trump's party. They voted for it, they support it today, and they will always own it.
 
The thing about this is that it's all him. It's not a thing his base is up in arms about or the Pentagon is pushing. It's something visceral to him that must have been inculcated when he was young -- perhaps when his dad was showing him how to keep black people out of his residential properties. He's just being an ignorant asshole to people who serve all of us because he is small. Just like he was small when he defamed John McCain's Vietnam War service -- a war he sat out with bone spurs while McCain was tortured at the Hanoi Hotel.

Trump is an awful human being. There's a story to tell about how he became a sociopath. Then there's a story about how 62 million Americans thought it would be a good idea to put a sociopath in the White House -- and how 80-odd percent of Republicans still think that was a good idea.

I'm not going to hear anyone tell me that Trump isn't the Republican Party. Republicans elected him, and Republicans overwhelmingly support him. Whatever Republicans may want to tell themselves, they are now members of Trump's party. They voted for it, they support it today, and they will always own it.

He must have a damaged childhood. No way you can turn out to be a pathological liar otherwise. And that responsibility falls on Fred.

Somewhere in his upbringing that he thinks everything is a zero-sum game and that to the victor belongs the spoils. I can see why he sleeps poorly. He must wake up in the middle of the night depressed, asking himself why he is angry all the time.

Sadly he does little self-reflection. He ain't smart enough to recognise that life is a one-way street and that you don't take money (his only gauge to success) with you. Ultimately, it's about what positive memories you impart to other people before you go. Trump's memories will be that of a soft lump of diarrhetic turd.
 
He must have a damaged childhood. No way you can turn out to be a pathological liar otherwise. And that responsibility falls on Fred.

Somewhere in his upbringing that he thinks everything is a zero-sum game and that to the victor belongs the spoils. I can see why he sleeps poorly. He must wake up in the middle of the night depressed, asking himself why he is angry all the time.

Sadly he does little self-reflection. He ain't smart enough to recognise that life is a one-way street and that you don't take money (his only gauge to success) with you. Ultimately, it's about what positive memories you impart to other people before you go. Trump's memories will be that of a lump of diarrhetic turd.
I started a thread the other day about fatherly regrets. Luckily for Fred Trump, he's beyond all that, having surrendered his parental obligations for Donald to a military school, and has since died without further responsibility for his son's senseless cruelty. It's hard to believe that Fred is blameless.
 
I started a thread the other day about fatherly regrets. Luckily for Fred Trump, he's beyond all that, having surrendered his parental obligations for Donald to a military school, and has since died without further responsibility for his son's senseless cruelty. It's hard to believe that Fred is blameless.

My mum told me this once; kids are born like a blank canvas. It's up to the parents how you paint and fill the canvas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: meridian
I have no problems with LGT or B’s. I may not agree with their politics and I do have a problem with our military taking $ away from troops to pay for medical expenses related to people becoming T’s When an injured Vet gets crap for service at VA hospitals.

https://www.military.com/daily-news...sex-change-operations-transgender-troops.html

What about the logistical issue? I am NOT a well educated person on Transgenders. But my understanding is all Transgenders need to take hormones etc each week/month?? How do you do that in a prolonged war zone? Can you imagine people re-transitioning in the field?

We couldn’t even get grease seals in the field. We finally had friends in the States Mail them to us....

Again, if my assumptions are incorrect I hope I didn’t offend. I truly don’t have a clue what the process is.
 
What about the logistical issue? I am NOT a well educated person on Transgenders. But my understanding is all Transgenders need to take hormones etc each week/month?? How do you do that in a prolonged war zone? Can you imagine people re-transitioning in the field?

We couldn’t even get grease seals in the field. We finally had friends in the States Mail them to us....

Again, if my assumptions are incorrect I hope I didn’t offend. I truly don’t have a clue what the process is.
I have no idea what the process is like for trans people who are undergoing hormone therapy (FWIW, not all transgender people get medical treatment or undergo therapy; this new policy only applies to those who do), but I don't see why there needs to be a blanket policy on the matter. Does the Pentagon do that with other medical treatments? Is there a list of treatments that make you unfit for front line service? Maybe there is, but I would venture to guess that if there is a question as to the appropriateness of a certain posting because of medical treatment concerns, that would be adjudicated by medical officials on a case-by-case basis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosier_Hack
I have no idea what the process is like for trans people who are undergoing hormone therapy (FWIW, not all transgender people get medical treatment or undergo therapy; this new policy only applies to those who do), but I don't see why there needs to be a blanket policy on the matter. Does the Pentagon do that with other medical treatments? Is there a list of treatments that make you unfit for front line service? Maybe there is, but I would venture to guess that if there is a question as to the appropriateness of a certain posting because of medical treatment concerns, that would be adjudicated by medical officials on a case-by-case basis.

If they are targeting only those undergoing hormone therapy, my guess is exactly what I outlined about prolonged field duties.... it just makes sense. If they are okay with people who are transgender and not going through hormone therapy then obviously there is some concern about getting the needed meds I believe in combat zones in a timely/guaranteed way.

As far as other medical treatments being treated the same way, I’d say yes they are. You can have certain ailments that will keep you from deploying with your unit. They also restrict people from certain duties based on color blindness, height, etc. not a great correlation but my point is there are restrictions.

My lack of knowledge on this subject is freighting :). I assumed all transgendered people were transforming to the opposite sex. So am I to understand correctly that as a transgender in the military, you could be a guy who remains a guy physically but wants to dress as a woman in uniform and out? I would think that will lead to one uniform for all which may not be a bad thing.
 
I have no idea what the process is like for trans people who are undergoing hormone therapy (FWIW, not all transgender people get medical treatment or undergo therapy; this new policy only applies to those who do), but I don't see why there needs to be a blanket policy on the matter. Does the Pentagon do that with other medical treatments? Is there a list of treatments that make you unfit for front line service? Maybe there is, but I would venture to guess that if there is a question as to the appropriateness of a certain posting because of medical treatment concerns, that would be adjudicated by medical officials on a case-by-case basis.
There are medical conditions and medical treatments that make a person nondeployable. Heart conditions, broken limbs, sleep apnea, pregnancy, conditions requiring special medications, etc.. A pregnant woman, for example, can’t deploy or even get underway for local area training, but she could be aboard the ship for in port duties and training (with restrictions). Also, there’s a difference between how temporary medical conditions and permanent medical conditions. Being unable to deploy for a temporary condition, like pregnancy, allows a person to remain in the service. Permanent medical conditions that prevent deployment gets the person a discharge. We don’t need Sailors that can’t sail or pilots that can’t fly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosier_Hack
If they are targeting only those undergoing hormone therapy, my guess is exactly what I outlined about prolonged field duties.... it just makes sense. If they are okay with people who are transgender and not going through hormone therapy then obviously there is some concern about getting the needed meds I believe in combat zones in a timely/guaranteed way.

As far as other medical treatments being treated the same way, I’d say yes they are. You can have certain ailments that will keep you from deploying with your unit. They also restrict people from certain duties based on color blindness, height, etc. not a great correlation but my point is there are restrictions.

My lack of knowledge on this subject is freighting :). I assumed all transgendered people were transforming to the opposite sex. So am I to understand correctly that as a transgender in the military, you could be a guy who remains a guy physically but wants to dress as a woman in uniform and out? I would think that will lead to one uniform for all which may not be a bad thing.
There are medical conditions and medical treatments that make a person nondeployable. Heart conditions, broken limbs, sleep apnea, pregnancy, conditions requiring special medications, etc.. A pregnant woman, for example, can’t deploy or even get underway for local area training, but she could be aboard the ship for in port duties and training (with restrictions). Also, there’s a difference between how temporary medical conditions and permanent medical conditions. Being unable to deploy for a temporary condition, like pregnancy, allows a person to remain in the service, permanent medical conditions that prevent deployment gets the person a discharge. We don’t need Sailors that can’t sail or pilots that can’t fly.
Yes, I worded that poorly. Obviously, there are some conditions that would make someone unfit for duty, and some treatments that would de facto make someone undeployable, so long as the treatment was going on. I'm just not sure hormone therapy would be one of those. I don't know enough about the process to even begin to form an opinion, and not being a doctor, I probably shouldn't form an opinion, anyway, but my gut tells me that this was more a political move than an operational one. It's red meat for the base, but the number of soldiers it will actually affect is probably tiny, especially now that the courts are involved.

@Hoosier_Hack Generally speaking, "transgender" simply refers to someone who does not identify with the gender they were assigned at birth. So, you are raised as a boy, but you feel like a girl. That's transgender. It generally doesn't necessarily imply that you want to undergo any sort of transition; it's simply a matter of identity and presentment. Usually, when referring to people who seek medical transition, the term "transsexual" will be used, instead, although I understand that this is not followed universally.
 
I have no idea what the process is like for trans people who are undergoing hormone therapy (FWIW, not all transgender people get medical treatment or undergo therapy; this new policy only applies to those who do), but I don't see why there needs to be a blanket policy on the matter. Does the Pentagon do that with other medical treatments? Is there a list of treatments that make you unfit for front line service? Maybe there is, but I would venture to guess that if there is a question as to the appropriateness of a certain posting because of medical treatment concerns, that would be adjudicated by medical officials on a case-by-case basis.

I have read that the military does not accept people who need medicines to control diabetes although there is conflicting information on it.

Ditto for high blood pressure.

My Pastor’s son was kicked out of the Marines because he tore an ACL during Basic.

It can be difficult to accommodate this stuff in the field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosier_Hack
.
I have read that the military does not accept people who need medicines to control diabetes although there is conflicting information on it.

Ditto for high blood pressure.

My Pastor’s son was kicked out of the Marines because he tore an ACL during Basic.

It can be difficult to accommodate this stuff in the field.
You may be OK to stay in the military if you've developed a condition that would have prevented entrance into the military.
 
.

You may be OK to stay in the military if you've developed a condition that would have prevented entrance into the military.
Back to my concern above, what about situations that might not lend themselves to a blanket approach?

The classic example I'm thinking of would be epilepsy. A very small number of people have a very serious condition that is difficult to manage, even with a rigorous treatment approach, and they would obviously be unfit for duty in most any capacity. But most diagnosed people never experience another seizure, so long as they regularly take their meds. And a number of them will eventually be weaned off their meds to discover that the condition has resolved itself.

It seems to me something as broad and varied as "epilepsy treatment" would require a case-by-case approach.
 
Back to my concern above, what about situations that might not lend themselves to a blanket approach?

The classic example I'm thinking of would be epilepsy. A very small number of people have a very serious condition that is difficult to manage, even with a rigorous treatment approach, and they would obviously be unfit for duty in most any capacity. But most diagnosed people never experience another seizure, so long as they regularly take their meds. And a number of them will eventually be weaned off their meds to discover that the condition has resolved itself.

It seems to me something as broad and varied as "epilepsy treatment" would require a case-by-case approach.
Disqualifying medical conditions can be waived, but some are not normally waiverable. Others are normally waiverable. For example, I had childhood asthma, but not as an older child or adult, and that's on the normally waiverable list. It was.
Epilepsy is on the second list too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing
Disqualifying medical conditions can be waived, but some are not normally waiverable. Others are normally waiverable. For example, I had childhood asthma, but not as an older child or adult, and that's on the normally waiverable list. It was.
Epilepsy is on the second list too.
Okay, so that takes me back to my thing with transgender people. If the concern is simply that they are on hormone therapy, that would, it seems to me, to fit better among the "normally waiverable" (again noting that I actually know very little about what that entails; just working on the most basic analogies here), and that takes me back to my suspicion that this change in policy was really more politically rather than operationally driven.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing
Okay, so that takes me back to my thing with transgender people. If the concern is simply that they are on hormone therapy, that would, it seems to me, to fit better among the "normally waiverable" (again noting that I actually know very little about what that entails; just working on the most basic analogies here), and that takes me back to my suspicion that this change in policy was really more politically rather than operationally driven.
Since having low blood pressure or a heart condition treatable by medication, but require regular visits to a treatment clinic for tests, makes a person non-deployable, I'd guess that hormone therapy would also make a person non-deployable. However, that's my guess, and I don't know all that hormone therapy entails. However, the daughter of my first cousin (obviously that makes the daughter - formerly son - my cousin too) has been undergoing this therapy in her transition. From my perspective there seems to be a lot to it in terms of the drugs, Doctor visits, emotional changes/issues and cost. I'd think that would make her non-deployable. In keeping with the DoD policy of discharging those that are non-deployable for 12 months or more, I think that anyone that is non-deployable prior to entering the military would probably not be successful in attempting to enter it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing
Since having low blood pressure or a heart condition treatable by medication, but require regular visits to a treatment clinic for tests, makes a person non-deployable, I'd guess that hormone therapy would also make a person non-deployable. However, that's my guess, and I don't know all that hormone therapy entails. However, the daughter of my first cousin (obviously that makes the daughter - formerly son - my cousin too) has been undergoing this therapy in her transition. From my perspective there seems to be a lot too it in terms of the drugs, Doctor visits, emotional changes/issues and cost. I'd think that would make her non-deployable. In keeping with the DoD policy of discharging those that are non-deployable for 12 months or more, I think that anyone that is non-deployable prior to entering the military would probably not be successful in attempting to enter it.
Yeah, to really have insight on this, you need to understand what the therapy entails, which is why I keep stressing that I don't know. My gut says it's political for all the reasons I listed earlier when this thread was new - primarily that it's a policy change for which the media consequence far, far outweighs any real-world effects - but it's worth noting that the new policy only applies to those undergoing transition, so that could signal that this was a policy designed by objective professionals, and not forced on them from political actors. Could. For us, it's all speculation, no matter which side we fall on.
 
Back to my concern above, what about situations that might not lend themselves to a blanket approach?

The classic example I'm thinking of would be epilepsy. A very small number of people have a very serious condition that is difficult to manage, even with a rigorous treatment approach, and they would obviously be unfit for duty in most any capacity. But most diagnosed people never experience another seizure, so long as they regularly take their meds. And a number of them will eventually be weaned off their meds to discover that the condition has resolved itself.

It seems to me something as broad and varied as "epilepsy treatment" would require a case-by-case approach.

I don’t know for sure, but the Marines were extremely strict and unforgiving on things like this. I would think and could see once being diagnosed with epilepsy either being forced out or not being allowed to re-enlist.

Wisdom teeth. Good or bad, every Marine gets them pulled. I was told you can get food stuck in them and it can kill or cause problems for you in the field.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT