# Transgenders Free to Enlist Starting 2018



## Locksteady (Dec 11, 2017)

May we live in interesting times.



> (CNN)The Pentagon said Monday that it will begin processing transgender applicants to the military on January 1.
> 
> That development follows an earlier ruling by a federal judge on Monday who declined the US government's request to put on hold an order allowing transgender individuals to join the military beginning in January. The decision means transgender people will be free to enlist in the new year.
> 
> ...


Complete story here.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 11, 2017)

But POTUS said...


----------



## BenKC (Dec 11, 2017)

It'd be interesting to see some peoples thoughts on this (obviously in a non-offensive manner). Over thanksgiving I spoke briefly with my uncle about it and he was mentioning having to go through mandatory sensitivity and diversity classes, and how his SGM wasn't the most comfortable with the entire situation.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 11, 2017)

Much ado about nothing. I honestly don't think very many transgender people will rush off to enlist. The military will absorb those that do, just like it absorbs everybody else.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 11, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> Much ado about nothing. I honestly don't think very many transgender people will rush off to enlist.



I agree. Why keep people from filling vacant slots? 

Where I am on the fence is paying for transition surgeries. I am only on the fence though because as we see on here tons of guys join with pre-existing conditions, as well as have elective surgeries once in (lasik, others).


----------



## BenKC (Dec 11, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I agree. Why keep people from filling vacant slots?
> 
> Where I am on the fence is paying for transition surgeries. I am only on the fence though because as we see on here tons of guys join with pre-existing conditions, as well as have elective surgeries once in (lasik, others).


I think another one of the big things is, if you get a big group of people in any sort of 'group'(I use the term broadly, in this case transgenders) where theres a large public spotlight on that group. Theres going to be the people that think they're going to be entitled to special treatment just because of it. And (to my best guess) some people might be more strict on how they act towards them just for the fact they don't want them to complain. 

Especially during trainings, ill just use BCT as example. The softer hearted people that think their entitled just because of the transition, might do what the large stereotype does now and create a large issue out of it. Which is just a mess for everyone involved.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 11, 2017)

BenKC said:


> I think another one of the big things is, if you get a big group of people in any sort of 'group'(I use the term broadly, in this case transgenders) where theres a large public spotlight on that group. Theres going to be the people that think they're going to be entitled to special treatment just because of it. And (to my best guess) some people might be more strict on how they act towards them just for the fact they don't want them to complain.
> 
> Especially during trainings, ill just use BCT as example. The softer hearted people that think their entitled just because of the transition, might do what the large stereotype does now and create a large issue out of it. Which is just a mess for everyone involved.



What? 
Have you been to BCT?

Do you have any experience in the service?


----------



## BenKC (Dec 11, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> What?
> Have you been to BCT?
> 
> Do you have any experience in the service?


No sir, just reflecting off the conversation I had with my uncle (who is currently enlisted). 

Was just pointing out one of the reasons people might disagree with allowing transgender's to enlist. Which in my own personal thoughts is, if someone wants to serve their country, they should be able to without any sort of discrimination.


----------



## AWP (Dec 11, 2017)

BenKC said:


> No sir, just reflecting off the conversation I had with my uncle (who is currently enlisted).



Whether or not your uncle proves to be correct, I would encourage you to form your own opinions through experience before sharing those with the board. I can talk to a doctor and "what if" med school, but think of how empty my opinions will sound. The same goes for you and the military right now.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 11, 2017)

My question to you @BenKC is have you ever seen the stereotype you refer to? I have never seen in person a trans person begging for special treatment. I have seen them agitating for equal treatment. To be treated as they identify whether that is male or female. 

I can see there will be problems, particularly as it relates to PT, standards and living accommodations, however I don’t think those are insurmountable, not reasons from barring people from service. 

I think like someone else pointed out,very few trans people are jumping up and down saying “send me, send me”. But if there are some we should send them.


----------



## BenKC (Dec 11, 2017)

AWP said:


> Whether or not your uncle proves to be correct, I would encourage you to form your own opinions through experience before sharing those with the board. I can talk to a doctor and "what if" med school, but think of how empty my opinions will sound. The same goes for you and the military right now.



I should've worded my reply there better, I was simply reflecting over what we both talked about (not necessarily his opinion on the fact, but a subject that came up during it). Anyways my apologies for not wording it as well as I should have. My comment was from a completely civilian manner, not from someone with experience. 


TLDR20 said:


> My question to you @BenKC is have you ever seen the stereotype you refer to? I have never seen in person a trans person begging for special treatment. I have seen them agitating for equal treatment. To be treated as they identify whether that is male or female.
> 
> I can see there will be problems, particularly as it relates to PT, standards and living accommodations, however I don’t think those are insurmountable, not reasons from barring people from service.
> 
> I think like someone else pointed out,very few trans people are jumping up and down saying “send me, send me”. But if there are some we should send them.



Ive never met anyone apart of that steryotype, no. But I did have a class last year with a trans who was a enjoyable person to be around.

And as I said above I suppose I did word my comment a bit bad. The stereotype isn't that large, and I should've worded it better. 

I wonder how the different branches will go about making the accommodations though.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 11, 2017)

@BenKC

Good response. You should stop now so that we can get back on topic.


----------



## DocIllinois (Dec 12, 2017)

BenKC said:


> I wonder how the different branches will go about making the accommodations though.



Ask and ye shall receive.  Or something like that.

DOD Transgender Policy


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 12, 2017)

One of my issues, my biggest issue, is this:  what kind of medical supportive therapy is required to undergo/maintain a change, and does it impact deployability?  And if the DOD is OK with people already in medical therapy to join, will the DOD now look at the rest of the bullshit meds it views as verboten with enlistment?


----------



## Kakashi66223 (Dec 12, 2017)

@Devildoc, I see a admin seperation loop hole closing. Soon the Armed Forces will be like a Roach Motel. 
-With the amount and availability of meds needed for therapy I don't see how this is advantageous for the govt and the deployability of said individual either.

I've seen this for sometime now in different forms. @TLDR20 is right too, why limit what the recruiting pool size is by excluding. The individuality should get lost in basic anyway-- where everyone is the same. E0 is a nobody until they prove otherwise. Anyway, maybe the few transgenders that actually immediately join and process through may fit in, maybe not, let them prove they can succeed. Maybe they are set up for failure, it's not for me to decide. 

Quick tangent. Drawing on my own experience I'm gonna drop a news headline that was controversial in the same way. Although it not necessary to follow it, just provides further context of what I bumped into walking my dog.​​Protesters gather in opposition to Hobby Lobby over contraception healthcare controversy​​I walked my dog along this stretch of road(used to), came upon this picket line. So I asked what the hub-bub was about because they *really* wanted my attention. Asked if they worked there, and the answer is, no. They were there because they felt the women's rights are being forcefully removed by an employer they did not work for. Rather than make a big deal about it, I walked on.​
Where I was going with the tangent was: sometimes those that really want to drive the issue (protesting) really aren't benefiting in the successful outcome of their protest. It's not too far fetched that some groups or people do things just to do them because it bothers another group or person.

So looking at this emotionless using logic. To be enlisted or commissioned as a a transgender you must be re-plumbed the opposite sex before initial entry, the commanders hand out pg.9 looks like a crock of shit. Found in the link @DocIllinois posted. Transvestites are not Transgender. Without completion of gender reassignment surgery I would speculate the military may recognise a person by birth certificate indicated gender and not transgender as used biologically or legally. 

My opinion on this is the same as my view on Pvt Manning, surgery should be paid for by the individual.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Dec 12, 2017)

I gotta say that I'm honestly confused about all the different changes occurring in the military. I also get the feeling, that the changes being pushed aren't for the benefit of guys like Joe. I feel that time, resources, and personnel that could be going to support Joe, are instead being redirected for some sociopolitical sideshow. 

Let me put it like this, from what I've seen and experienced, Joe pretty much gets shafted by everyone. Everything from equipment, supply, and personnel shortages are all a part of the daily grind for Joe, alongside other common factors present in garrison or a theater of operations.  Heck, I've even seen a disparity in the amount and quality of medical care given to grunts in comparison to support classes.  I.e. physical therapy not having room for us dumb grunts, because it's full of support people who got hurt playing soccer. That sort of thing.

I don't understand how adding personnel that have these preexisting medical/mental conditions make our forces stronger. The only thing I see happening is support and resources being taken away from Joe, either directly or indirectly.

We turn people away from military service for a variety of reasons that are either mental, physical, moral, or any mix of these. An all volunteer force, usually means that the armed services can cherry pick the individuals that best suit the needs of the whole. When an individual no longer fits the mold of what the forces need due to age, injury, etc, they are replaced. So why are the services now cool with being inclusive? Why do commanders need a 72 page handbook on transgender service? Why are we even putting time and resources into this fallacy?

I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but I really don't think gender dysphoria has a place in our military.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 12, 2017)

I have a feeling a sex-change is a little more involved and a lot more expensive than lasik. At least with better eyesight you might be a better shot. So if there's no practical benefit to the military, the military--hence the taxpayers--shouldn't have to pay for trans surgery. That is where I would draw the line.


----------



## Kheenbish (Dec 12, 2017)

I remember a few weeks ago everyone was freaking out about how the Army was thinking about "lowering" it's standards to let someone who might of had mental issues/depression into their branch of service. How could they do this, we can't have a mental person handling weapons.

  Now they are allowing people who literally identify themselves as the opposite gender they were born as, as if that person might never had a mental illness/issue or maybe been depressed about how they were a man trapped in a woman's  body or vice versa into the military and everyone says good job. I just don't see the difference.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 12, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> I have a feeling a sex-change is a little more involved and a lot more expensive than lasik. At least with better eyesight you might be a better shot. So if there's no practical benefit to the military, the military--hence the taxpayers--shouldn't have to pay for trans surgery. That is where I would draw the line.



For sure there is a difference. My point was that at the end of the day it is an elective procedure, a cheap helpful one, but a choice that impacts the force nonetheless. 

My gripe with allowing trans people to serve is along those lines. I make this argument to my most liberal of friends: they have a preexisting condition. We keep people out of the service with pins in their legs, but we should be expected to take someone with potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical liability? That argument tends to be one people don’t think about. 

All trans people don’t want the surgery. Some have already had it. I don’t know what the right answer is here. 

I also like to think about how we all Love the idea of universal service ala Starship Troopers, I am a big fan of that as well. But then when these people who are denied service push to join or remain, we throw a fit. I say we because this is one of the issues where I sway both ways. I see both sides and agree with both sides. I think it is a complicated issue with no easy fix.


----------



## 8482farm (Dec 13, 2017)

I guess it'll come down to how DoD defines transgender in instruction. Are they going to be segregated by gender identification or biological sex? Meaning, if a recruit is biologically of male sex but identifies as female gender but wishes to abstain from a sex change will they be placed in a male or female compartment?


----------



## Scubadew (Dec 13, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> My gripe with allowing trans people to serve is along those lines. I make this argument to my most liberal of friends: they have a preexisting condition. We keep people out of the service with pins in their legs, but we should be expected to take someone with potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical liability? That argument tends to be one people don’t think about.



This. 100% agree.


----------



## Kakashi66223 (Dec 13, 2017)

8482farm said:


> I guess it'll come down to how DoD defines transgender in instruction. Are they going to be segregated by gender identification or biological sex? Meaning, if a recruit is biologically of male sex but identifies as female gender but wishes to abstain from a sex change will they be placed in a male or female compartment?



Quoted from, _Commander's Handbook for Transgender Policy Implementation._
which is 72 pages and is fairly easy to read.

DOD  in lieu of this handbook defines Transgender service member as:


> A Service member who has received a medical diagnosis indicating that gender transition is medically necessary, including any Service member who intends to begin transition, is undergoing transition, or has completed transition and is stable in the preferred gender.     Page 12


-Medically necessary:​

> Those health care services or supplies necessary to prevent, diagnose, or treat an illness, injury, condition, disease, or its symptoms and that meet accepted standards of care.    Page 12


-Stable in the preferred gender:​

> Medical care identified or approved by a military medical provider in a documented medical treatment plan is complete, no functional limitations or complications persist, and the individual is not experiencing clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. Continuing medical care, including but not limited to cross-sex hormone-therapy, may be required to maintain a state of stability.     Page 12



Gender dysphoria:


> A medical diagnosis that refers to distress that some transgender individuals experience due to a mismatch between their gender and their sex assigned at birth.


​Interesting notes I will paraphrase(or quote).
Page 37- down range and lost meds, go kick some rocks. It's not life threatening.​Page 38- they don't feel comfortable around others, find new billets.(which is weird they went thru a process to more socially accepted.)​Page 39- transgender do not get out of deployment, they either finish treatment or dont, part of pre-deployment.​Page 45- transgender requests are up to Commanders,whose responsibility is to ensure mission completion, if allowed.​

> - Considers the needs of the command (including deployment, operations, training, exercise schedules, critical skills availability, morale and welfare, and good order and discipline of the unit.)


​There are other considerations that need to be planned on, State laws.

I'm bored and don't mind typing, but transcribing this hand book is tediously eating into my soul. This is about as far as I go today


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 13, 2017)

All elective surgeries are at Commander's discretion.  When I got PRK, the man had to approve.  And it should remain that way.


----------



## CDG (Dec 13, 2017)

I think the military has quite a large number of issues more deserving of time, money, energy, and resources than the issue of trying to figure out how to enlist and accommodate transgender personnel. What's the return on investment here?  It's just not worth it.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Dec 14, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> My gripe with allowing trans people to serve is along those lines. I make this argument to my most liberal of friends: they have a preexisting condition. We keep people out of the service with pins in their legs, but we should be expected to take someone with potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical liability? That argument tends to be one people don’t think about.





Ocoka said:


> So if there's no practical benefit to the military, the military--hence the taxpayers--shouldn't have to pay for trans surgery. That is where I would draw the line.



Whole-heartedly agree with both statements. The end state is the military functioning as a warfighting organization with a business mentality: recruiting an all volunteer service ensures we are able to screen candidates for successful implementation into the military at the benefit of the military first, not the individual. That is why I say we are a business-fashioned organization tailored to warfighting and not some non-profit charity.



TLDR20 said:


> I also like to think about how we all Love the idea of universal service ala Starship Troopers, I am a big fan of that as well.


Being a Space Marine would almost bring me more happiness than being a father of two beautiful children, but if I could shower with Denise Richards I might actually just say "life complete."


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 14, 2017)

The Hate Ape said:


> Whole-heartedly agree with both statements. The end state is the military functioning as a warfighting organization with a business mentality: recruiting an all volunteer service ensures we are able to screen candidates for successful implementation into the military at the benefit of the military first, not the individual. That is why I say we are a business-fashioned organization tailored to warfighting and not some non-profit charity.
> 
> 
> Being a Space Marine would almost bring me more happiness than being a father of two beautiful children, but if I could shower with Denise Richards I might actually just say "life complete."


 

They were Mobile Infantry friend...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 14, 2017)

The Hate Ape said:


> Being a Space Marine would almost bring me more happiness than being a father of two beautiful children, but if I could shower with Denise Richards I might actually just say "life complete."



That was Dina Meyer, she's hot too.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Dec 14, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> They were Mobile Infantry friend...



Look, I don't want your recitation of factual information destroying my dreams of becoming a Space Marine.



ThunderHorse said:


> That was Dina Meyer, she's hot too.


That goes for you too...


----------



## 8482farm (Dec 14, 2017)

The Hate Ape said:


> Look, I don't want your recitation of factual information destroying my dreams of becoming a Space Marine.
> 
> 
> That goes for you too...



Are you just going to overlook the fact that you’ll be showering with Johnny Rico as well? 😂


----------



## The Hate Ape (Dec 14, 2017)

8482farm said:


> Are you just going to overlook the fact that you’ll be showering with Johnny Rico as well? 😂


Silly rabbit, I AM johnny rico...

My friends just call me JR though


----------



## DocIllinois (Dec 14, 2017)

How are we missing Rue McClanahan in all of this Starship talk?  

In other news:

DOJ appeals ruling that transgender people are free to enlist in US military


"The government seeks a stay pending appeal of the portion of the injunction concerning accessions," government lawyers said in their brief filed late Monday. They argued that implementing "a significant change" to military standards for the composition of the armed forces even before a court decides the merits of the case would "place extraordinary burdens on our armed forces and may harm military readiness."


----------



## x SF med (Dec 14, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> ..."place extraordinary burdens on our armed forces and may harm military readiness."



Um...  lowering of standards to force inclusion into Combat Arms does the same thing....  where the hell were the legal beagles when that shit went down?  I don't care who you are, what you look like or what your preference is, meet and uphold the standards, train to task-condition-standard, and be there when your team needs you, able to do your job and/or get a buddy out of the way if a casualty occurs.  If you can't hump the ruck, don't saddle up with those who can, you'll get everyone killed.

rant over.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Dec 14, 2017)

x SF med said:


> Um...  lowering of standards to force inclusion into Combat Arms does the same thing....  where the hell were the legal beagles when that shit went down?  I don't care who you are, what you look like or what your preference is, meet and uphold the standards, train to task-condition-standard, and be there when your team needs you, able to do your job and/or get a buddy out of the way if a casualty occurs.  If you can't hump the ruck, don't saddle up with those who can, you'll get everyone killed.
> 
> rant over.



Maybe the legal beagles saw this as an opportunity to recruit women (formerly men) that would actually pass the infantry officer's course or a SOF selection. We can go down the rabbit-hole for singular events or their validity, but the truth is, science and physics says that _most_ women are not built for performing the same functions/activities their male counterparts are assessed on.

Jokes aside, the disruption/standards/whatever argument you want has been used in the case for minorities being authorized into service, women, homosexuals... etc. The _biggest_ difference with this scenario compared to the previously mentioned is that it requires the military to essentially buy-in with the recruit, at a significantly high-cost. Whether or not the recruit wants to go forward with medical procedure is up to them, but the opportunity by my understanding appears that it must be afforded to the candidate. That requires monetary alignment and would hinder the budget for sure.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 14, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I see both sides and agree with both sides. I think it is a complicated issue with no easy fix.



This is where I am.  My soul says it's just not a good idea--for all the reasons mentioned in this thread--but I also see the logic/validity in the 'pro' arguments.


----------



## Il Duce (Dec 14, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> This is where I am.  My soul says it's just not a good idea--for all the reasons mentioned in this thread--but I also see the logic/validity in the 'pro' arguments.



I am ambivalent as well.  But one thing I'm sure of - court order is not a recipe for successful implementation of just about anything.  I think it's one of the things SECDEF Mattis and others recognized early on.  If we're going to end up doing this let's do it on our terms that make sense.  You have far less room to maneuver when it is being foisted on you.


----------

