MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump Tweets Return to Ban on Transgender Military Service 'In Any Capacity'

Who will be ejected under this abrupt reversal of Pentagon policy?

In a trio of tweets sent out of the blue this morning, President Donald Trump announced a complete reversal of policy changes launched under President Barack Obama to allow transgender troops to serve openly in the military:

Note that while Trump brings up medical costs, this isn't an announcement that the Pentagon won't pay for transgender treatment or surgery. It's a blanket ban on all transgender troops, regardless of how well-adjusted they might be or whether they want any sort of medical treatment at all.

There are thousands of transgender troops serving in the military. The exact number cannot be determined easily since until the Pentagon began to develop policy changes just last year, they were not allowed to serve openly and were discharged if they revealed being transgender. A RAND study estimates somewhere around 4,000 active and reserve members of the military are transgender.

Here's what's particularly horrifying, assuming that Trump's tweets are an indication that he's completely reversing the changes the Pentagon had already begun. Now that it was safe to do so, transgender troops had begun to come out and serve openly as the gender with which they identify. And now that has become a trap: Those who believed that it was safe to be themselves and still be in the military could end up being purged.

Further investigation shows that, much like what happened with the end of the military ban on gays, allowing transgender people to serve does not bring some sort of breakdown in military order. The RAND study I mentioned above examined 18 countries where transgender troops are permitted, and it did not find problems with readiness or unit cohesion.

There's no indication the U.S. military is any different. Check out this piece about Air Force Staff Sgt. Ashleigh Buch, who came out as transgender after the shift in military policy last fall and began living openly as a woman. She and her commanders report that everybody was accepting of Buch's change. Yet despite the lack of any problems, she's now at risk of being purged.

Trump campaigned as an ally to LGBT people, even making a big deal about inclusion in his speech accepting the nomination. So how did this policy end up reversed? Here's what an anonymous White House official told Axios reporter Jonathan Swan:

This forces Democrats in Rust Belt states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, to take complete ownership of this issue. How will the blue collar voters in these states respond when senators up for re-election in 2018 like Debbie Stabenow are forced to make their opposition to this a key plank of their campaigns?

Some of us had been hoping these shifts toward accepting LGBT folks would mean that this part of the culture war—and the heavy partisanship that had come to define it—would fade. I'm fairly sure Democrats will have no problem taking "ownership" of the issue.

Trump may not hate LGBT folks or wish them any ill will, but that doesn't mean he actually cares a whole lot about what happens to them.

UPDATE: Senate Armed Service Committee Chair John McCain (R-Arizona) is not happy with how Trump decided to announce this massive policy change via tweets:

McCainMcCain Statement

Photo Credit: Richard Ellis/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hugh Akston||

    It was nice of him to say "Thank You".

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Like he said, he can be presidential when he wants to.

  • FreeSpeechMatters||

    Trump does not have a personal antipathy to transgender people. He left intact the Obama administration's ban on discrimination against transgender people by federal contractors.

    But Trump was right to ban transgender people from the military, just as the military is right to discriminate based on many criteria forbidden in civilian employment, such as age and disability (the military doesn't recruit people in wheelchairs or senior citizens).

    The military is not just any employer, and is not like a civilian employer. It exists to kill the enemy, not be politically-correct or inclusive, and to do so at the absolute minimum cost. Transgender people have been receiving costly taxpayer-funded treatments and sex-change operations from institutions that house them, like prisons, and if left in the military, taxpayers will be forced to pay billions for such operations and treatments.

    Why should the military recruit transgender individuals, given the considerable cost to taxpayers of sex-change operations?

    It transgender people are allowed in the military, they will get taxpayer-funded medical treatment -- not just sex-change operations, but other costly treatments -- which will ultimately cost several billion dollars:

    http://barbwire.com/2017/07/25.....destroyer/

    Congress recently voted not to defund such treatments, with 23 liberal Republicans joining virtually all Democrats in supporting taxpayer funding.

  • Hugh Akston||

    You know who else gets costly tax-funded medical treatments? Soldiers who get injured in godforsaken hellholes on the other side of the globe where they have no business being in the first place. Nobody seems too concerned about cost-cutting involved in, for example, not getting involved in stupid regional conflicts.

  • Charles Easterly||

  • JuanQPublic||

    Thanks for this reasonable and obvious point. All the sudden, they "care" about cost cutting and efficiency. And it's an unfathomably lazy argument meant to cover for what it really is.

    Notice that they make no mention that transgendered people are taxpayers as well.

  • damikesc||

    You know who else gets costly tax-funded medical treatments? Soldiers who get injured in godforsaken hellholes on the other side of the globe where they have no business being in the first place. Nobody seems too concerned about cost-cutting involved in, for example, not getting involved in stupid regional conflicts.

    So, your concern is that there is a move to cut exposure to costs? Because what you're griping about is that we spend too much treating injured vets and this move insures that we don't have to ALSO pay for "transgender" care.

    It seems you're complaining, largely, just to complain.

  • Azathoth!!||

    You know who DOESN'T get costly taxpayer funded medical treatments? People whose disabilities prevent them from being accepted in the military.

    Dysphoria is not the only mental health issue that precludes joining the military, but I don't see anyone out there demanding that we arm and train schizophrenics.

    So people who think they were born in the wrong body and want to cut parts off are sane--if those parts are breasts and genitalia--but people who think they were born in the wrong body and want to cut parts off are INSANE if those parts are limbs or eyes or digits.

    Got it.

  • Bruce Majors||

    That seems a remarkably stupid reply. Kind of like the one where the reason writer a few years ago defended some claim by hair splitting between refugees and asylum seekers.

    People injured in the military are helping the military achieve it's goals.

    I could want to have expensive medical care for life extension or to make self taller. I shouldn't be able to join the military to get it paid for. Women (or men) in the military might delay child birth. I don't think that gives them a right to taxpayer funded egg freezing, surrogacy, or sperm storage. Unless someone decides that is needed to attract and retain talent.

    Currently the military has too many employees and too many older, high ranking, expensive employees. It needs a reduction in forces combined with an upgrade in supplies and replacement parts and new technology and weapons.

  • Bruce Majors||

    its

  • WakaWaka||

    Correction, Amash also voted not to de-fund such treatment. He's towing the Reason line: "Cutting government spending is good, but government supporting a social agenda is better!"

  • SQRLSY One||

    Could someone please enlighten me (an ignernt one) about the technical and tech-financial aspects here? About being all about costs-cutting and stuff and stuff?

    Vasectomies can often be reversed, they say. In the military, is my vasectomy and vasectomy reversal both "medically necessary"? Can I bounce back and forth, at will, and have the taxpayers pony up?

    Similarly, if I have my cut-off wanker or my cut-off cunt "put on ice", can I similarly have a "medically necessary" operation to put it back? How often can I bounce back and forth, at taxpayer expense?

    Inquiring minds want to know! I might want to enlist soon, and I want to know my bennies... Please advise...

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    cut-off cunt put on ice

    That's a great song by Six Feet Under I am sure. But that's not how FtM surgery works. Look it up, it's fascinating and strange.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    I'll pass, thanks

  • Tony||

    One could similarly wonder, by a factor of like a zillion, why we waste so much money on useless tax cuts for the rich.

    Because this is totally about saving money and not culture wars at all.

  • WakaWaka||

    "Useless tax cuts". This is the modern Reform....er...I mean Libertarian Party

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Thieves gotta thief.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Let's save a few bucks by harvesting your organs Tony. That would be the most useful you will ever be. Fucking parasite.

  • Finrod||

    I'd say chop up the rest of him and make it into Soylent Green, but it would poison the people who ate it.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Biofuel maybe?

  • damikesc||

    One could similarly wonder, by a factor of like a zillion, why we waste so much money on useless tax cuts for the rich.

    I don't care if the rich get soaked by taxes. Many vote Democrat and expect Republicans to protect their pocket books from their preferences.

    Let them get soaked.

    And don't allow the openly mentally disturbed to serve. Mental illness can be a disqualifying factor for owning a gun in the civilian world --- should be the same militarily.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    It's always enlightening when progs view tax cuts not as money that goes uncollected, but as a handout that somehow costs money

  • EscherEnigma||

    "Why should the military recruit transgender individuals, given the considerable cost to taxpayers of sex-change operations?"
    Most armed forces recruits are young, in the 17-25 age range. While trans folk are increasingly becoming aware that they are trans young, most will still not get to that point until after the recruitment age.

    That is to say... for the most part, the military isn't "recruiting transgender individuals". They're recruiting folks, training folks, deploying folks, and somewhere down the line discovering that they're trans.

    At that point, the investment cost is already significant. So yeah. If you want to talk money, then you probably won't win on that point. The cost of finding, recruiting and training a new person to replace the one you're ejecting from service is probably going to cost more then the medical needs of the trans vet. Which you'll end up paying anyway, because they'll still get VA care for the rest of their life.

  • damikesc||

    The cost of finding, recruiting and training a new person to replace the one you're ejecting from service is probably going to cost more then the medical needs of the trans vet.

    Seems highly unlikely.

    The cost for care for vets with real issues is considerable. Adding into that the cost for care for vets who believe feelings trump reality would be considerably more.

  • Bob K||

    -just as the military is right to discriminate based on many criteria forbidden in civilian employment

    Incorrect. If you are in a wheelchair or too old to climb a roof you aren't getting a job as a roofer. Some jobs are exempt from anti-discrimination laws based on the job's conditions.

    I am against a blanket ban or anti-discrimination laws. If a person is the most qualified for the job give them the job based on the CO's judgement, stop. No lawsuit claiming discrimination or stopping them from hiring a tranny.

  • Ghatanathoah||

    This seems like a general argument against recruiting any soldier who is likely to need expensive medical treatment at some point in the future. Should the military stop accepting smokers since it might have to pay for their lung cancer treatments in the future? Should it do genetic tests to see if recruits have any oncogenes that might turn cancerous in 20-30 years, and reject those who do? Should it not accept anyone from long-lived families, since old people need tons of medical care?

    I can't help but think that since no one is suggesting the military do any of these things, that they have some other motivation besides saving taxpayer money.

  • damikesc||

    I can't help but think that since no one is suggesting the military do any of these things, that they have some other motivation besides saving taxpayer money.

    So, increase costs to run genetic testing on all recruits? Instead of saying "Hey, you sub .01% of the population --- you peeps cannot serve"? Which one seems more costly.

    And smokers don't tend to get covered. My father-in-law, who breathed asbestos serving in a sub, didn't get full disability for that because he also smoked.

  • JuanQPublic||

    "It transgender people are allowed in the military, they will get taxpayer-funded medical treatment -- not just sex-change operations, but other costly treatments -- which will ultimately cost several billion dollars..."

    And they'll want to marry animals next, yada yada yada...

  • Hugh Akston||

    Are we still doing euphemisms?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Not a very abstract one.

  • damikesc||

    I have no beef with that. The upheaval is not worth the tiny potential benefit of having mentally unbalanced folks serving.

    The military is not a social experiment. It is meant to destroy stuff. Anything that doesn't help it do that more efficiently is useless.

  • Praveen R.||

    Freeper alert

  • damikesc||

    Don't even know what "freeper" means.

    There is zero expected benefit in allowing trannies to serve openly. So why do it?

    Fairness?

    The military isn't a tool for fairness.

    It is a tool to blow up a building and kill people. That is all.

  • John DeWitt||

    You're making a big assumption that a transgender is less likely to kill someone than a cis hetero shitlord.

  • John DeWitt||

    Brilliant, bumpkin.

  • John DeWitt||

    You're out of your element, Donnie.

  • John DeWitt||

    Sometimes I just kill it on the first attempt. You're welcome.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>I'm looking to hear

    senses failure?

  • Dillinger||

    check. my other eyes are on my elbows...haven't seen the ear-eyes model

  • damikesc||

    You're making a big assumption that a transgender is less likely to kill someone than a cis hetero shitlord.

    I'm making the assumption that it is best to have somebody who is already mentally unbalanced not carry arms. And the added cost to, again, deal with their assumption that feelings trump reality is not worth the meager benefits their service provides,

  • Bruce Majors||

    Yes all the examples, like Chelsea Manning, demonstrate that transgender soldiers are more effective than cis ones.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>There is zero expected benefit in allowing trannies to serve openly.

    you may be missing the next great sniper or pilot?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Freeper is someone who uses Free Republic.

  • Tony||

    But it is also a social "experiment," or else blacks and then gays would never have been allowed in. And as far as I can tell, the republic is still standing. And when it falls it will be because of the guy banning "trannies" and not because of the "trannies" themselves.

  • John DeWitt||

    Trannies against Tyrannies. What color will our pussy hats be? Or will they be elephant hats?

  • damikesc||

    But it is also a social "experiment," or else blacks and then gays would never have been allowed in.

    Blacks being barred had literally nothing to do with anything involving them.

    As far as gays, I'm not seeing an IMPROVEMENT in our military, so I'm not seeing this as the boon you seem to.

  • Praveen R.||

    The improvement is there is less urgency for you to serve for each gay that serves.

  • damikesc||

    The improvement is there is less urgency for you to serve for each gay that serves.

    Hardly seems like an operational improvement for the military one way or the other.

  • Finrod||

    Who was it that resegregated the military? That Progressive hero, Woodrow Wilson.

    Like usual, facts are not your friend.

  • Tony||

    As opposed to all the good done by that libertarian president, uh, let me think, President Goober McFuckfacerson? Or no...

  • damikesc||

    So, Tony is coming out in SUPPORT of Woodrow Wilson.

    Just checking, how shitty must a Democrat be for you to say they're bad?

  • Tony||

    How many centuries in the past do you have to go before you find a bad nominal Democrat to presume I endorse fully?

  • Juice||

    Well, Wilson was a Democrat through and through, especially for that time. Not saying you endorse his policies, just saying.

  • damikesc||

    How many centuries in the past do you have to go before you find a bad nominal Democrat to presume I endorse fully?

    You were endorsing Hillary in this very thread...

    And what makes Wilson a "nominal" Democrat? You don't agree with all of his policies?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Endorse? How is that relevant? When you follow their groupthink in full lockstep with the rest of the hive mind.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Yes, black people were so expensive to bring into the military, what with their need for special trichological care.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yeah, didn't they have to spend a million bucks each on denegrification serum?

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    We certainly can't have the mentally unbalanced in the military.

    Do you think every single person in the military is out there personally destroying stuff?

    And like it or not, the current US military does more than just destroy stuff.

  • John DeWitt||

    Do you think every single person in the military is out there personally destroying stuff?

    Yes. Secondary effects from thrown CERP dollars and forcing Women's Schools in rural tribal lands probably caused at least as many deaths as an combat arms units.

  • John DeWitt||

    Fucking toast sounds painful. I hope it's well buttered.

  • TW||

    If you think that's butter, you may be in for a disappointment.

  • John DeWitt||

    Or maybe I wouldn't?

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    It's actually the best so far. Do better, guy.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    So is your wife into the dry anal?

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Back at ya.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    What do you win?

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Says the guy who gave up on his "You fuck my wife?" handle as soon as I replied to it.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    It's brilliant, ask anyone.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    I know you want me to be upset, babe, but I'm just laying down the truth for all to see.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    You're not nobody. You're me.

  • damikesc||

    We certainly can't have the mentally unbalanced in the military.

    It's best to not do so, yes.

    Do you think every single person in the military is out there personally destroying stuff?

    That's the ultimate goal.

    And like it or not, the current US military does more than just destroy stuff.

    Cars aren't intended to mow over people, yet they do so.

    Misuse of something does nothing to change its actual reason to be.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    Do you base this on your experiences in combat?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I've served in the military. FFS do keep the trannys out. They don't fit in. We keep midgets out for similar reasons too.

  • Rat on a train||

    They are excellent tunnel rats.

  • WakaWaka||

    "I'm fairly sure Democrats will have no problem taking "ownership" of the issue."

    Yes. That's the ticket. That's how they win back Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan!

  • damikesc||

    I'm not sure why Scott thinks there is this groundswell of support for trannies.

    It is not there.

    Nobody is going to change a single vote over this.

  • WakaWaka||

    I feel as if Democrats already tried making social issues the centerpiece of their campaign in 2016 and that failed miserably in every Senate race (except Illinois and New Hampshire, where they won by less than a thousand votes) and the presidential race. If Democrats ever want to retake the majority, taxpayer funded transgender surgery has to be a low priority.

  • Zeb||

    I'm not sure why Scott thinks there is this groundswell of support for trannies.

    It is not there.

    It kind of is. In the past few years it has become much more of an issue than it ever has been.

    Nobody is going to change a single vote over this.

    That is probably true. Maybe some socially conservative Democrats.

  • Zeb||

    That's still a swell of support, even if it is stimulated or used for cynical political purposes. Lots of people care about it now that never gave it a thought before.

  • Zeb||

    No, you don't get it and that's not what I think.

  • Zeb||

    Is reading really that hard? I said nothing of the sort.

    Though I will say now that more people do genuinely care about transgender issues than did in the past, because it's true. That is still not the same as saying that I think a manufactured, cynical attempt at manipulation is the same as genuinely held beliefs. They cynical attempt to use it for political gain and the genuine concern are both things that have happened.

  • BYODB||

    What rights to Transsexuals not have that you have, one might wonder.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    No, most people don't give a shit in general. It's not like we're talking about them being beaten, or bullied. Just disqualified from military service.

  • chemjeff||

    Even if the people who originally brought the transgender issue to the fore have corrupt or cynical motives, they have made the issue far more visible for everyone else, including those who don't have corrupt or cynical motives for considering the issue.

    Speaking only for myself, I regarded transgenderism as little more than a punchline or some weird fetish a few years ago. But with the added focus on the issue, I have seen that transgender individuals really do struggle with gender identity and it can be a really difficult thing.

  • Zeb||

    I don't think you are correctly identifying the problem here.

  • damikesc||

    It kind of is. In the past few years it has become much more of an issue than it ever has been.

    Using this logic, there really was a huge public uproar over women not being members at Augusta National.

    And an even BIGGER uproar over the name of the Washington Redskins.

    Can you imagine that we allow people who were once on government watch lists to OWN GUNS? That was a huge issue, too.

    You're mistaking "the press is really obsessed over it" for "people actually give a shit"

  • Stormy Dragon||

    What "Libertarians" Actually Believe: remember, your rights should only be protected if you're popular.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    To what rights do you refer? As there is no right to serve in the military. Nor has that ever been the case. They exclude people for all kinds of reasons.

  • albo||

    They should own it. The Ds are the party of affluent white women, now, and this is the kind of stuff they'd love.

    At least they'd know that when they lose again, their integrity will be intact.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "gee, I was going to vote for that fiscally conservative candidate that won't raise my taxes and spend with wild abandon, but goddamn, he won't let trannys in the military so I'm voting for his communist opponent".

    -Said no non progressive voter ever.

  • damikesc||

    She and her commanders report that everybody was accepting of Buch's change. Yet despite the lack of any problems, she's now at risk of being purged.

    Honestly, do you think anybody would risk the shit storm of speaking out against it?

    Trump may not hate LGBT folks or wish them any ill will, but that doesn't mean he actually cares a whole lot about what happens to them.

    If he banning gays from service?

    No.

    Just trannies.

    So, why do you have "LGBT" when it is, in fact, only "T"?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Especially if they masturbate, which by definition is opposite-sex sex.

  • damikesc||

    That your comment, while clearly sarcastic, would be true if you take "gender theory" seriously is a sad statement.

  • John DeWitt||

    That's a good point...he's batting .750 the LGBT front. Those are hall of fame numbers.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    I think this is a fair comment that will be missed in the coming brouhaha. Also it appears Dave Chapelle was prognasticating when he opined about 'T' having the hardest road of all to travel.

  • Brendan||

    Various mental illnesses are currently cause for dismissal/rejection, so I don't see the problem here.

  • Praveen R.||

    Transgendered does not affect the safety of a solider. I actually think being transgendered is more of a mental defect of sorts compared to a physical defect. But come on, do you really think every soldier with a mental illness of any sort gets discharged?

    Besides, I never understood why we would want to prevent anyone from serving? I sure as hell do not want to go to a useless place like the middle east and jeopardize my life for a cause that is debatable. Trump , sure as hell, found a way to not serve. So we should be clamping down on people who help us have this choice of not serving???? We actually want to restrict the pool of volunteers for non performance related reasons?

  • Brendan||

    I didn't say every soldier with any sort of mental illness, I said various. Nice try though.

  • Praveen R.||

    OK i left it implicit. "of any sort that mattered: It still does not pass the test. How does this mental illness of transgenderism fall into the group of mental illnesses you just referred to in terms of hindering his duties or hindering the other soldiers from performing theirs?

  • retiredfire||

    Maybe because this mental illness has a far higher suicide rate than your average Joe.
    By all means, give them access to all kinds of military equipment.

  • BYODB||


    do you really think every soldier with a mental illness of any sort gets discharged?

    Do you think they should be? That might be a better question to ask.

    I don't really know where I fall on this particular issue, but I think off-the-cuff I'd say let them serve unless they are currently transitioning or if they require 'extra' medical dispensations to be in a combat zone. (Ex: they need to take hormones or other drugs to maintain themselves.) As a comparison, do you think people who need insulin to live should be on the frontlines? Probably not.

    Otherwise, if it's just a guy that 'thinks' they're a girl or vice versus I don't see any particular immediate problem with that.

    One thing I do seriously wonder about is their estimations of how many transsexuals there are in the military. Basically they made up a number and claim discrimination when, as far as they know, there could be a dozen. Additionally, there should be no money spent on transitions or anything of the sort for service members. I'd say the exact same thing if the VA offers breast augmentation or penile extensions or the like too. Those are things they can pay for out of their own salary after they've been discharged. Especially if they could have an effect on their battle-readiness.

  • BYODB||

    If a trannie is forced to register for the draft then I suppose they should at least be given the chance as an individual to serve if they want to if they can pass all the mental and physical tests that are administered to every service member.

    Although, notably, women are exempt from the draft still since the latest measure I'm aware of in 2016 failed to change selective service. Since we can't even agree to let real women register for the draft what makes people think that fake women are somehow a more important issue?

    Lets get the real genders equal before we start trying to make up new surgical genders, shall we?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Why compound one error with another? Trannys are not compatible with military service. It isn't even a real thing. It's actually an improperly diagnosed form of sever body dysmorphia.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "… sever body dysmorphia", is that where one wants to have a part of one's body severed, with a beaver-cleaver, for example?

    It does bring to mind the question of, what is "medically necessary" anyway? "I feel like I am a girl", so taxpayers or mandated insurance coverage should pay to have my wanker whacked right clear off of my body? What gives? "I feel like I am a tattooed person", does that mean that someone else should pony up for my tattoos? WHERE is the limit here!?!?

  • SQRLSY One||

    So if we are honest, "medically necessary" = = "that's how I feel" = a sociological, psychological, even political phenomenon, not really a "medical" phenomenon. Related to like "sugar pills", placebos, all about "feelings".

    A technical solution then is at hand! She is nominally female, for example, and is "feeling like a male", but "medical care" is expensive, and VERY difficult to administer in combat zones! Well, I bet we could find a free, willing male volunteer (in this case) who could repeatedly hold his private parts in very close proximity to HER private parts, and she could at least get temporary relief, briefly fantasizing that those organs are actually HERS!

    The shrinks and therapists and various other hangers-on will fell "left out" of such a simplistic solution, so yes, we would need to have them conduct various hand-holding and therapy-talk to facilitate such matters, assuming that said hangers-on wouldn't have to venture too close to combat dangers…

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Well, i self-identify as billionaire Tony Stark. So I expect to be finished with billions of dollars, the Iron Man armor, his AI sidekick Jarvis, or the flesh and blood version from the comics, and control of a multi-national corporation that owns all kinds of cutting edge technology. They can keep Gwyneth Paltrow though.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Well, I self-identify as "King Tut"... "Society" OWES my deceased soul a GIANT PYRAMID TOMB as a "safe space" to retreat to, post-death... AND, just for now, a condo-made-of-stone-a!!!!

  • damikesc||

    Transgendered does not affect the safety of a solider.

    Their astonishingly high rate of suicide would cause problems for other soldiers.

    But come on, do you really think every soldier with a mental illness of any sort gets discharged?

  • damikesc||

    But come on, do you really think every soldier with a mental illness of any sort gets discharged?

    If the army is aware of it and the troop refuses to fix the problem --- yes, they will be.

  • Praveen R.||

    The mental illness has to be something that hinders his performance or be a danger to other soldiers.

  • damikesc||

    The mental illness has to be something that hinders his performance or be a danger to other soldiers.

    Given their rather high suicide rates...they are a danger to other soldiers. Somebody will have to make up the slack.

    The question should be: Will this make the military perform better?

    Not one of you has made the claim it would.

    Because you are aware it would not.

  • Praveen R.||

    Wrong question. The question should be "will this make the military worse ". Why should the burden on IMPROVING the military be on any one segment?

  • retiredfire||

    If taking a mentally ill soldier means a sane one, who doesn't have the higher propensity for suicide or the higher probability that there will be future medical costs, unrelated to what the military needs, is denied service, then it does make the military worse.
    Any time a less-qualified person is accepted, it means a fully qualified one doesn't get in. That's a detriment.

  • Zeb||

    It's not an illness if it doesn't negatively affect your life and ability to do what needs doing.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Ah, so you're saying that none of these people who feel that they were born the wrong sex are affected negatively by this?

    So wanting some of your body parts removed isn't a negative effect on one's life?

  • Praveen R.||

    If soldiers were really that tough, why would they be threatened by the presence of someone transgendered. They see so much crap on the field that the presence of any "weird" person would actually disrupt how they operate? I don't mind the military refusing to pay for transgender operations because I feel like the left panders when they accept such accomodations on the government dime.

    But no reasonable person who believes in individual liberty can support what Trump did with a straight face. What Obama did with gays and transgendered was the right thing. And the military did not implode when he did that.

  • damikesc||

    But no reasonable person who believes in individual liberty can support what Trump did with a straight face. What Obama did with gays and transgendered was the right thing. And the military did not implode when he did that.

    Is there a RIGHT to serve in the military?

    Fairly sure there is not.

    So not accepting trannies is fine with me.

  • Tony||

    But you're an obnoxious bigot, so why should anyone listen to you?

  • damikesc||

    But you're an obnoxious bigot, so why should anyone listen to you?

    Projecting a bit there, sparkles.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, you're the bigot. not Damikesc. The military doesn't have to accept anyone in particular. Nor should they. It's just that you're too stupid and progtarded to grasp that.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    There is a right to be treated equally under the law.

  • BYODB||

    How are they not being treated equally under the law?

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    As a layman the reasons seem arbitrary, like banning blacks because they are more likely to have sickle cell or women because they get real moody ~25%[ymmv] of the time.

    The military is not above taking in criminals and other mental misfits. Why draw the line here?

    More than likely this is just one of those shiny objects that Trump uses to distract himself and anyone taking him seriously.

  • BYODB||

    That doesn't answer the question of how they aren't being treated equally under the law.

  • junyo||

    This is one of those shiny objects that Trump uses to placate socons so that they can rationalize ignoring everything else.

    And from the comments here it's clearly working.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And they're perfectly able to join the military if they can meet the requirements. People with moderate to severe personality disorders don't qualify.

  • albo||

    If we still had the draft, this would be a point. But the military is volunteer and selective.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    If soldiers were really that tough, why would they be threatened by the presence of someone transgendered.

    They aren't, unless they're pogues.

    As with gays in the military, this is a civilian problem. Combat soldiers don't give a shit what their buddy does on their off time, as long as they have their back when it's needed.

  • John DeWitt||

    I did care when I had to go pick them up from jail on a Friday night because some knucklehead was being a knucklehead on his own time...but other than that, agreed - who gives a fuck?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No, it isn't a civilian problem. Although I find it an endless source of irritation when a civilian tells me how things in the military work. It's not like working in an office eight hours a day and you go home and don't see your coworkers until you're next shift. FFS, at my barracks at Fort Riley, we had bay style showers. For men and women (separate from each other). That's bad enough. That doesn't even get into some of the sleeping arrangements, field training exercises, deployment, etc.. And none of that even gets into the more difficult living situations, like on a carrier, or a submarine.

    None of that even touches on the prevalence of psychological problems these people have. Seriously, most people don't think this shit through.

  • Brendan||

    Who said they were threatened?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "But no reasonable person who believes in individual liberty can support what Trump did with a straight face. What Obama did with gays and transgendered was the right thing. And the military did not implode when he did that."

    No, Obama was wrong. Since you clearly never served, you might just want to shut the fuck up. The military exists to kill the enemy, not be the subject of your social experiments or provide some kind of equity that doesn't exist to some incompatible group. We also don't let midgets and many other groups in either. Do you intend to change that?

  • Praveen R.||

    I have not been President and I can still weigh in who is qualifed to be President. So you can shut the fuck up. I dont give a shit and pander to you just becuase you may have served in the military. I can still talk about who is qualified.

    A transgendered can still be good at killing the enemy. Just watch Silence of the LAmbs. OK, back to being serious. Why are you such a pussy that serving next to a transgendered would affect how you kill the enemy because I would think that transgendered would have no problem killing the enemy.

  • damikesc||

    Why are you such a pussy that serving next to a transgendered would affect how you kill the enemy because I would think that transgendered would have no problem killing the enemy.

    Why do we need people serving who have an overwhelming need to express their belief that, genitals notwithstanding, they REALLY are the opposite sex.

    Hell, using gender theory, there are no gay people. Gay men are REALLY trannies.

  • Vernon Depner||

    "Gay men are REALLY trannies."

    That's an insidious aspect of the "gender identity" concept that doesn't get talked about. Gay boys are being influenced to see themselves as "trans" rather than gay. If the "trans" concept becomes entrenched in society it could turn into a genocide against gay men.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Proven, they are not generally compatible with military service and come with all kinds of problems. It's obvious to me based on actual experience. You can opine all you want, but you don't the first fucking thing you're talking abut.

    It's also irritating to see armchair intellectuals pontificate about all the lame ideas they want to inflict on military service members, who already live very demanding lives relative to most of their civilian counterparts. And serving in the military is far more challenging and complex than being able to efficiently shoot someone. But okease, you go on telling all the vets how it is, and how we don't know shit.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Praceen, you really don't have the first clue what the fuck you're talking about. But it sure is great when you civilians just have it all figured out the way you do. And how clearly gays and trannys must be the exact same fucking thing, and are clearly interchangeable. And don't have ANY different challenges.

  • Dillinger||

    maybe T just wants to protect the transgendered by keeping them from armed danger?

  • damikesc||

    Note that while Trump brings up medical costs, this isn't an announcement that the Pentagon won't pay for transgender treatment or surgery.

    Unless the treatment is therapy, we shouldn't be.

    Paying for elective surgeries should not be the job of the government.

    It's a blanket ban on all transgender troops, regardless of how well-adjusted they might be or whether they want any sort of medical treatment at all.

    It's planning for future costs.

    It is why insurance didn't cover birth control pills. Because you'd pay for those and then, if the woman wanted a baby, you'd still have to pay for the pregnancy. It made no sense to pay for both.

  • FreeSpeechMatters||

    This ban makes perfect sense, and will save taxpayers money. Criticizing the military for not recruiting transgender people is as stupid as criticizing it for not recruiting people in wheelchairs or senior citizens.

    The military doesn't recruit people in wheelchairs or senior citizens. It discriminates based on many criteria forbidden in civilian life.

    Why on Earth should it recruit transgender individuals, given the considerable cost to taxpayers of sex-change operations? Which Congress refuses to defund?

    It transgender people are allowed in the military, they will get taxpayer-funded medical treatment -- not just sex-change operations, but other costly treatments and accommodations -- which will ultimately cost several billion dollars:

    http://barbwire.com/2017/07/25.....destroyer/

    The military exists to defend America at the minimum possible cost, not promote "inclusion."

  • Praveen R.||

    I dont support the government paying for sex change operations. Having said that, let's assume that is the reason for this policy. You seriously think that cost is even a tiny fraction of the waste that goes on in our defense operations?

  • WakaWaka||

    One could say that about a lot of things. "Ending that new military weapons project is only a fraction of the cost of government", "Cutting funding for Planned Parenthood is only a fraction of the cost of government", etc.

    At the end of the day, you end up cutting nothing and become a conservative- conserving big government. Any cut to government is a positive.

  • Praveen R.||

    That same transgendered coudl just as easily serve in another government agency which means my taxpayer money could theoretically be used for that person's sex change. So why not advocate banning transgendered from all government agencies too?

  • damikesc||

    That same transgendered coudl just as easily serve in another government agency which means my taxpayer money could theoretically be used for that person's sex change. So why not advocate banning transgendered from all government agencies too?

    I'd prefer not having untreated psychologically unbalanced people in anything resembling a position of power.

    And, as a hint, slicing off body parts or downing tons of hormones isn't a terribly effective method of treatment for a purely psychological condition.

  • Praveen R.||

    Again, avoiding the point. I personally do not support the government paying for sex changes. What does that got to do with the fact that one supports bannign transgendered from the military for monetary reasons , but then allows them to get employment at another government agency . Your target should be aimed at the laws which woulld allows such a thing to pass muster in a court as to what procedures a citizen is entitled to at someone else's cost.

  • damikesc||

    Your target should be aimed at the laws which woulld allows such a thing to pass muster in a court as to what procedures a citizen is entitled to at someone else's cost.

    A law cannot be written in a way where a court couldn't still utterly change the meaning.

    I'll remind you that the ACA was not a tax according to the people passing it. And they didn't include any non-severability clause, which is required to make any part of the law illegal and not kill the entire thing.

    If the judge wants to do it, it gets done.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    So? Why go out of our way to make things worse. I would rather focus my efforts on saving money than wasting it to accommodate trannys.

  • damikesc||

    I dont support the government paying for sex change operations. Having said that, let's assume that is the reason for this policy. You seriously think that cost is even a tiny fraction of the waste that goes on in our defense operations?

    Then why cut ANY program?

    Stossel has a good piece on a $2M bathroom in NYC paid for by the government. But that is such a small part of the waste in that government. Why even worry about it?

    Shall we go into how small a slice of the pie deporting illegals is of the overall federal budget? Why obsess?

    Ditto enforcement of drug laws. They are a tiny, tiny, tiny sliver of the budget. We shouldn't touch that either --- because unless it is a BIG thing, it's not worth the time.

    ...ignoring that lots and lots of small things make up the "big" things.

  • 68W58||

    There are any number of medical conditions that disqualify an individual from service, even if that condition is 'manageable". A servicemember has no guarantee that the supply chain can provide for their particular condition while deployed. Any additional expense to maintaining a transgendered troop while deployed is less money for training, operations or sustainment, but that only matters if you understand or care about anything like that-and the SJWs clearly don't.

  • albo||

    Thinking you're the other gender is a mental condition. That and a lot of other things disqualify you for service.

  • Tony||

    According to which medical-scientific source?

  • albo||

    According to having a Y chromosome and thinking that you're a female. That science.

  • Tony||

    It's semantics, actually.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    It's semantics, actually

    No, it's biology.

  • Tony||

    So was the inferiority of the Jews, at one point.

  • BYODB||

    You are literally retarded if you make the argument that one's genome does not determine one's sex Tony. Literally. Retarded.

  • Tony||

    Who's talking about birth assignment of biological sex?

  • Rebel Scum||

    Tony|7.26.17 @ 12:21PM|#

    Who's talking about birth assignment of biological sex?

    This is the problem with sjw's. They are, in fact, anti-science. T, there is no "assignment". You are either male or female. The doctor simply makes an assessment based on your sex parts.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "Gender is in your brain".

    No, it fucking isn't. How would anyone even know? Seriously, if you're born male, how would you possibly just 'know' what it feels like to be female? You can't even possibly know what it feels like to live in the skin of another male let alone a woman.

    It isn't a different gender, it a severe form of body dysmorphia. It's funny to hear you call people 'dumdums' when you don't even understand basic science.

  • damikesc||

    These dumdums will never understand that sex is in your genitals and gender is in your brain. Sometimes the two are in conflict. That's the science.

    ...provided one ignores the utter lack of any science behind it.

    The only evidence of being "Trans" is your feelings that you are. There is no concrete way to actually demonstrate it.

  • Brandybuck||

    Tony has fallen prey to the left's deliberate redefinition of "gender". As applied to a person or animal, "gender" means "sex". It has a slightly difference connotation, but it still largely synonymous with "sex".

    "Gender" has more social context to it, while "sex" has a more biological context. But they mean the same. When we talk about organs and morphology we use "sex", and when we talk about pronouns and roles we use "gender". That does NOT mean "gender" is just a social thing! A style of clothing known as a "woman's dress" may be purely social, but a man wearing a woman's dress is still wearing a woman's dress. Gender and sex are inextricably linked, and no amount of handwringing will ever change that.

    That does NOT mean I want to regulate someone's sexuality or gender or identity or whatever. If a man wants to call himself a woman, he is free to do so. He can even go so far as to undergo a surgery that would literally change him into a her. I've got no problem with that, so long as he does not compel me into use his pronouns, or compel me to pay for his surgery.

    p.s. Sex is also not the genetics. The genetics can actually be different from the morphology. When a distinction has to be made then one uses the term "genetic sex" or "biological sex" or other distinguishing adjective.

  • Tony||

    Addressing people as they wish is only polite. But leave it to libertarians to bitch about the compulsive nature of manners.

    The world is passing you guys by on this issue. Sorry about that.

  • Brandybuck||

    Polite, yes. Making it a law so that cops shoot your dog if you don't use the right pronoun, no. The problem with progressives is that they want to make impoliteness punishable by dog shooting.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Addressing people as they wish is only polite."

    Ok Tony, then you will henceforth address me as 'His enlightened divinity, the supreme overlord, his majestic light and greatness.'. Its long, but I don't really care if it inconveniences you, as you believe wholeheartedly in such accommodations.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    No, it really wasn't Tony. You have no real arguement other than 'feels' do you? This sort of bullshit is why you are so hated here. People like you literally make the world a worse place to live.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    It's semantics, actually

    No, it's biology.

  • Tony||

    Also the excuse for why women weren't allowed to vote, at one point.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Also the excuse for why women weren't allowed to vote, at one point

    At least they still accepted that they were born women.

  • Tony||

    And all so that you didn't have to feel mildly uncomfortable 100 years later. How thoughtful of them.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    And all so that you didn't have to feel mildly uncomfortable 100 years later. How thoughtful of them.

    Demanding that society unironically celebrate mental illness can be pretty disturbing.

  • ||

    Demanding that government hurts people who you believe suffer from a mental illness even more and curtails their legal rights so that soe conservative authoritarians feel slightly better about the world order, on the other hand..

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Demanding that government hurts people who you believe suffer from a mental illness

    Transgenders suffer from a suicide rate of approximately 40%. We hardly need more veteran suicides.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, you're feeding the very real mental illness of these poor people just to advance your Marxist social agenda. Do you not understand how monstrous that is? I know your kind don't really value people, but are you really this pathetic and callous?

  • ||

    Your disrespect for personal liberties and autonomy that include people making free choices about their bodies, self-expression and self-presentation that may be misunderstood by others is what os monstrous, pathetic and callous. Shouldn´t people expect their government of all entities to reject any form of discrimination and just treat its citizens equally under the law? Trans people are taxpayers just like you conservative authoritarians are, but first of all, they are autnomous human beings entitled to the same personal and bodily liberties as you are. If they are willing to risk their lives and physical and mental health for the motherfucking government, by what right does that monstrous entity curtail their legal rights and discriminates against them? Refusing to pay for their surgeries and therapies is OK, treating them with zero respect, as if they posed a threat to themselves or other, as if they were incapacitated children unable to decide what is best for them, as if they were unable to perform any task a non-trans person is capable of - is something different and something utterly reprehensible.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Emote somewhere else, Andy.

  • retiredfire||

    A compassionate society doesn't treat the person, who thinks they are Napoleon Bonaparte, as the Emperor of France. We want them to get treatment.
    Similarly, we want the person, who thinks they are a sex that they are not, to get treatment, not to be pandered to by having them take a spot in the military from someone, who doesn't have that mental condition and isn't as prone to suicide.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    None of which has any bearing on the fact that they are not fit for duty and all that it entails. The military is not an accommodation, or a jobs program, and not there to build the self esteem of various sexual identity groups. They discriminate on all kinds of criteria, including sexual identity disorder and severe body dysmorphia.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony you really love disingenuous arguments. Like throwing out false equivalencies.

  • damikesc||

    It's semantics, actually.

    Just because you're not a male doesn't mean nobody is one.

    My son pretended he was a dragon when he was 3. I managed to avoid the urge to surgically implant scales on him. I know, I "oppressed" him and didn't let him "express" himself fully...

  • Tony||

    Keep fucking this chicken dude, I'm sure you'll win society over to your argument any day now.

  • damikesc||

    Keep fucking this chicken dude, I'm sure you'll win society over to your argument any day now.

    Yeah, Tony. Society is going all-in for trannies. Keep on believing.

  • Juice||

    Well, you can't deny that it's objectively a mental condition. Defect or illness would be subjective I think.

    But anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria

    Gender dysphoria is classified as a disorder under dual role transvestism in the 2017 ICD-10 CM. GID was reclassified to gender dysphoria by the DSM-5.
  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    And if you put any stock into non-empirical non-science, this matters.

    Lots of currently normal things were once considered 'insane'. That's the beauty of mental defects - they have literally zero physical manifestation, so you can just label every behavior you don't like crazy.

  • Juice||

    I was merely answering Tony's question, not making a judgement.

  • Juice||

    Also, labeling something a "disorder" or "illness" isn't really an empirical exercise anyway. A person could have mental or physical limitations that most others don't, but they could also have mental or physical advantages others don't as well. Are they ill? Do they have a disease? This is subjective.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "Lots of currently normal things were once considered 'insane'. That's the beauty of mental defects - they have literally zero physical manifestation, so you can just label every behavior you don't like crazy."

    Or you can label crazy behavior as normal so as to use that group for your own political agenda.

  • damikesc||

    Lots of currently normal things were once considered 'insane'. That's the beauty of mental defects - they have literally zero physical manifestation, so you can just label every behavior you don't like crazy.

    Then provide hard, empirical science that "transgenderism" is anything more than a mental disability.

    Provide some hard proof of its existence. None of this "Well, the brain scans of tranny men are similar to the brain scans of women" nonsense as it is not remotely empirical science nor terribly useful information.

    You cannot do so, but I'll enjoy the attempt.

  • Juice||

    Then provide hard, empirical science that "transgenderism" is anything more than a mental disability.

    Again, the term "disability" here is subjective. It's easy to say that a man missing an arm is disabled, but it's a different ball game to say someone with a particular mental condition is disabled.

    Provide some hard proof of its existence. None of this "Well, the brain scans of tranny men are similar to the brain scans of women" nonsense as it is not remotely empirical science nor terribly useful information.

    Interesting that you say that because it's obviously objectively empirical to show that one brain scan is very similar to another. Whether that information is useful depends on how you plan to use it.

  • damikesc||

    Interesting that you say that because it's obviously objectively empirical to show that one brain scan is very similar to another.

    No, it absolutely is not. It's about as empirical as phrenology.

  • Juice||

    Sigh. Let's learn the definition of empirical, shall we?

    If someone says "you have a lump on your head," that's an empirical observation. The same is true if you say, "we have found a statistical correlation between people who have a lump on the right side of their head and mathematical ability (or whatever)." Those are empirical observations (if true). If you then say, "We conclude that if you find a lump on the right side of your head, you will be good at math," that's theory and not empirical evidence, but it's still theory that's "based on empirical evidence". It's a poor theory so far because it doesn't explain all data and evidence regarding lumps on heads relating to math ability nor does it provide a mechanism by which the two phenomena are linked, much less a cause and effect relationship.

    So if someone says "these transgendered men have very similar brain scans to women," that's an empirical observation. Period. Any conclusions drawn from it will be "based on empirical evidence." That doesn't mean the conclusion is correct or valid, though.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    For decades, tranny groups were lobbying to have themselves considered a protected class of disabled people. Now they are lobbying for the opposite.

    It's just all more progressive bullshit, and half the people that post here have gotten sucked in.

  • retiredfire||

    But they have many, identifiable behavioral manifestations, which studies have been able to categorize, thus the inclusion in the manuals that list such things.
    Those were arrived at through studying individuals, who exhibited such behaviors. It had nothing to do with what somebody liked.
    The removal of homosexuality and similar conditions ( here's where the LGBTLMNOP alphabet really applies) were not based on any empirical studies, but through political pressure and have been used to attract certain groups to a political party.

  • Tony||

    But the commander-in-chief himself can be literally the most mentally ill public figure in the country.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Still miles better than Hillary. Who lost.

  • Tony||

    You'd have to be a fucking retard to think so, but to each his own.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Better than a corrupt Marxist.

  • Tony||

    Bernie was nowhere near getting the nomination.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Hillary adopted his positions. And still lost. Did she cheat too much? Or not enough?

  • Tony||

    Not nearly enough.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Well Tony, you're a fucking retard, and you don't. So you just cast doubt on your own hypothesis.

  • Rebel Scum||

    literally the most mentally ill public figure in the country.

    Enough about Maxine Waters.

  • Brendan||

    If I think I'm an alien, a wizard, Elvis reincarnated, a cat trapped in a man's body, etc., I would be treated as mentally ill.

  • Charles Easterly||

    Actually, you are not Elvis, and your name is Firedash, and you're a Pyrofox from a forest planet....

  • Azathoth!!||

    These--

    "Gender dysphoria is classified as a disorder under dual role transvestism in the 2017 ICD-10 CM.[7] GID was reclassified to gender dysphoria by the DSM-5"

  • TW||

    All things being equal, I'm fine with Trump reversing or overturning any policies that Obama enacted with his "phone and pen" after he was a lame duck and on his way out of the door.

    As far as "transgender" there is no such thing. There are a small number of mentally ill people who claim that they were "born the wrong gender" but that doesn't make them a third or fourth gender classification even if they mutilate themselves or pump themselves full of hormones.

    And as taxpayers, we certainly shouldn't be paying to enable their delusions.

  • Praveen R.||

    They are volunteering to die for your benefit. Their delusions or whatever it is help make it less urgent of someone like me to serve.

  • Brendan||

    What a noble and selfless position to take.

  • BYODB||

    So what? Lots of people volunteer to die for our benefit and the military says 'no thanks' based on as little as a minor defect in one's retina that could cause a problem five years from now. They are that selective because they can be.

    Manning sure didn't do transsexuals any favors in the Military, that's for sure. You should probably thank him for the Pentagon thinking that it's a potential security risk and/or considered factor for rejection. Certainly grouping everyone together under that consideration is probably unfair, but then again so is rejecting someone on any number of potential factors that could be detrimental without concrete proof. In this area, Transsexuals are not 'special'.

    There are plenty of other reasons the military might not take you based on nothing but hearsay, and they can do that because there is no shortage of people who want to join the military.

  • Praveen R.||

    Manning is the first idiot who served in the military? What about the transgenderism specifically hinders the person from the tasks required? I dont' believe in relaxed standards for anyone. But if the person fulfills the standards required, that's all fine by me, because that means that is one less of people like me who do not have to serve.

  • BYODB||

    Read what I said. Manning gave the Pentagon a reason why transgender people might be a risk. Specifically, he released a ton of classified information without regard to what he was releasing and, shockingly, it was informed by his condition. Like or hate it, Manning is an example of an actual security risk as relating to the condition of transgenderism.

    Is that a justification for banning all transgender from serving? Personally I don't think so, but at the same time unlike a gay or lesbian person what would actually ever give away a transgender person at all? If they just like to behave like a member of the opposite sex, one would think no one could ever 'find them out', so to speak, in the first place. Right?

    Or are we defining 'transsexual' or 'transgender' as people who want to wear a woman's uniform, use the women's standards for training, and receive an expensive surgical and lengthy hormonal treatment, that are by definition unnecessary, at taxpayer expense?

    I can agree with one, but not the other.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "Like or hate it, Manning is an example of an actual security risk as relating to the condition of transgenderism."
    What? No. Even if you want to pull some sort of lesson from this, it's that forcing people into the closet is dangerous.

    No closet, no stress from having to hide? Then no risk. The only reason it's a "risk" is because folks decided it was a risk.

    It's a Catch-22.

  • ||

    If the greatest risk trans people pose is that they might reveal shameful secrets of the military/government, of course the government will do everything in their power to keep them away.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It isn't. The risk is that they're mentally unstable, and highly prone to suicide, among other things. Plus all the problems it causes to accommodate them in a barracks/shipboard situation.

  • EvilWayz||

    Because you're a coward that somehow makes it a good idea? I'm not concerned with their choice of pronoun and if they want to cut their junk off that's no business of mine. But transgendered folk have something like a 30% suicide rate post reassignment surgery. That's higher than dentists. And that's in the civilian world. I can't imagine what it would be in a place like the Marine Corps where we are mean to each other just for the hell of it. I thought DADT was stupid, it's not like we didn't know who we were serving with, and a gay machine gunner is just as useful as a straight one in combat. I find this decision by Trump to be mystifying, there's no way in hell theres 15K transgendered people serving i the military. If he wanted to do something useful, he should have overturned the decision to allow women in combat arms. That would have made sense. In a world where we can't get artificial limbs for our guys/gals that got blown up in two theaters of combat, I see this as a needless expense. If that makes me a bigot, oh well I guess I'll wear it.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Pravden, someone like you soil probably never serve.

  • paranoid android||

    That there is anyone that would actually defend these statements is sickening. Trump is literally trying to stir up antipathy for an unjustly demonized group to distract people from his increasing pile of scandals and fuck-ups. If trans recruits can meet the same standards of fitness as other soldiers there's no reason besides prejudice to bar them from serving.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    But the libs are going CRAZY over this! And it's sure to help Republicans in battleground states, which is always a good motive for policy changes.

  • paranoid android||

    They told me if I didn't vote for Trump, we'd be fighting over pointless culture war issues forever. And they were right!

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Including mental fitness?

  • paranoid android||

    Mental fitness defined as fitness to carry out one's duties and follow orders, yes.

  • Zeb||

    Has someone demonstrated that merely being transgender makes one mentally unfit?

    I think the same about this as women in combat. If they can meet all the same standards that any other soldier has to for a particular job, then they can do it. But don't lower standards or make any special exceptions.

  • 68W58||

    The Marine Corps, which actually took the time to test the matter, found that all-male units significantly outperformed mixed gender units in combat related tasks.

    http://www.marinecorpstimes.co.....xperiment/

    So this is the exactly same as the 'women in combat" issue, in that those who are arguing in favor do not care in the slightest about combat effectiveness (which is really all that should matter).

  • Zeb||

    Did the women in those mixed units meet the exact same standards for fitness and training as the men?

    I doubt that many women would actually qualify by that standard. If none do, that's fine.

  • 68W58||

    "I doubt that many women would actually qualify by that standard. If none do, that's fine."

    It isn't really. It still takes lots of time effort and money to try and find the unicorn that might meet the standard. if 95% of males can meet the standard and only 1% of females can (those are just numbers I am throwing out there, I have no idea what the actual numbers are) I see no reason to spend the money to go through the one population looking for the exception when the other population provides me what I want regularly as a rule.

    This ignores the issue that females who "meet the standard" will suffer a lot more stress fractures from trying to meet that standard on a daily basis for years at a much higher rate than males, which means more expense for treatment and VA disability while their units have to work shorthanded until a replacement is found. That's been common knowledge for a while.

  • EscherEnigma||

    You don't have to test the entire 100% for either as that 95% and 1% will both self-select for testing.

  • 68W58||

    'You don't have to test the entire 100% for either as that 95% and 1% will both self-select for testing."

    I get that you think that, but I think many of us have seen plenty of individuals dive into tasks that they are completely unprepared for and it takes a lot of time, effort and expense to weed them out-happens every day.

  • Zeb||

    You know what? I don't actually care. We shouldn't have an army at all unless we are in an actual, declared war.

  • 68W58||

    We'd still have a Navy (and presumably a Marine Corps) under article I, section 8. So this whole issue wouldn't just go away.

  • Zeb||

    I still don't care. I just like getting into stupid, masturbatory arguments, I guess.

  • 68W58||

    Well, I'm your man then. :-)

  • BYODB||

    It's ok, Zeb. That's at least one thing we all have in common I think.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    It cost a lot of money to retrofit those navy vessels to accommodate female personnel. But when you have progressives in charge, it's important to weaken the military and waste lots of money to raise the self esteem of girls.

  • Vernon Depner||

    And if a man who failed to meet the standards for men was able to meet the standards for women, on what basis could he be excluded if soldiers are allowed to choose whether to be evaluated as males or females?

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Military operations are not composed solely of combat units.

    Goddamn, people.

  • 68W58||

    You're kidding right?

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Of course I'm kidding. "Ground combat teams" comprise the entirety of the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force personnel. There are no translators, surgeons, cooks, engineers, mechanics, or hordes and hordes of bureaucrats. Only people out there on the front lines, carrying their hundred pounds of equipment and shooting at bad guys.

  • 68W58||

    Maybe you should look into the concept of 'non-linear operations". Lots of those types of people you have listed have ended up carrying heavy equipment and shooting at bad guys, even Pentagon bureaucrats had to carry comrades out of their office building once upon a time.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Goddamn, people.
  • 68W58||

    Sorry if I misunderstood.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    No one is saying to accept invalids or those who can't meet the physical requirements. But how biological women, or homosexuals, or the transgendered function in ground combat units does not justify banning them from serving "in any capacity." If they meet the physical and medical requirements and are a gifted translator, or mechanic, or analyst, or drone pilot, then why stop them? Because, hypothetically, they would be less efficient in clearing a building in Mosul? There's a whole lot more to the US military than that.

    Though I do realize that this was a tangent of a tangent about combat performance, while I'm focusing on the specific policy change.

  • 68W58||

    Shrugs

    Honestly I would be fine with returning to something like the WACs and making them all non-deployable, in which case they could preform a lot of the tasks you describe. But anyone who has even the smallest chance to engage the enemy in combat should be prepared for whatever that entails-to include fighting hand to hand-and men are preferable to women in every regard in that role (about which there is video of Rhonda Roussey sparring with a man who was putting forth about 40% effort and kicking her ass thoroughly).

  • Finrod||

    Because they'd certainly never lower the standards to make sure enough of them got in.

    Oh wait, they've already done that with women and the Marines.

  • 68W58||

    The Navy reclassified several tasks from "2 man" to "4 person" when they integrated females onto combat ships, and of course there is the difference in PT test standards between males and females across the services. Fred Reed once wrote a very good column about how females perform compared to males on common tasks (link is too long to cut and paste, so google "Fred Reed Women in Combat" for the column).

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    So?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    There are a lot of armchair intellectuals that think it's cute to inflict their social experiments on the military. Obama was one of them.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Of what 'scandals' do you speak? Not counting all the progressive fan fiction that is currently serving as the basis for endless investigations. I mean, it's not like he got our Libyan ambassador murdered, or sold a huge chunk of our uranium reserves to Russia in exchange for over a hundred million dollars.

    His fuck ups are certainly a tiny, tiny fraction of what would have happened in the alternative had Hildebeast been elected.

    He certainly doesn't need this as a distraction. The only people that really give a shit are already progtard traitors anyway. So they don't matter.

  • Tony||

    I was assured, even by people on this site, that Trump is the most pro-LGBTQ president ever. Oh well, we all totally forgot he's a retarded treasoning orange fuckface for 5 minutes, so mission accomplished.

  • albo||

    He's not persecuting any LGBT people. He's just telling the T that they can't get into the military. He's not taking any rights away from them.

  • Tony||

    I'm sure this will totally fly under the radar of all the millions of new LGBT Republicans Trump conned into the fold. Oh wait they didn't buy his bullshit in the first place.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    How many millions? LGBT is maybe 7-8 million people in the US? Not a gigantic group. Most of the whining and hand wringing about them is done by straight progtards. Who don't really count anyway.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    You'd think Chelsea Manning's experience alone would serve as a cautionary tale about the kind of environment transgender people would expect in the military.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Well especially a nutcase like Manning.

  • Brandybuck||

    Actually, that is a violation of their rights. If one citizen has the right to join the military, then all citizens have the right to join the military. Because everyone has the same rights. It's in the 14th amendment.

    p.s. Granted, joining the military is not actually a right, as the military does not have to accept anyone. As a part of government, however, the military must meet a higher standard than a regular employer. But the concept still applies. If one citizen has a right, then all citizens that right. Period.

  • BYODB||

    Absolutely no one at all has the right to join the military. Not one person. You acknowledge as much, yet continue to make the argument that we do. Bizarre.

  • Brandybuck||

    Joining the military is not an unalienable right. But it is a legal right. Blacks cannot be denied enlistment because they are black. Women cannot be denied enlistment because they are women. And gays cannot be denied enlistment because they are gay. There may be enlistment criteria, but those criteria do not encompass race, gender, or sexual preference.

    AS A GOVERNMENT AGENT, THE MILITARY IS HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN A PRIVATE EMPLOYER! The private employer should be able to reject any job applicant for any reason. But the government must use objective standards applied equally to all applicants, and must accept applicants as broadly as possible.

  • BYODB||


    There may be enlistment criteria, but those criteria do not encompass race, gender, or sexual preference.

    So, you agree that transsexuals are free to be discriminated against because they are outside of the listed criteria for consideration. Glad we cleared that up.

  • Brandybuck||

    I'm so sorry you are unable to understand English.

  • damikesc||

    Actually, that is a violation of their rights. If one citizen has the right to join the military, then all citizens have the right to join the military. Because everyone has the same rights. It's in the 14th amendment.

    So, where are the wheelchair bound recruits?

  • ||

    Forbidding them doing somthing they could do before isn´t taking any rights from them. Wow. Just wow.

  • colorblindkid||

    I don't consider the T to be part of the LGB, although I left the LGBT community a long time ago when they stopped trying to change minds on LGBT people and started forcing every single leftist policy down peoples' throats.

  • Tony||

    Eh, I like to point out that we're allies only in an effort to achieve equality, but that I have no more in common with a transgender woman than I do a straight cis woman other than the oppressions that society chooses to impose.

    I'd like to think that gays tend to be liberal because we tend to be smart, but the fact that Republicans have used gays (along with pretty much every other minority, depending on the year) as political punching bags to get their bigoted fuckface voters to the polls might have something to do with it.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    You're so smart you don't know when human life begins, so denying all the rights of 48 million individuals is fine, and people should be forced to pay for the slaughter.

  • Tony||

    Human life began about 200,000 years ago somewhere in Africa.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Obama, is that you?

  • Tony||

    I can tell we got a real winner right here.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    They my, don't try and get sciency on us. You're too fucking stupid for that. What ends up coming out of you are desperate sounding shrill whining and bleating noises.

    Maybe that passes for cognitive analysis in that primitive squid thing between your ears, but to real humans you just sound like a huge fucking moron. And that's on your better days.

  • Tony||

    I presume you're talking to the person claiming that science says a zygote is a person.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    I presume you're talking to the person claiming that science says a zygote is a person.

    Must be the same science that says someone born with a penis is a woman.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No Tony. You're the moron. On the other hand, you qualify for 80% off at the mind readers.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I'd like to think that gays tend to be liberal because we tend to be smart

    You're neither liberal nor smart.

  • colorblindkid||

    Yes, because Democrats don't ever use groups as political punching bags to get their naive and self-righteous fuckface voters to the polls.

  • Tony||

    Name an instance when they've done this. I get that gun-toting Bible-thumping rednecks feel persecuted by Democrats, but they're not getting that from Democrats, they're getting it from Limbaugh.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    No Tony, they're shit on by subhuman garbage like you. Seriously, you should get down on your knees and be glad those decent middle Americans on whose backs you prosper allow you to live. Or just keep pushing and wait for the day when they've had enough progtard bullshit and decide to wipe slaver marxists like you off the fucking map.

  • Tony||

    Yeah all those poor red states being net takers from rich blue states--and we're the marxists.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    That's more progressive fan fiction. with the exception of a few states where democrat policies destroyed their industry. Like West Virginia. The fact is that your 'rich blue states' are all bankrupt. CA is going to crash, and crash hard, as it already has racked up over $1.3 trillion between state and local debt. I'm sure you parasites will soon be wanting those poor red states to come bail you out.

  • Brandybuck||

    "I'd like to think that gays tend to be liberal because we tend to be smart"

    Gays tend to be liberal because conservatives have dumped on them for decades. Smarts have nothing to do with it. I know plenty of conservative and libertarian gays.

    The tradition for centuries was acceptance of gays that followed the cultural norms, such as contraries, Boston Marriages, confirmed bachelorhood, etc. It wasn't until society, as a whole, decided that some cultural norms had to go, that the split between traditionalists and progressives polarized on this issue.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Gays tend to be smart? Nope. You're living proof that isn't the case. Also, I've heard how gays talk about trannys. You and your homo buddies are incredibly vicious towards them. So fuck you and your concern trolling.

  • Tony||

    I said "I'd like to think" and then concluded that the real reason gays tend to be liberal is because conservatives have shat on them for centuries.

    I've known transgender people since my earliest outings at the club. My only wish for them is that they have similar success gays have had in becoming accepted in a society that shits on them so--and for conservative fucktards to get so mad about it they stroke out.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I spend my life not giving a shot about most folks one way or the other. Unless it's made my business. You spend your life advocating for a society in which you think you can run everyone's lives and decide what everyone gets to think cradle to grave. That makes you my problem, and my enemy. The average gay/lesbo/trans/whatever isn't my problem. So I have no feelings about them whatsoever.

    When you fuck with the military, as you of course want to do, that shit becomes my problem. And again, the most vicious things I've ever heard another person say about trannys didn't come from a 'conservative fucktard (the worst of whom are far better people than you could ever imagine being), but from homosexuals like you. Not sure why that is, but it's a fact.

    I guess it makes sense. People of your sociopolitical outlook spare completely into,Ernst of any differences. So bigotry just comes easy. It's also why you constantly try to project that on good decent conservative folks.

  • Tony||

    Trump's the one fucking with the military right now--and individual human lives. For no reason whatsoever except to make people like you get rage boners.

  • damikesc||

    I'd like to think that gays tend to be liberal because we tend to be smart

    1) You disabuse the concept of gays being smart regularly.
    2) No conservative approaches Maxine Waters level of idiocy. A few Progressives do, though.

  • Tony||

    People who constantly bring Maxine Waters into every conversation are fucking propaganda-addled morons. Read a book not written by Ann Coulter for Christ's sake.

  • damikesc||

    This is the first time I've mentioned her. Ever, that I can think of.

    She just happens to have an IQ that doesn't hit 50.

    I could use Hank Johnson if you'd prefer.

    Hell, take all of the "ethnic" caucuses and you might have the combined brain power to toast bread. Lightly.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, no one mentioned Maxine Waters until now. Your strawman is bulkshit, as usual.

  • colorblindkid||

    This is an issue that is dumb and I want to go away and I honestly don't care which way it goes. It is not an urgent danger to the military. It is not the same as banning blacks from the military.

  • Paulpemb||

    "Note that while Trump brings up medical costs, this isn't an announcement that the Pentagon won't pay for transgender treatment or surgery. It's a blanket ban on all transgender troops, regardless of how well-adjusted they might be or whether they want any sort of medical treatment at all."

    And if Trump had simply said 'The United States government, while it will allow individuals who identify as transgender to serve, will not pay for any counseling, hormone therapy or gender reassignment surgery' the same people who are squawking about this would squawk just as loudly, and make the exact same accusations.

    But the fact is, if transgender individuals are serving in the military, the courts will order the government to pay for all of these services. So it's better to just say 'no thanks'.

    As far as the military is concerned, a service member should be whatever his or her biological sex is, for purposes of uniform standards, physical fitness, and what military occupational specialties are open to you. What you do on your own time is your own business.

  • Jgalt1975||

    But the fact is, if transgender individuals are serving in the military, the courts will order the government to pay for all of these services. So it's better to just say 'no thanks'.

    [CITATION NEEDED] If the courts are willing to order the government to pay for those services, why wouldn't they also be willing to order the government to permit enlistment by trans individuals?

  • BYODB||

    Why would the courts get involved in allowing those benefits when Congress already did?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    When you're in the military, what you do in your own time isn't necessarily your own business. People who can't handle that should remain civilians.

  • Idle Hands||

    I hate everyone on both sides of this issue. It's the fucking military the default libertarian imho should be to ban standing armies that includes everyone of all nationalities/creeds/races/sexualities/genders from service during peace time and technically this is peace time as there is no declared war going on.

  • colorblindkid||

    Basically this. It is a stupid issue with little real-life consequence that plays to both bases.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Good luck convincing all the resident "libertarian" vets of this.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    John's not here, man.

  • Zeb||

    Yes. I've never had a satisfactory answer on how having a very large standing army as we have for quite some time is constitutional.

  • Tony||

    We need to steal other people's oil.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Of course you think that Tony. Your entire socio/political/economic philosophy is based on theft and confiscation of other people's shit. So you automatically think in those terms.

    Of course we have shit,iAds of our own oil here, but you and your commie oaks want to see too us from getting at it.

  • John DeWitt||

    Why do you hate the troops, Zeb?

  • EscherEnigma||

    In 1776, the founding fathers didn't want there to ever be a standing army, because they feared it would be used by a tyrant. This fear still has basis, but sadly, the world has changed. As America has seen over and over throughout the world, an armed civilian force, a "militia" if you will, cannot reliably resist a properly trained military.

    They can make it hard as hell with guerilla tactics and what-not, but a well-trained and equipped army will win every time.

    Further, the costs of training and equipping soldiers is radically different now then it was 200+ years ago. In 1776, it was plausible to take a merchant ship, strap a bunch of cannons on it, add some marines, and call it a warship. It probably would lose to a Ship of the Line, but it could make a good stand. That's not true these days. Between missiles that cost $100k a pop, ships that take a decade to build and run in the millions, and not even mentioning RDT&E...

    Maybe I'm unduly pessimistic, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a country that had no standing army would not be able to protect it's borders from a nation that has a standing army. Not in today's world.

    So while I'm unsure about the constitutional arguments, I think "standing army" is here to stay.

    That said, there's a lot to be said about reducing the global footprint of our military and reserving it for protective purposes rather then aggressive ones. But that's a different conversation then debating it's mere existence.

  • Jerryskids||

    So while I'm unsure about the constitutional arguments, I think "standing army" is here to stay.

    The only Constitutional argument you need to know is that there's a provision right in the Constitution for amending it when it's found to be deficient in addressing new or unforeseen exigencies. Modern warfare certainly changes the way the military needs to work - somewhere between the invention of aircraft, automatic weapons and motorized troop transport and today you'd think somebody could have found the time to craft an amendment to the Constitution to replace the ad hoc delegation of authority to the President to wage war.

  • BYODB||

    Are you retarded Escher, because if memory serves our 'standing army' has been fighting goat herders and jackasses in the Middle East for over a decade now and we still haven't 'won'. We don't even know what the parameters for 'winning' are anymore. We're just there, with no end in sight.

  • Finrod||

    We'd won in Iraq before Obama's premature withdrawal. Then ISIS took over.

  • BYODB||

    If a withdrawal led to ISIS taking over, that isn't a 'win' by any metric that matters. Declaring a 'win' because we beat their conventional military forces is a fools game, as the last decade-and-a-half plus have shown.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    We would have had t keep only a small garrison in Iraq to prevent their military fr. falling apart. They needed our guys to act as their backbone until their people gained more experience. Since all the baathists were kicked out, nearly everyone in their miIitary was very inexperienced. Eventually this would no longer be the case, but 2011 was too early to withdraw those last 5,000-15,000 troops.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    And now you're moving the goalpost.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "[...] if memory serves our 'standing army' has been fighting goat herders and jackasses in the Middle East for over a decade now and we still haven't 'won'."
    Not retarded, just a different perspective.

    First-up, the problem with the middle-east is objectives, not manpower or capabilities. We set-up unreasonable objectives and ignored achievable objectives because of optics.

    If we'd gone for a straight-up imperialist approach of "we are occupying this territory, you are our unwilling subjects, and we will kill anyone that dissents"? The area would be pacified. But we'd also be tyrants, and that doesn't sell well. So here we are, still defending horrible goal-posts.

    But it's not a manpower or capability problem, it's politics getting in the way of warfare.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You hit the nail on the head. Vietnam had similar issues. When setting concrete logical objectives as part of a comprehensive plan to achieve a goal, our guys pretty much always win. If they're just hamfistedly thrown into the field, with no clear overall objectives, things don't work so well. Which is not the military's failure.

  • Zeb||

    A Navy is explicitly allowed by the Constitution. A standing army is explicitly forbidden.

    If it is necessary to have a standing army in today's world, then the constitution can be amended to allow for it.

  • Odysseus||

    A standing army is not explicitly forbidden.

    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12: [Congress shall have the Power] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

    All branches of the U.S. military are on one year appropriation schedules.

    At least that's my understanding of it. If you know of another line of reasoning, please share. I'm always keen on Constitutional thought and theory.

  • 68W58||

    Even if you got rid of the Army (and presumably the Air Force) we would still have a Navy (and presumably a Marine Corps), so it's not like the argument would just go away.

  • EscherEnigma||

    What, you think that private militias won't be able to afford aircraft carriers and jet fighters?

  • 68W58||

    Whatever private militias might or might not do is irrelevant, the Constitution clearly states that the government will "provide and maintain a Navy."

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The Constitution also clearly gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprise, which necessarily means that the founders had no problem with the private ownership of warships.

  • 68W58||

    Okay-but they still have to "provide and maintain a Navy", so we would still be having arguments about military policy.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    In the context of strict adherence to the Constitution, sure. Then again, this is Hit'n'Run - in Ancapistan, we'd still be having intense debates about whether Admiral Bob's Civil Defense Corp. or Amalgamated Privateer, Inc. had better customer service.

  • 68W58||

    I thought that in Ancapistan everyone would be either too high or too busy screwing their underage robot hookers to ever come into conflict.

  • Zeb||

    That's the hope.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Ideally, yes. I'm assuming that Ancapistan is not global in extent and there are still obsolete nation-states lurking on the fringes. There's nothing un-libertarian about people pooling their resources (voluntarily!) or outsourcing tasks to specialists, with regard to self-defense or anything else.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Solution: disband the military, replace with volunteer citizen militias whose sole purpose is homeland defense.

    You're welcome.

  • WakaWaka||

    The best comment I've ever seen on this site

  • Hugh Akston||

    It's the only sensible course.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    It's stupid beyond belief. Within a few decades, some country (probably China) would bully us into squalor, or just build themselves up until they could destroy us.

  • BYODB||

    Why would China destroy their most profitable trading partner in the world? Why would they sail to the other side of the planet to attack us in the first place?

    The last time the United States was actually attacked by another nation was Pearl Harbor, and it was an Island that we took by force just before that.

    Not to mention that, well, as pointed out above a Navy is authorized. What land-bridge, pray tell, connects us to China?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    WYf are you talking about? The US military is a responsibility of the US constitution. Don't even start with some semantically word games to try and prove otherwise. As if your amateur interpretation of the constitution is somehow going to yield a miraculous new revelation over it's interpretation.

    You're welcome to think China is not an adversary and has no interest in harming us, but they don't believe that. Read some of their party rhetoric. They are positioning themselves to grow their military for the express purpose of expanding their ability to dominate the South China Sea and the Oacifc through force and intimidation. It's not out of the question that if we largely disbanded our military that they would take advantage and use the threat of force to gain more wealth and influence.

  • BYODB||

    This. Standing armies are cancer and invite adventurism.

  • damikesc||

    This. Standing armies are cancer and invite adventurism.

    Unless you're the victim of said adventurism. Then they are self-defense.

    I don't think Ethiopia having a standing army is why Mussolini invaded.

  • BYODB||

    So in your view without a standing army there is no possibility of self-defense. I'll be sure to let the National Guard know.

  • damikesc||

    Using your logic, the existence of an army causes wars.

    So, again, what EXACTLY did Ethiopia do to warrant an invasion by Italy?

    We can also use Czechoslovakia in 39-40, if you'd like.

    I mean, if the army is why they were attacked --- then they had it coming, right?

  • EscherEnigma||

    In the sense the Founding Fathers meant it, the National Guard is a standing army.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Why would I ever thank you for that smug thoughtless bunch of horseshit that would lead to Armageddon? What an incredibly retarded thing to say. It's that kind of stupid shit that makes so many people laugh at libertarians.

    Christ, you might as well have ordered a bourbon and tomato juice out load in public.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Wow, you seem pretty hysterical. What frightens you so?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    No, I am calm, as I always am. I was merely replying to an incredibly idiotic statement. That you need to try and dismiss my criticism as 'hysterical' instead of defending the stupid thing you said.just underlines what an obtuse indefensible statement in the first place.

    Peace through strength works. Peace through weakness and capitulation just emboldens and strengthens tyrants.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Make America Straight Again

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Probably can in a few decades. I'm sure the science to cure deviant sexuality and at least the biological causes of transgender disorder will become available. Then probably evolving into part of a prenatal treatment that can correct a number of biological errros in the womb. Once that happens, probably very few LGBT bound babies will be born, as I'm. Guessing most parents will opt for the treatment if it's inexpensive.

  • paranoid android||

    I have to give Trump one thing: as far as manufactured controversies created to distract from internal scandals go, this is probably less harmful than the go-to move of bombing Iraq.

  • Jerryskids||

    Gives new meaning to "wagging the dog" don't it? Are you not entertained?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Sweet band name, though.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    This could be the basis for the forthcoming 'Suicide Squad' sequel.

  • Jerryskids||

    Now that it was safe to do so, transgender troops had begun to come out and serve openly as the gender with which they identify. And now that has become a trap: Those who believed that it was safe to be themselves and still be in the military could end up being purged.

    Live by the executive order, die by the executive order. Whether or not transsexualism is a mental disorder, believing any promises the government or the military makes is a sure sign of profound retardation.

  • Tony||

    Let's not fail to notice the fact that military leadership didn't know about this and, as is explained in this very article, the move was defended on the basis of electoral politics by the administration.

  • damikesc||

    Let's not fail to notice the fact that military leadership didn't know about this and, as is explained in this very article, the move was defended on the basis of electoral politics by the administration.

    Because Obama's order wasn't based on electoral politics at all.

  • Tony||

    Oh yeah because of all those trans votes he was in danger of losing to Republicans.

    Why I am actually a Democrat: they do stuff because it's right, on occasion. Can't say the same for Republicans. Not once, not ever in half a century have they done something just because it was right.

  • damikesc||

    Oh yeah because of all those trans votes he was in danger of losing to Republicans.

    Yeah, blue collar workers are completely supportive of Democrats.

    Why I am actually a Democrat: they do stuff because it's right, on occasion. Can't say the same for Republicans. Not once, not ever in half a century have they done something just because it was right.

    Not one thing?

    OK, they tried to give Bill Clinton the line item veto.

    That was wrong, apparently.

    I can name many other things...but you said you couldn't name ONE. Easy target there.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, you think that because you are a totally evil person. For you, the 'right thing' is a vile, evil idea or action to good people.

  • EscherEnigma||

    ... y'know, this really isn't unexpected from Trump.

    Far more interesting and revealing is this comment section.

    Because every now and then Shackford pens another article on how gays and Libertarians/libertarians are "natural allies", and whines that they aren't actual allies.

    He largely pins the blame for that on "progressives". Personally? I think he should take the time to read the comment section of his own articles. He might get an idea of why so many "natural allies" of libertarians want nothing to do with y'all.

  • WakaWaka||

    I'm also surprised when some 'libertarians' who supposedly believe in small government and getting the government out of someone's personal life, get riled up when people talk about cutting spending for Planned Parenthood, not funding transgender surgery, not having the government impose pee pee standards for private businesses, not expanding already existing public accommodation law, any form of religious accommodation etc.

    Maybe, you should think about what that says. Rockefeller Republican is not a very good look

  • paranoid android||

    Take your strawmans and fuck right the hell off. Literally no one you're castigating as a fake libertarian is saying it is the correct policy to have the Pentagon fully pay for transition surgeries. You have no interest in dealing with the opinions anyone actually expresses, so instead you invent people in your head to argue with.

    You should think about what it says about you when you constantly bend over backwards to defend the actions of a disastrously incompetent president who wants to rule like a king by making proclamations of fucking Twitter. You ought to be ashamed.

  • WakaWaka||

    Who is defending the president? I'm noting how the Rockefeller Republican positions espoused on this site (opposing efforts to stop local governments from instituting pee pee rules and lukewarm support for expanding protected classes, while viewing religious liberty as a 'black hole') are far from anything resembling smaller government.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Who is defending the president?
    ... lots of folks. Read the comment section. They aren't subtle.

  • Praveen R.||

    You wll find very few of us supporting government paying for sex change operations.

  • Azathoth!!||

    The libertarians are saying--

    "We shouldn't have a standing army."

    "We shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars to pay for gender reassignment surgery and pharmaceutical upkeep"

    "We shouldn't be treating individuals differently based on 'feels"

    You know, libertarian things.

    Libertarians and the leftists that have destroyed the LGBT rights movement aren't allies.

    Libertarians and LGBT people with functioning brains are.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "So people who think they were born in the wrong body and want to cut parts off are sane--if those parts are breasts and genitalia--but people who think they were born in the wrong body and want to cut parts off are INSANE if those parts are limbs or eyes or digits." - Azathoth!!

    If you can't understand why that would make libertarian-leaning LGBT folk say "fuck this noise, I'll find a party where I'm wanted", then you don't understand humans.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Libertarian leaning transfolk (what I said had nothing to do with lesbians, gay men, or bisexuals) know that they have a problem. They know there's something wrong.

    Leftists think gender dysphoria is just sunshine and rainbows--or would be if the haters would just stop.

    It's not. It's a serious condition that requires treatment. That's what gender reassignment surgery--as well as hormone treatments are--TREATMENTS. For a problem.

  • labman57||

    "This forces Democrats in Rust Belt states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin to take complete ownership of this issue. How will blue collar voters in these states respond when senators up for reelection in 2018 like Debbie Stabenow are forced to make their opposition to this a key plank of their campaigns?"

    So the Trump Administration is deliberately persecuting an entire demographic group of Americans as a political ploy to impact the 2018 elections?
    That's their rationalization? They would do just as well to admit their deep-rooting fear and loathing for the entire LGBT community.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Trump may not hate LGBT folks or wish them any ill will, but that doesn't mean he actually cares a whole lot about what happens to them.

    So he's a real politician after all!

  • chemjeff||

    Banning transgendered people in all capacities? Even as paper-pushers at the Pentagon? That seems a bit too far.

  • WakaWaka||

    True. Makes no sense. Should have just banned paying for the surgery. This is a tad vindictive

  • ||

    Wait, as libertarians I thought we were okay with kicking people out of keeping people off the public dote even if it made us look like assholes? That it was doubly true for people nominally or actually associated with war making?

    I mean, no reason to exclude trannies from our dronessassination program, right?

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    'Ey, look at friggin Eisenstein over here! He gets it.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I for one will sleep much more soundly knowing that American military bases aren't infested with trannies rubbing their plastic penises all over the MRAPs they're supposed to be maintaining or the reports they're supposed to be analyzing.

    Tha...that's what trannies do, right?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    They also run Bingo games, or so television would have me believe.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    They also have a tendency to indiscriminately leak classified documents without having any idea what's in them, and committing suicide, apparently.

  • Jgalt1975||

    Sergei?

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    He was smart and perceptive too. Why should Einstein get all the love?

  • ||

    Even as paper-pushers at the Pentagon?

    *Stares hard at the issue of Pentagon paper-pushers being classified as warriors.*

    Anybody know if they check for trannies at the post office?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    "I NEEDS TA CHECK YA JUNKHOLE."

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Yeah, that's the part that makes it kind of shitty of him. If he was really concerned about "the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail" he could have asked Congress not to fund gender re-assignment surgeries or other medical procedures (such as hormone treatment). And maybe a ban on serving in frontline combat units, although as others have pointed out upthread it's unlikely that grunts really care what their fellow soldiers are into as long as they can count on them to do their job and have their back. Also, there's not much in the way of actual evidence that it causes disruptions to unit cohesion or anything like that.

    But both parties love to use these culture war issues to keep their bases stirred up. I doubt very many Democrat politicians really care that much either about whether trannies can serve openly in the military or not either, they're just cynically using them too.

  • paranoid android||

    Yeah, that's the part that makes it kind of shitty of him. If he was really concerned about "the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail" he could have asked Congress not to fund gender re-assignment surgeries or other medical procedures (such as hormone treatment).

    For context, a proposed amendment to the NDAA that would do exactly that (block the military from paying for reassignment surgeries) was voted down in the House a few days ago. This appears to be in part an end run around that.

  • BYODB||

    Yep. This appears to be a direct response to that. I would wager that if Congress passed it, this wouldn't have happened. Not saying it was a good idea or a bad idea, but funding non-necessary plastic surgery and elective hormone treatments shouldn't be the business of the military. These people are well paid; pay for your own damn elective surgery after you get out of the service.

    Not sure why that's so damn complicated. Same goes for boob jobs and other elective procedures.

  • Vernon Depner||

    "There are thousands of transgender troops serving in the military. The exact number cannot be determined easily…"

    The number can't be determined at all because there is no coherent definition of "transgender".

    "…they were not allowed to serve openly and were discharged if they revealed being transgender."

    Is it even conceptually possible to be secretly "transgender"? Isn't saying you're "transgender" and acting on that assertion the only possible measure of whether you are?

    "Those who believed that it was safe to be themselves and still be in the military could end up being purged."

    Couldn't they just start wearing the correct uniform again and stay?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Oh, and...don't you mean safe to NOT be themselves?

  • Tony||

    It's not about bigotry. It's not politics, even though that's exactly what they said it was. It's sartorial correctness.

  • paranoid android||

    In related news, I've got a GREAT idea for avoiding conscription if they reinstate the draft...

  • Vernon Depner||

    I actually think that was the main reason they ended the gay ban.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Nah.

    The courts were looking like they were going to rule DADT was unconstitutional, so Congress beat them to it as a way to maintain control over the process. As a bonus, it meant they didn't have to worry about back-pay (which would have been a problem if the courts had ruled).

  • The Last American Hero||

    Corporal Klinger finally gets his wish!

  • Elias Fakaname||

    All Klinger had to do was get caught porking Radar.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Some of us had been hoping these shifts toward accepting LGBT folks would mean that this part of the culture war—and the heavy partisanship that had come to define it—would fade.

    Fat chance. Without culture war bullshit to keep people distracted they might have to actually try and do something about real problems like the $20 trillion+ national debt. Better to keep people divided over stupid petty shit. Otherwise they might realize just how badly they're getting fucked over.

    One thing both parties have made abundantly clear is that neither one can actually "govern" so culture wars is all they really have. I can't entirely blame them, after all this is clearly what most people actually care about. Shit, just look at the number of comments the previous post, Health Care Bill's Senate Defeat Paves Way For Rand Paul's 'Clean Repeal' Bill; Vote Expected Soon has gotten as of now (15) compared to the number of comments on this post (156 and counting).

    Clearly this is what the people really care about. Not healthcare reform or the mountain of debt or the never ending undeclared wars in every middle east shithole. It's all about trannies in the military.

  • ||

    Shit, just look at the number of comments the previous post, Health Care Bill's Senate Defeat Paves Way For Rand Paul's 'Clean Repeal' Bill; Vote Expected Soon has gotten as of now (15) compared to the number of comments on this post (156 and counting).

    Yeah, I'm sure the magazine is completely free of any/all responsibility in this regard.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Yeah, I'm sure the magazine is completely free of any/all responsibility in this regard.

    I never said they weren't. I'm sure they're loving all the page views these kinds of posts generate. Stirring up shit is good for their business. I just find it a little irritating that even libertarians*, many of whom claim to not care about culture war bullshit, end up commenting endlessly about trannies in the military while posts about other more important issues can barely crack double digits in number of comments. I don't know... something about "stated preferences vs revealed preferences" I guess.

    And yes, I recognize the irony and hypocrisy of me commenting here too.

    *Although a cursory glance above seems like most of the comments aren't coming from actual libertarians but various stupid trolls flinging shit all over the thread.

  • ||

    I thought it was an excellent observation.

    Numbers update: 19 for an article about healthcare policy, 244 for trannies.

    And the magazine doesn't force us to comment on one thread over the other, so I think their culpability is rather small. We really do care about KULTURE WAR!!! much more than fiscal health (if one is to equate commenting numbers with level of care).

  • BYODB||

    I actually care more about health policy, but so far there are no real details on what the Senate plans to do so there isn't anything to really talk about. It's also somewhat true that transgenderism is a more entertaining topic to debate.

  • Zeb||

    Or maybe we just like arguing and there is more disagreement about trannies and Muslims, so those threads get long.

  • ||

    And the magazine doesn't force us to comment on one thread over the other, so I think their culpability is rather small.

    Bullshit. They don't force us, but 'Washington makes sausage. Lead sausage maker expects sausage to be finished sometime' reporting vs. 'Evil Mogul cum President Tweets. Who will be affected?' isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.

    Further, both internally (to the site) and exogenously, there has been at least one (that I'm aware of) Exodus or purge of people who would more willingly debate 'Washington makes sausage.' As CA points out, he didn't say the magazine was free from responsibility, my point is that it's tubes connecting echo chambers all the way down.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    That's really the crux of it. Having addressed every major civil rights issue, progressives are focusing on the remaining 0.01% of the population because their agenda is completely bereft of substance otherwise. Their big solution to the decline of the industrial Midwest is to train former millwrights, miners, and construction workers as coders. Simultaneously, they pimp for increased numbers of H-1Bs (because diversity is our strength!) that ends up crowding those same people out of the market, despite the plentiful evidence that qualified labor shortages don't actually exist to the extent that the H-1Bs are required.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Their big solution to the decline of the industrial Midwest is to train former millwrights, miners, and construction workers as coders.

    Meanwhile, here in Denver, we have a shortfall of ~10,000 in qualified construction workers.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Meanwhile, here in the Rust Belt, unemployed construction workers can't consider moving to Denver because they're upside-down on their mortgage and dependent on their wives' incomes.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    A lot of construction workers couldn't afford to buy a house in Denver these days, even at relatively higher salaries. Hell, I feel lucky we got in the market when we did a couple years ago before it got too crazy, and even then, we had to get a place in the sticks because the ones in town were getting multiple bids way out of our budget range.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    So, you're saying major policy announcements shouldn't be made on a platform limited to 140 characters at a shot?

  • Dillinger||

    shouldn't McCain run for president if he wants to dictate how the president should act?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    McCain should just finally fucking retire, and let the governor appoint a replacement who isn't a fucking RINO.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    The government isn't treating people fairly, and making decisions based on political calculation with no regard for the impact on people's lives, and we're what? Surprised by this?

    And those of us who don't trust politicians are the crazy ones?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    But remember, @realDonald is totally just his personal Twitter account and is in no way being used for official business!

  • Jgalt1975||

    Came for someone to point out the obvious use of Trump's personal account to make official policy statements; left satisfied.

  • B.P.||

    So you're again making the argument that a twitter account is some sort of public accommodation?

  • ||

    If this can posiibly be constitutional, absolutely anything can.

  • Jgalt1975||

    Why wouldn't it be constitutional? To the best of my knowledge there are no Supreme Court decisions holding that being transgender is a protected class.

  • ||

    It is unequal treatment. Is there any legitimate reason that would allow the government- not a private business, the big government itself- discriminate against people based on their identity?

  • colorblindkid||

    Because "identity" has become a bullshit nonsensical concept thanks to the idiots on the left. This entire thing is basically a non-issue that both sides are intent on making one.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    This isn't for a civilian job. It's the military, and you should scroll up a bit, it's been covered. The mi,Italy excludes all kinds of groups it deems unfit for service on a wide variety of criteria. As they should.

  • ||

    If this can posiibly be constitutional, absolutely anything can.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Oh bullshit. That statement tells me you don't have any real understanding of the constitution.

  • Ghatanathoah||

    Trump and other conservatives might talk about how our military is weak and needs to be stronger, but asinine decisions like this show they don't really believe that. Not accepting perfectly qualified soldiers because they are transgender weakens the military. It definitely weakens it more than failing to throw giant piles of money at overpriced defense contractors.

    Israel is in far more danger of attack than the USA and it allows transgender soldiers. If transpeople serving in a military actually impacted it's ability to fight, it seems really strange that a country as imperiled as Israel would allow it. This indicates that the generals Trump met with are just using fighting effectiveness as an excuse for right-wing political correctness.

    I can't say I'm surprised Trump was gullible enough to believe them. But I'm pretty annoyed that we apparently have a bunch of generals that put their feelings ahead of national security.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin||

    Yay! Well said! The rest of your "libertarian" compatriots above are doing what they usually do. Making jokes to excuse Dear Leader's bigotry.

    Like you, I simply think Trump is out of his league.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Israel is in far more danger of attack than the USA and it allows transgender soldiers.

    Israel would be fucked if it wasn't for US military aid and 27 years worth of this country taking out its enemies in the Middle East. The presence of transgenders in their armed forces is completely irrelevant to their relative safety.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "Not accepting perfectly qualified soldiers because they are transgender weakens the military."

    Assuming facts not in evidence. Just because Obama, a communist traitor, who sought to weaken the military, and use it for his despicable social experiments, as one might use a Petri dish, deemed them 'fit', means nothing. Actual military leaders, who, you know, actually serve in the military and understand this shit were telling a Trump that keeping trannys was a bad idea.

    So apparently, it was problematic to keep them in the military.

  • Crusty Juggler :)||

    I don't care what your gender is, I just want you to keep the dipshit scumbagetta islamonazis from cutting my throat.

  • ||

    The RAND study I mentioned above examined 18 countries where transgender troops are permitted, and it did not find problems with readiness or unit cohesion.

    God. Fucking. Dammit! Reason seems to have a knack for framing this issue as a lose-lose (or win-win) scenario and then picking the shittiest pseudo-libertarian reasons for choosing a heretofore unrecognized third and yet shittier 'lose' option.

    A study from the croniest of crony corporations tells vaguely assures us that inferior/superfluous fighting forces of nations that couldn't give two shits about libertarty/libertariansim have seen no diminishing of effectiveness as the result of admitting transgender soldiers; so it's copacetic to not just accept and accommodate but even pay for trannies in our military?

    You're pretty much fucking over the excessive government spending *and* the NAP with this stance. Reason Magazine: Only against war boners in as much as trannies aren't getting their fair share.

  • Tony||

    Much more reasonable to expel 15,000 members of the armed forces because mad.casual feels slightly icky.

  • ||

    Much more reasonable to expel 15,000 members of the armed forces because mad.casual feels slightly icky.

    Yup, not comfortable with being forced to pay 15,000 *more* people to kill other people on my behalf. I freely admit it. Maybe if the number were *up from* 15,000 and closer to 1-2,000 more *or* it were being done entirely without my contribution I might be cool with it but that's not even remotely the case.

    I'm curious, Tony, is there any corporation that singularly embodies the military industrial complex as defined by the totality of Eisenhower's speech more than the RAND Corporation? I mean, it's pretty clear that you'd sell your soul in support of them to nominally "stand against" Trump('s tweeting) but is there one that you would do so more willingly?

  • Tony||

    You seem to be quite distracted from the issue at hand.

  • BYODB||

    And you appear to have made up a number of people who would be kicked out of the military out of thin air, much like how the article made up a number out of thin air.

  • Tony||

    "How many people does it take before it becomes wrong?"
    --Jean-Luc Picard

  • Vernon Depner||

    "There are FOUR lights!"—Jean-Luc Picard

  • EscherEnigma||

    Yup, not comfortable with being forced to pay 15,000 *more* people to kill other people on my behalf.
    Huh?

    If any trans* folk are discharged over this, they'll be replaced. So if that's your concern, this is at best a neutral.

  • ||

    If any trans* folk are discharged over this, they'll be replaced. So if that's your concern, this is at best a neutral.

    Again, it'd be great just to rely on fundamental libertarian principles of NAP, non-interventionism, responsible/no/shrinking (military) spending... but apparently getting a dick cut off or sewn on magically voids those.

    If Trump tweeted that he was going to reduce military personnel by 15,000 randomly, would faux (or just plain not) libertarians like you side with Tony be whining about the jerbz? Stability in the ME? I guess 'pals' is gender-neutral right?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Three things.

    First, my point was that if you're approaching this from a "cut military spending" angle, then this is at best neutral because it isn't a cut, just a shift. It's also quite probable that because of recruitment costs, it will lead to increases in spending as the military attempts to maintain the same manpower after being forced to discharge otherwise-qualified soldiers (remember: retention is almost always cheaper then recruitment).

    Second, I'm not a libertarian or Libertarian. I have never claimed to be. I am consistently sympathetic with libertarians/Libertarians on some issues, but I have enough larger disagreements with both the philosophy, and the people it attracts, to keep me from throwing my hat in with you fuckers.

    Third, if Trump had randomly tweeted that he was axing 15,000 military jobs this conversation would not be about discrimination, it would instead focus on the "is Trump listening to his Chiefs of Staff and coordinating and working with them". Which, admittedly, is part of the on-going conversation. But instead of being the side-show, it would be the main course.

    Fourth, I suspect you'll never read this 'cause I came back a day later, but what can ya do? If you do see and respond, I'll probably never see for the same reason. Ah well, such is life.

  • Jgalt1975||

    nations that couldn't give two shits about liberty/libertarianism

    What does that have to do with the accuracy of the study? And how does being pro "liberty/libertarianism" support excluding transgender individuals from the military?

  • ||

    What does that have to do with the accuracy of the study?

    Setting aside that there's no presumption of innocence or respect for scientific integrity with regard to transnational military strategy studies, battle effectiveness is the wrong answer to the wrong question.

    ISIS and the Chechens have been far more effective than many/most of the 18 nations/armies in a wide variety of metrics, why exclude them? Ickiness? Social policy?

    And how does being pro "liberty/libertarianism" support excluding transgender individuals from the military?

    Show me the clause in the NAP that exempts transgendered persons from the opposition to expansion/use of military force? How about the one in the precepts regarding the free market? How about the general trend of militaristic isolationism?

    If he had made the argument that some other independent analysis had shown that trans-tolerant fighting forces were more efficient per dollar or tended to commit fewer warcrimes, he might have approached something reasonably resembling an argument. But it's not out there and doesn't exist and, if it does, that's not the argument he took.

    Instead, from a libertarian perspective, we get the equivalent of 'I polled 18 of Satan's minions for advice on killing people and spending money, and they all said it was even money. So I took the bet.'

  • chemjeff||

    Quick! Check what Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson said last night on Fox News. If they had some report on transgendered people doing something, that must be the reason why Trump is now banning transgendered from the military.

  • WakaWaka||

    Sean Hannity repeats what the president says and Tucker is too busy yelling at some local community college professor.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Hugh Akston|7.26.17 @ 11:15AM|#

    You know who else gets costly tax-funded medical treatments? Soldiers who get injured...

    Surgery to change ones naughty-bits is an elective surgery and should, therefor, not be done at taxpayer expense. I doubt anyone here thinks that soldiers injured in the line of duty don't deserve taxpayer funded healthcare for said injury.

    Additionally, to address The Donalds tweet, he is absolutely correct that taxpayers should not be liable for trans surgery.

  • Tony||

    The cost has got to be negligible, so that makes it a question of values.

    And since the administration admitted that its value concern is cynical electoral politics, we don't even have to wonder.

  • Rebel Scum||

    cost has got to be negligible

    Pennies add up. Most of what the federal gov't does in indv. depts is small when compared to the whole of spending. So, fuck you, cut spending.

  • Tony||

    Well talking about the medical costs to transgender people is changing the subject. Trump banned them all outright.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Well talking about the medical costs to transgender people is changing the subject.

    No, it isn't. It is a rationale used in the statement from the president that you are criticizing. But, nice try.

    Trump banned them all outright.

    And?

  • Tony||

    Then they gave the real reason--to rile up voters in Ohio.

    Fun fact I just learned: the Pentagon spends $84 million/year on Viagra.

  • Rebel Scum||

    the Pentagon spends $84 million/year on Viagra.

    If that's true, I disagree with it and think that it should not happen. Having principles is a good thing, T. You should try it sometime.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I would never trust any alleged statement of fact from a Tony. His track record, and honesty, are sorely lacking.

  • Rebel Scum||

    the Pentagon spends $84 million/year on Viagra.

    If that's true, I disagree with it and think that it should not happen. Having principles is a good thing, T. You should try it sometime.

  • Tony||

    So we agree that Trump has no principles, is using cost as an excuse, and the real reason is cynical politics. So glad when we can come to an agreement on things.

  • Tony||

    FTR, the viagra cost is 5 times the cost of transgender medical care.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No one agrees with you on shit Tony, you fucking lying piece of shit. So many straw men spun from shit every time you post.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No one agrees with you on shit Tony, you fucking lying piece of shit. So many straw men spun from shit every time you post.

  • BYODB||

    Cool. Lets cut that shit too if it's used 'recreationally'.

  • Vernon Depner||

    It's easy to imagine a soldier needing Viagra due to wounds or service-related conditions. I wouldn't have a problem with the government paying for it in such cases.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Viagra restores normal functioning.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Birth control disrupts normal functioning. Gender re-assignment disrupts normal functioning. Both work to provide an other-than normal state for the user. A voluntarily entered state.

    Having parts of your body that weren't working restored to a working condition is what medicine is all about.

  • Finrod||

    Since you say it's 'negligible', that means you get to pay for it.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Surgery to change ones naughty-bits is an elective surgery and should, therefor, not be done at taxpayer expense.

    Seems like he could have addressed the cost issue by perhaps asking Congress to defund sex re-assignment surgeries for military personnel instead of banning them from serving "in any capacity." Or ban any "elective" surgery, and therefore avoid any perception of targeting trannies.

  • Rebel Scum||

    instead of banning them from serving "in any capacity."

    This is the first step in the negotiation that will result in: defund sex re-assignment surgeries for military personnel. It's a distraction. It will gin up controversy. It will make the ultimate goal more palatable to more people. This is how the man works. See the muslim "ban" for reference.

  • ||

    This is how the man works. See the muslim "ban" for reference.

    The wall has yet to go up but immigration is down and Mexico is (was) paying for it. I don't like the man but his first 180 days have, thus far not been unequivocally or catastrophically better or worse than any President's in my memory (Obama, W, Clinton). I mean, if Obama taught us anything it's that a pledge to close Gitmo on Day 1 can be made and we can even continue to torture prisoners at precisely zero political cost.

  • Brandybuck||

    The military is not segregated by gender anyway, it's segregated by sex. I mean, duh! Doesn't matter how the soldier identifies, if he has male parts then he's a male and gets assigned to the male dorms and wears the male uniform. Because it's about one's biological sex, not one's social role. Because in the military, the only social role is to ask "how high" when the officer says "jump".

  • Memory Hole||

    People should be judged individually. I'm quite sure there are transpeople who are better soldiers than not transpeople. I guarantee if we were facing an invasion you fuckers would beg these transpeople to pick up a rifle.

  • Crusty Juggler :)||

    People should be judged individually.

    Not if they're icky.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Is "transpeople" really the preferred nomenclature? That sounds more like how you'd describe, say, a chinchilla* that had surgery in order to look like a human.

    *Not to get Crusty going.

  • Memory Hole||

    I didn't give it much thought really. People are people as far as I'm concerned.

  • ||

    People should be judged individually.

    Not in the military. We have a specific UCMJ for precisely this reason. Blindly following orders and killing someone is OK. Exercising individual judgement and not killing someone is not OK. Because war.

    Conflating the social policy experiment with the war machine without even a whiff of appreciably diminishing either one should be plainly unlibertarian for all kinds of reasons.

    The notion that our military exists as a ragtag collection of volunteers specifically asked to defend our borders has been a falsehood for at least the better part of a century. Libertarians universally recognize the military for something the GOP doesn't, a graft machine (or the GOP does but strives to maintain the auspices of defense). Apparently, as long as the graft machine is functioning in their favor and against their particular GOP target(s), it's a wash.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    It isn't that simple. There are a number of disruptive things that have to happen to accommodate them in various jobs and military living conditions. It's just easier not to take any of them. And the mi,itrpary isn't their to be inclusive. It's their to do a job.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No, i wouldn't. You really have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin||

    Let's say you have a 20 year old biological male who identifies as female. Said person is well-adjusted, intelligent, physically fit, a straight-A student, and a crack shot. Why shouldn't that person be allowed in the military, again?

    For fuck's sake right-wingers, at least pretend to be interested in limited government. It makes the arguments you make on behalf of lowering taxes on billionaires not so subject to credulous laughter. Because you'll be a billionaire soon, right?

  • Mickey Rat||

    Will that person object to being held to male PT standards or will they demand to be held to female PT standards? Will the biogical females be required to bunk and shower with them?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Then there is all the problems these people have psychologically. Which is why they sent decades lobbying to become a protected class based on TG being a disability. Now they're all supposed to be Captain America.

    The bleeding hearts here are all soft in the fucking head. You would think this is HuffPo based on comments like the one you just responded to.

  • ||

    For fuck's sake right-wingers, at least pretend to be interested in limited government.

    Go fuck yourself for advocating hiring another paid soldier and using this as an argument against Trump/the GOP.

  • EscherEnigma||

    ... there's two scenarios where a person being trans matters in this context.

    (A) Retaining or discharging a trans soldier. In the case of retaining, the soldier is already "hired". In the case of discharging, that discharge will go into the calculation of recruitment goals for the next year.

    (B) Recruiting a trans soldier. In this case, if a recruiter is prohibited from recruiting a trans person, that doesn't mean they'll just close shop. It means they'll find someone else.

    In neither case does banning trans folk lead to a smaller military with fewer paid soldiers. As far as size-of-military goes, this is a neutral decision.

    That said, when you add arbitrary criteria like this, it does impact quality-of-military, as recruitment/retention decisions are obligated to ignore merit in favor of other criteria. See the problems under DADT with gay Arabic translators being discharged.

  • ||

    ... there's two scenarios where a person being trans matters in this context.
    ...
    In neither case does banning trans folk lead to a smaller military with fewer paid soldiers. As far as size-of-military goes, this is a neutral decision.

    First, your asserted contexts are in no way any implication of any sort of policy. Even if we take them at face value, then it's actually a neutral decision that only invokes libertarian ire/praise one way or the other based on the growth/reduction of government military spending. Otherwise, we're talking about a right to serve your country and to all the free shit that entails.

    See the problems under DADT with gay Arabic translators being discharged.

    How many of these translators were required to meet the military's PT standards? Why are translators voided under such standards (sexuality or physical performance) when any commander in a war zone can deputize/nationalize a regional pashtun or mujahideen nobody for essentially the same role? Why are we even asking these questions about a region we should've washed our hands of, militarily, two presidencies ago?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Let's say you have a 20 year old biological male who identifies as female. Said person is well-adjusted

    We can't.

    This--

    Let's say you have a 20 year old biological male who identifies as female.

    Precludes this--

    Said person is well-adjusted

    Gender dysphoria is a severe mental illness. You cannot be 'well adjusted' and have it. Having it is the very definition of maladjusted--your body and mind do not fit together.

    How can you not understand this? Do you know anyone that has it? They can be wonderful people, great friends, but they are, very definitely not 'well-adjusted'.

    And people want tax cuts for themselves--if the rich get them too, who cares? So long as everyone gets to keep more of what they earn everythings good.

  • Tony||

    Trans people suffer from more than average numbers of mental illnesses. That is entirely the result of how society treats trans people. So is Trump's action helping that, do you think?

  • Mickey Rat||

    That is a very dubious assertion.

  • ||

    That is entirely the result of how society treats trans people.

    This is, practically without question, a falsehood. An untested and indirectly counterfactual hypothesis at best.

    Like saying the suicide rate among blacks or low-income white Americans is entirely the result of how society treats them. Except there are many fewer trans people to test or validate any/all assertions on.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Actually Black Americans have the lowest suicide rate of any major ethnic group.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Trans people suffer from a severe mental illness right from the get-go. It is often coupled to others as well as being a source of still more--like depression.

    This would be so even if society treated them differently.

    Because their bodies and their minds don't mesh.

    And while surgery can make them LOOK more like they think they should, they do not actually FEEL much different. Because the surgery is cosmetic. It gives the the appearance of the other sex--it does not actually correct the underlying problem.

    Which is, actually, my only real problem with it.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I have met a handful of trans people. I know two reasonably well. I would describe both as well adjusted. I certainly never saw any sign that they couldn't function normally in society and both are quite successful.

  • Tony||

    Well your two anecdotes settle it!

  • Memory Hole||

    President Jon Snow would not approve.

  • Praveen R.||

    The whole logic fails when it comes to defending this because it saves on medical costs. There is nothing preventing a regular looking soldier from turning tranny later on.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Regular-Looking Soldier was my nickname in ROTC.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    My favorite anarchist Twitter troll Michael Malice is killing it after this one

  • ||

    Serving in the military is just as much of a right as voting, getting married, and health care.

    Damn.

    Ed Krayewski‏ @edkrayewski 3h3 hours ago

    It comes off as really petty and almost pants-shitting to just have a blanket ban of a class of people who might want to go die for country

    Without the government how will transpeople wage violent, lopsided wars in 3rd world hellholes?!

  • Tony||

    So this guy thinks there shouldn't be a right to vote?

  • ||

    So this guy thinks there shouldn't be a right to vote?

    He is an anarchist. It's unclear as to how far his opposition to the right to vote extends. That is, one group's voting to eliminate gays and trans people from the face of the Earth has little-to-no bearing on making it so or legitimizing it.

    But, of course, the point being that there's no purely Constitutional protection for any of these rights and/or that things are being made up as we go along.

  • Tony||

    Things are legitimate or not because random internet dude says so? The idea of *supporting* anarchy, apart from being a near-oxymoron, is plain incoherent.

  • ||

    Things are legitimate or not because random internet dude says so?

    No. Things asserted to be self-evidently true are so. Declaring a set of things to be self-evidently true and then altering those things and/or shoehorning more things in as you stumble upon them is a near-oxymoron. Otherwise, it would still be plainly true that states could generally decide that only white land-owners could vote and slaves would constitute 3/5 of a vote.

  • Tony||

    I have no idea what you are trying to say.

  • Mickey Rat||

    He cannot think of any other class of people the military turns away as a matter of course?

    That is a preciously naive argument.

  • Bruce Majors||

    What are LGBTQ people? What do gays and lesbians have in common with transgender people?

  • Tony||

    A society that treats them like shit.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Yeah the ME is a pretty fucked up place

  • Tony||

    "At least we're not Saudi Arabia!"

    Not exactly the party of Reagan anymore is it?

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    "Not exactly the party of Reagan anymore is it?"

    This is an odd time to be complimenting the GOP on its progress

  • ||

    Not exactly the party of Reagan anymore is it?

    It does seem very much like a return to the Party of Lincoln.

  • Tony||

    Well, second-best to Lincoln anyway. So good he doesn't have time to act presidential, but he totally could. It's easy, he just chooses not to. For the people.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, you live in a country that to,erases not only your personal paraphilia, but currently your communist subversion. You probably should have been executed for treason years ago. It's also not enough for you to be allowed to indulge your paraphilia, but you want endless accommodations for it, all at the expense of the taxpayer.

    Just be grateful you don't live anywhere in it's of the rest of the world, where your personal proclivities nor your treasonous politics would be tolerated at all.

  • lap83||

    None of them can agree on a coherent definition of gender?

  • Vernon Depner||

    The "transgender" concept, that ones body type must comport with ones thoughts, feelings, and behavior, is in fact antithetical to the concept of gay liberation.

  • Tony||

    Republican senators and such officially opposing this, whatever it is. Tweet directive. Lest we forget, where this anti-trans bigotry gambit has been tested it proved a losing issue for the Republican asshole trying to exploit it.

  • lap83||

    Who will run the military bake sales after we transfer all of their funding to the schools?

  • ||

    The twitter quote above about 'the right to serve' made me think that, in some (apparently libertarian-leaning) minds a LGBTQ person's 2A rights exceed a baker's 1A rights. Literally pulling a gun on a baker and forcing them to bake and sell you a wedding cake is okay as long as you don't actually shoot them. The only thing that's not 100% clear is on whether it's okay to use the gun to force them to put the same-gendered couple on top.

  • Tony||

    But it's freedom when taxpayer-funded goons with actual (not metaphorical) guns come and drag gay people out of bakeries.

  • lap83||

    Did you have that bad dream again? There are no Trumpalos hiding in your closet, remember? We already checked.

  • Juice||

    Damn, Tony. Still on that "it's just a policy choice" kick? It's not a matter of how cops are funded or whether there is a monopoly police force or whatever. That's a totally separate issue.

    The question is about self-ownership and personal property rights. It's not the same thing when force is used to have someone do labor for you as it is to have someone removed from your property. They aren't simply two sides of the same coin. One is a violation of individual rights. The other is protection of them. Kicking someone out of your house is not the same thing as kidnapping them. It doesn't matter whether cops or guns or whatever are involved.

  • Tony||

    The question is about self-ownership and personal property rights.

    Which is a precise rewording of "The question is who gets the taxpayer-funded goons on their side?"

    People have an individual right not to be discriminated against in public accommodations because of their race, sex, disability status, or religion. It's on the books. Some jurisdictions (but not the United States itself) include sexual orientation. Society chose which side gets the individual right in this specific case a long time ago, and it chose not to favor property rights to the extent of permitting discrimination. Because property rights are not and never have been absolute.

  • Mickey Rat||

    There you go again, trying to impose your religion on other people.

  • Juice||

    Which is a precise rewording of "The question is who gets the taxpayer-funded goons on their side?"

    I gotta say, that's not a bad debate tactic. Just obtusely pretend like you didn't understand what the other person said whatsoever. That way you don't have to rebut or even acknowledge the argument at all.

    People have an individual right not to be discriminated against in public accommodations because of their race, sex, disability status, or religion. It's on the books.

    Lots of things are "on the books." That doesn't mean they are rights. Most things "on the books" are violations of individual rights.

    And then you use the ambiguous phrase "public accommodations" like it means something.

    Can you give me a specific definition of the term, please?

  • Vernon Depner||

    42 U.S.C. §2000a(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence. (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station;

    (3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, you advocate for taxpayer funded goons to abuse private citizens to suit your totalitarian whims all the time. I guess it's just not as much fun when someone else is holding the nightstick, is it you commie piece of shit?

  • mtrueman||

    Just what the country needs, a purge of the military. The president and his top generals seem right behind it.

  • Free Oregon||

    Not even cannon fodder?

  • Robert||

    Air Force Staff Sgt. Ashleigh Buch,


    You can't make this stuff up.

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

  • Amogin||

    Talk about cutting off one's nose etc. During the height of the Iraqi war, when Arabic speakers were both scarce and necessary- the military dishonorably discharged a gay soldier fluent in Arabic. The armed forces have spent many millions of dollars training soldiers and now because the president needs to win back Brietbart, the Drudge report and Rush Limbaugh all that training will be discarded. All these personel who want to serve will not only be precluded but if they are already in the military, discharged, either honorably or dishonorably hasn't been decided. Never was there a more dispicable reason for a presidential tweet storm, unless it is this president's ridiculous war with his own AG. The military has said that no one was consulted or aware of what the President intended to do/ Nothing like being called out for lying by the people you will attempt to order to fight a war.

  • Tony||

    This president is, like, a really smart person. Just because he got a draft deferment for a foot fungus or whatever doesn't mean he isn't smarter than all the generals just like he says.

    And if not, we'll have these libertarians here working on the cutting edge of liberty to oppose his crass bigotry.

    Or they'll be the absolute last ones to the fight save for cousin-fucking evangelicals as usual. Whatever.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Tony's life: RapedByMyCousinNowAFag

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Transgender is not gay, you dope.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Years ago, I attempted to join the military.

    I did great on all the written tests--and on most of the physical ones.

    Most.

    I have a slight nystagmus in my left eye. It twitches slightly back and forth horizontally.

    I sat for four hours in a processing center while a corporal searched for a way that the military could cover the surgery it would take to maybe fix it.

    They couldn't.

    So I didn't get to join.

    And that was that. No one's fighting to let nystagmus sufferers into the military. We just can't join.

    Sometimes your disability precludes getting to be in the military. And that's just that. Do something else.

  • Ishmael||

    I have good reason to state, 'Go Trump!' on this one:

    1st me: I am a Gulf War & GWOT Eras Navy Vet. I was discharged after being Medivaced to Bethesda Naval Hospital in Dec 2013 & unable to be world deployable to the Gulf for 4th Deployment due to injuries. I am now considered 70% treated as 100% disabled due to injuries including a broken back & more.

    I moved to Minnesota in June 2013 following a divorce, from New Orleans. The care I received in New Orleans was good enough for me to somewhat function. When arriving at Rochester Outpatient Clinic, I was greeted by the then Director as, "I don't like your treatment, because You Are A White Male". No exam. No review of record. No review of my disabling injuries which have made my cost of payment 40 pounds of flesh - not 1. Literally! Since then Liberal Progressive ideology states legacies need to 'age out' & die off?!?

    Now, Manning. Convicted Traitor during time of war. Fact. Stop your inner dialogue. Because Transgender it gets over an estimated $1.1MM USD 'Healthcare Service' because of gender dysforia?!? Then pardoned by Liberal Progressive Seditious Traitor?

    Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME?!

    Give me the pro LGBTQ Traitor debate based on the facts - not crybaby feelings - and I might listen... or tell any snowflakes to shut the fuck up on this one for me... that would be thanks appreciated in my book!

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    What does anybody want to bet that this had a large something to do with McCain crossing the aisle on the health care vote? A nice little "up yours!" to The Donald, yeah?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online