Serving in the military is a civil right now? Good job, NYT.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
NEWS No transgender personnel will serve . . .
- Thread starter robav8r
- Start date
This whole thing belongs in the "WTF" thread.
Eh? I think everyone but white male landowners when those words were written might disagree with that statement. At the very least any expansion of the practical exercise of civil rights has taken strong federal government action to be fully recognized legally.
So the Declaration of Independence means something other than what it says, merely because of hypocrisy on the part of those who wrote it? Your second sentence just acknowledges my point. The Federal government took action to protect a right which pre-existed . . . when enough of society realized that said rights were being violated. Systematic violations of human rights don't annihilate those rights. The entire point of being "progressive" is to move society towards a better and more refined understanding of what those human rights actually are, not create them from whole cloth.
Surely you don't believe that it was the role of the Federal government to condescend to give rights to women, African-Americans, and homosexuals that they didn't already have by nature of their existence. The people give power to the state. The state does not give power to the people. We fought a war over this once.
That's biggest argument that the left wanted to make for this. When you remind them that military service isn't a right there only argument left for it is "fairness" which doesn't really hold up either.
We've apparently tread in to the area of Nittany's closely held beliefs.
The last line? We tread into the area of typos and bad editing on my part. That was a hypothetical I partially deleted, then I hit "post" and went "oops."
Basically, "just because I've been kidnapped doesn't obviate my right to liberty."
Well, the government (state and federal) certainly condescended to deny those groups their 'inherent' rights for a long time. And some would argue it continues to do so for some citizens.
This is true. But that doesn't mean those rights don't exist. It means they've been imperfectly defended. The entire point of the Declaration is that, while we can argue about the details of just what it is, there is a moral framework regarding human rights which exists outside the jurisdiction of any government. The sole job of any legitimate government is to enforce this moral framework as best as it can be perceived at the time. This changes, and sometimes it should. The people retain the right to alter or abolish it if it fails to do that. First by the soapbox, then by the ballot box, and finally (God forbid) by the cartridge box. Thankfully, we've only had to resort to the latter once since we broke from Britain.
If rights were granted by the government, injustice would not be an issue, because justice would be whatever the government said it was. We've been there. First, they thought that justice was whatever the King said it was, but some barons got convinced otherwise, and made the King sign Magna Carta. Then, they thought that justice was whatever Parliament said it was, but some people got convinced that maybe they shouldn't be taxed without representation.
Since then, yes, we've had to get over the fact that it's not whatever a white man said it was. We had a big old war over that one that we still haven't gotten over. We've done a little better on the violence front disabusing ourselves of the idea that it's not what a man says it is, or even a straight person. But it's all been under a Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights which state that the people are sovereign, not a government official or even the state as an entity. And that even the people can't violate the rights everyone has individually. We don't have a Bill of Rights because we're granting people rights with it. We have a Bill of Rights because we decided that certain pre-existing rights were important enough to tell the government "these lines you shall not cross, even if 99 percent of the people say they want to."
Last edited:
Didn't post anything to FB about this fiasco, but since we're discussing here, you're welcome! It'll rehash some issues already discussed, but, anyhoo:
Preface: the scale of outrage could have been largely reduced if POTUS had rolled this out through DoD in a normal manner, stressing the mental health issues associated with gender dysphoria, the cost, and risk v reward, and the long history of the US military being selective with applicants in order to secure the safety of the nation and defeat the enemy of the battle field. Bonus points for making SECDEF do it. Strategically couple that with proposed legislation introduced by your Republican congress adding protection for gays and transgenders into the Civil Rights Act and you would defeat the majority of your opponents arguments while achieving your desired end state in one fell swoop.
But, his twitter is limited to 140 characters, so here we go:
Things that annoy me, in no particular order:
1) Trump hates transgenders! Well so did POTUS44 up until two years ago, and every president before then, based on their acceptance of this policy.
2)"It's a ban!" Well, yeah, but more accurately: we're curtailing an an ill-advised exception for mental health that, during a drawdown, served no real end-strength purpose other than to be all inclusive-y.
3) "But Viagra!". Divide cost by # of users for a better metric and let's discuss.
4) "We already pay for (cancer, EFM, birth control, etc)" Probably the most compelling argument to me. But takeaway healthcare from troops and watch your all volunteer force disappear. And, adding a pre-existing risk pool to the rolls for the sake of inclusiveness isn't that compelling.
5) "We're less safe, denying service to best and brightest/qualified/want to serve, yadda yadda". The number of personnel this affects is pretty darn small/negligible. The highest 'estimate' is dubious at 15k (AD+reserve) whereas actual transitioning is somewhere around 250.
6) "It's unfair, they can do the job". Since we're not specifying which job, let me introduce you to other discriminated classes who may be able to do some job and want to serve...but can't: fat people, young people, old people, ADHD, flat feet, anxiety/most other mental illness/issues, too short, too tall, too slow (mentally), too slow (physically), etc."
7) "He tweeted it!" See my preface, also, this surprises who?
8) "He didn't really talk to his generals" I'll evaluate this based on Mattis's response. If anything I'm suspecting word play in that POTUS didn't tell his generals he was going to TWEET it, but definitely discussed it. i could be wrong. Internal fallout from a unilateral (even for potus/this potus) action should be visible.
9) "Look, that guy is a transgender _____ and he made it in the military." None have been post-op or on hormones while AD (to my knowledge) which is the crux of the argument.
10) "it's a right". No.
All that being said:
a) agree with McCain, if you're willing to serve and physically AND mentally fit/eligible, great. But DoD should have a wide, reasonable latitude to determine said fitness.
b) We should give zero F's about how you dress during the weekend or who you bone during the same, provided it's legal. Mattis said it best, we should be concerned solely about lethality and there has been zero evidence or argument from opponents of this policy that the inclusion of such a small number of personnel makes us significantly more lethal. However:
c) Gender dysphoria is a mental health issue, and people afflicted should get the help they need. I'm sympathetic. The mind literally is acting contrary to the physical properties of the body. But, given the significance and complexity, assuaging your mental health problem shouldn't be on DoD's dime, nor should surgical alteration of the body.
c) tweeting policy is dumb, and a less Trumpian rollout would have made more sense and gotten the desired end state. But the target audience outnumbered the military audience.
d) existing personnel should be grandfathered, you can't roll out policy a ("it's ok, announce your true self, we'll help", followed by policy b "get the F out").
e) I'm not a bigot. (sigh) And it annoys me that most conversations I've had regarding this eventually turn to that argument.
f) If it's that big a risk/issue to national security, vote POTUS outta office on the next go, as provided in our Constitution, and POTUS46 can change it back and the total number affected (not offended) will still be pretty darn small and the country will survive.
Preface: the scale of outrage could have been largely reduced if POTUS had rolled this out through DoD in a normal manner, stressing the mental health issues associated with gender dysphoria, the cost, and risk v reward, and the long history of the US military being selective with applicants in order to secure the safety of the nation and defeat the enemy of the battle field. Bonus points for making SECDEF do it. Strategically couple that with proposed legislation introduced by your Republican congress adding protection for gays and transgenders into the Civil Rights Act and you would defeat the majority of your opponents arguments while achieving your desired end state in one fell swoop.
But, his twitter is limited to 140 characters, so here we go:
Things that annoy me, in no particular order:
1) Trump hates transgenders! Well so did POTUS44 up until two years ago, and every president before then, based on their acceptance of this policy.
2)"It's a ban!" Well, yeah, but more accurately: we're curtailing an an ill-advised exception for mental health that, during a drawdown, served no real end-strength purpose other than to be all inclusive-y.
3) "But Viagra!". Divide cost by # of users for a better metric and let's discuss.
4) "We already pay for (cancer, EFM, birth control, etc)" Probably the most compelling argument to me. But takeaway healthcare from troops and watch your all volunteer force disappear. And, adding a pre-existing risk pool to the rolls for the sake of inclusiveness isn't that compelling.
5) "We're less safe, denying service to best and brightest/qualified/want to serve, yadda yadda". The number of personnel this affects is pretty darn small/negligible. The highest 'estimate' is dubious at 15k (AD+reserve) whereas actual transitioning is somewhere around 250.
6) "It's unfair, they can do the job". Since we're not specifying which job, let me introduce you to other discriminated classes who may be able to do some job and want to serve...but can't: fat people, young people, old people, ADHD, flat feet, anxiety/most other mental illness/issues, too short, too tall, too slow (mentally), too slow (physically), etc."
7) "He tweeted it!" See my preface, also, this surprises who?
8) "He didn't really talk to his generals" I'll evaluate this based on Mattis's response. If anything I'm suspecting word play in that POTUS didn't tell his generals he was going to TWEET it, but definitely discussed it. i could be wrong. Internal fallout from a unilateral (even for potus/this potus) action should be visible.
9) "Look, that guy is a transgender _____ and he made it in the military." None have been post-op or on hormones while AD (to my knowledge) which is the crux of the argument.
10) "it's a right". No.
All that being said:
a) agree with McCain, if you're willing to serve and physically AND mentally fit/eligible, great. But DoD should have a wide, reasonable latitude to determine said fitness.
b) We should give zero F's about how you dress during the weekend or who you bone during the same, provided it's legal. Mattis said it best, we should be concerned solely about lethality and there has been zero evidence or argument from opponents of this policy that the inclusion of such a small number of personnel makes us significantly more lethal. However:
c) Gender dysphoria is a mental health issue, and people afflicted should get the help they need. I'm sympathetic. The mind literally is acting contrary to the physical properties of the body. But, given the significance and complexity, assuaging your mental health problem shouldn't be on DoD's dime, nor should surgical alteration of the body.
c) tweeting policy is dumb, and a less Trumpian rollout would have made more sense and gotten the desired end state. But the target audience outnumbered the military audience.
d) existing personnel should be grandfathered, you can't roll out policy a ("it's ok, announce your true self, we'll help", followed by policy b "get the F out").
e) I'm not a bigot. (sigh) And it annoys me that most conversations I've had regarding this eventually turn to that argument.
f) If it's that big a risk/issue to national security, vote POTUS outta office on the next go, as provided in our Constitution, and POTUS46 can change it back and the total number affected (not offended) will still be pretty darn small and the country will survive.
Well said.
I agree, as long as we include fraternization in the illegal category. Male/female, male/male, female/female, cat/dog, etc... I don't care what you are, fraternization is contrary to good order and discipline and should not be permitted or excused simply because it doesn't involve a traditional male/female relationship.
"Unduly Familiar" is unduly familiar. Agree . . .
The college thing is a fair point to make, however, I would like to note that every single person I knew who took this route did the majority of their college work after they left the military. Never, at least in my experience, did I have a service member not deploy because they were taking college classes.
So, while I am all for the full right of any physically qualified citizen to their nation, I do not think the that "free transition" is a good option. Perhaps DoD could create a medical savings plan much like the Montgomery GI Bill.
This seems more like bungled messaging by the WH than a radical shift in policy. From what has been reported several Representatives approached the WH asking them to make a public statement rolling back the policy that the DoD will pay for the treatment of a service member's gender dysphoria. However, the President (without any real Communications department to guide/craft the message) went a step further and announced a complete ban without any real planning for what would come next (i.e. what to do with openly transgender people already serving, when such a policy would be implemented, etc.)
I think it's reasonable to make the argument that the DoD shouldn't pay for the gender reassignment surgery not on a cost basis, but based on the fact that for any other precondition that keeps you from serving in a full capacity, you are responsible for fixing it on your own dime before you join. And in many cases, even a history of a condition is enough NPQ you from military service, even if you have been asymptomatic for a long period of time.
The other part of this I don't understand is how you can screen for such a condition when someone is applying to join. Is this another test you have to take when you get screened at MEPS? (and as far as I remember you didn't have to do a psych eval until NAMI and that was only if you were diagnosed with a mental disorder previously) Do you just accept that a certain number of people will fall through the cracks ad the DoD could be faced with the choice of paying for a servicemember's treatment or medically discharging them?
I think it's reasonable to make the argument that the DoD shouldn't pay for the gender reassignment surgery not on a cost basis, but based on the fact that for any other precondition that keeps you from serving in a full capacity, you are responsible for fixing it on your own dime before you join. And in many cases, even a history of a condition is enough NPQ you from military service, even if you have been asymptomatic for a long period of time.
The other part of this I don't understand is how you can screen for such a condition when someone is applying to join. Is this another test you have to take when you get screened at MEPS? (and as far as I remember you didn't have to do a psych eval until NAMI and that was only if you were diagnosed with a mental disorder previously) Do you just accept that a certain number of people will fall through the cracks ad the DoD could be faced with the choice of paying for a servicemember's treatment or medically discharging them?
Griz, I wasn't making that comparison at all. I was only comparing entering the military for transgender surgery vs college for the monetary benefit. That's exactly why coming in for college only is no problem in my opinion. You will do your four years while being deployable and an asset to the navy and earn it. Hell, I came in with that plan. I got my degree while enlisted and during deployments. And no, missing deployments because I was taking college classes as an enlisted sailor was never and is still not a thing.
Last edited: