MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump's Second Attempt to Ban Transgender Troops Lets Those Currently Serving Stay

For any transgender person attempt to enlist, though, it's a new version of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Trump and MattisPool/ABACA/NewscomPresident Donald Trump blindsided his own military leaders last year when he announced via Twitter that he would reverse course and reinstitute a full ban on transgender people serving in the military. Then he ordered the Department of Defense to perform an internal study to justify the decision.

That results of that study were sent to the president earlier this month. And on Friday, amid a whirlwind news cycle, the White House dropped a memo announcing that it's moving forward with its plan based on the recommendations. Transgender people will no longer be able to serve in the military.

Well, sort of. Maybe. It's all complicated.

First of all, the president's attempt to suddenly halt and reverse the Obama-era Department of Defense's transgender policy changes have been challenged in federal court. Court injunctions keep the military from booting out trans troops or keeping trans recruits from joining. So the military currently continues to accept enlistments from transgender folks.

The new orders from the White House are intended to replace the previous orders, and the Friday night memo officially "rescinds" them. As such, the Department of Justice is also asking the court to dissolve the previous injunctions as moot. There will most certainly be a new round of lawsuits attempting to block the new policy as well.

The new transgender ban has three main components:

  • Transgender folks can continue to join and serve the military if they're willing to continue representing themselves as their biological sex and do not have a history of being diagnosed with gender dysphoria, the psychological condition of feeling discomfort or distress with being born as the opposite sex that you feel you are. It's essentially the return of "Don't ask, don't tell," but for transgender troops instead of gay ones. You can think of yourself as being transgender all you want as long as you don't actually do anything to change how you represent your sex.
  • Transgender people who have or want to undergo any sort of transition are disqualified from the military, as are people who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. There's an exemption for those who can demonstrate that they haven't dealt with thoughts of gender dysphoria for three years prior to applying to join the military. This is similar to how the military approaches enlistments from people who have been diagnosed with depression or some other psychological condition.
  • Transgender people who are already in the military are exempt from these first two guidelines and can continue to serve, even if they pursue gender transition. But under new policies that cover all troops, they may not be deemed "non-deployable" for more than 12 months and remain in the military.

The third guideline is obviously intended to try to cut off several lawsuits at the knees. Several of the transgender people suing to block the ban are those already serving in the military who have "come out" as transgender and begun their transition with the expressed understanding that the Department of Defense is allowing it. Suddenly changing the terms of their service creates due process and contractual issues, and those have undergirded some of the lawsuits.

Yet allowing these people to stay in the military has the side effect of subverting the arguments for banning transgender people in the first place. The report from Defense Secretary Jim Mattis leans on the typical sawhorses of "military readiness" and "unit cohesion," often the same arguments that had been used to keep gay people from serving. If transgender troops present problems for the military that justify banning them, won't the problems be present in the troops they're allowing to remain?

The report also points to the increased medical costs for accommodating transgender troops, which could run under $10 million. That sounds like a lot until you look at the omnibus spending bill that just passed. It budgets $600 million for Air Force satellites that the Department of Defense didn't even ask for.

In some ways, this weird, middle-of-the-road response may actually be for the best. The military will develop more experience in sorting out whatever privacy issues develop between transgender troops and the rest of the unit, and over time all sides will grow more comfortable with the idea. Fundamentally, the end of the ban on gay troops succeeded because it did not have the impact on readiness or morale that people feared.

Read the Mattis memo for yourself here.

Photo Credit: Pool/ABACA/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.

  • timbo||

    How many transgender people are clamoring to get into the military and dressing like the guy from MASH in the process?

  • The Last American Hero||

    I understand there are a few guys hoping to make the cutoff.

  • timbo||

    If you make the cutoff, your not necessarily transgender.

    You are, however, nuts which is a wild bit of irony.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    They will make a eunich contribution to team morale.

  • Eidde||

    Nobody's foreskin them to join.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "How many transgender people are clamoring to get into the military and dressing like the guy from MASH in the process?"
    Clinger was trying to get OUT of the military not in. Those who want taxpayers to pay for reassignment drugs and possibly reassignment surgery want to get in. That medical stuff is expensive.

    Transgender people are mentally ill. Its just stupid to cater to a minuscule minority of crazy people who want to get into the military.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Transgender people are mentally ill.

    How do you assess those born with ambigious gender?

    So long as you are observations concerning mental illness, what do you make of ostensible adults who claim to believe that fairy tales are true?

  • retiredfire||

    "those born with ambigious gender" are that way, by your own description, FROM BIRTH.
    Not some delusion they obtain, later in life.
    Only an idiot would conflate the two.
    The only aduls I know of, that believe in fairy tales, are you communists, who think your utopia is just around the corner, if you can just get the right people to implement it.

  • BambiB||

    How do you assess those born with ambigious gender?

    Physically ill?

    Point is, there is no "right" to be in the military. If it costs more in terms of money, medical care, good discipline and order, morale, unit cohesiveness... they're out.

    Women don't belong in the military either... unless they can pass the same physical stardards the men must meet. That would probably eliminate 96%-99% of all women. (The run times and the chinup requirements would eliminate most of them.)

  • Woodys mom||

    Been in the military there Bambi?

  • Mark22||

    How do you assess those born with ambigious gender?

    It's a birth defect that makes you ineligible to serve.

    So long as you are observations concerning mental illness, what do you make of ostensible adults who claim to believe that fairy tales are true?

    You obviously have trouble understanding the difference between irrational beliefs and mental disease.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Isn't a smaller military an inherently good thing?

  • timbo||

    Depends on if the recurring attorney bills for all of this stupid crap is in the annual budget of the largest military on earth by a multiplier of 10 over the next largest.

  • Mark22||

    You need to check your numbers. The biggest budget items are Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, comprising about four times military spending. And the next smaller item is interest on debt, which is about 1/3 of our military budget.

    And of the crap that the federal government spends money on, the military is actually one of the few items that is authorized by the Constitution.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Isn't a smaller military an inherently good thing?"'

    Depends on your commitments.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Such as commitment to the Constitution.....

  • The Last American Hero||

    So Trump decided they would be Grandxer'ed in?

  • Tony||

    What a fat, stupid douche.

  • timbo||

    Isn't that an insult to the LBGTQ folks

  • Tony||

    Just whatever you'd call Mr. Trump. Sad horny heterosexual vanilla man-boy with a thing for sharks?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You know you would have sex with Trump if given the chance, Tony.

  • Tony||

    His figure is too womanly.

  • timbo||

    Tony got no game. He's not having sex with anyone.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    His hands turned him down when he tried to masturbate.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony dos quite well. His system involves luring 9 year old boys to his lace and giving them roofed juice boxes.

  • Mark22||

    Please stop lumping homosexuals and transgender people together.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, great insult.

    Trump is just tired of all the mentally crazy transgender people trying to get into the military.

  • I can't even||

    More like "Don't ask, don't pay" which sounds good to this taxpayer.

    A policy that allows gender ":transition" while on active duty is insane. It would render the service member (ha) undeployable for long periods while Uncle Sam pays the bill for extensive elective surgery.

  • Tony||

    The report also points to the increased medical costs for accommodating transgender troops, which could run under $10 million. That sounds like a lot until you look at the omnibus spending bill that just passed. It budgets $600 million for Air Force satellites that the Department of Defense didn't even ask for.

    Soldiers get a lot of medical care paid for by taxpayers. Drawing a line here is making a moral judgment, so be honest about it.

  • John||

    If I don't have a foot, I don't get to join the army so that the army can give me one. We don't owe you a sex change operation. And fuck you trying to pretend you give a shit about the military or the people who serve in it. You don't care about anything or anyone Tony. Everything is just another tool to be used to shove your sick fucking politics down an unwilling world's throat. Stop pretending otherwise.

  • Tony||

    Remind me, did you support sending thousands of soldiers to their deaths to prevent Iraq from using nonexistent weapons of mass destruction?

  • John||

    We are not talking about Libya Tony. Why do you always bring up Obama?

    Beyond that, stop pretending you are a human being. You are not. If this policy degrades readiness and ends up getting people killed, you won't care. And wouldn't care about this issue if someone hadn't told you believing in it was necessary for the party. I guarantee as recently as a few years ago, you didn't care about it and likely denied you supported it when people tried to associate gay rights with it.

    Stop lying and pretending everyone on here is stupid and don't know who you are.

  • Tony||

    I fucking knew that first sentence would be your first sentence. What a pathetic coward you are.

    Did you or did you not support Bush's war of lies?

  • John||

    Obama got a lot of people killed in Libya and turned a functioning country into a slave market. That is bad. I can't argue with you there. But I don't see what it has to do with this topic.

  • Tony||

    Burn in hell, scum.

  • John||

    Stop it Tony. That is not fair to Obama. He got taken in by some very bad people to do what he did. I honestly don't think he meant to do the harm he did. He deserves criticism but even I wouldn't go that far.

  • Tony||

    Dante places hypocrites in the 6th ditch of the 8th circle of hell where you are forced to wear lead robes and march across the crucified body of the pharisee who demanded that Jesus be put to death.

  • John||

    Yes Tony, you are a horrible hypocrite. Mabe some day you will repent. But, since you are incapable of accepting any moral responsibility and use politics as a way to rationalize anything, I am not optimistic you will. But, only God knows that answer to that.

  • Tony||

    I asked you whether you supported the war in Iraq and you brought up Libya to distract from your complicity and to minimize the horror of the former. You are a hypocrite and Jesus hates you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony really lost his mind today.

    I mean normally he is crazy stupid, but today he is cray-cray.

  • retiredfire||

    Tony, do you remember this?
    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
    Your heroine also believe there were WMD's.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, why are you giving us your forwarding address? Are you finally going to nut up
    (for once not involving prepubescent boys) and drink that Drano?

  • Mark22||

    Dante places hypocrites in the 6th ditch of the 8th circle of hell where you are forced to wear lead robes and march across the crucified body of the pharisee who demanded that Jesus be put to death.

    I see, Tony, you are already familiar with what awaits you.

  • Finrod||

    Tony, you ignorant slut. Even that right-wing rag, the New York Times, admits there were WMDs in Iraq.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interac.....apons.html

  • Tony||

    I'm just gonna let your patheticness stew in itself on this one.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Hey Tony, you should listen to this guy.

    Tony|3.26.18 @ 3:46PM|#

    There's never an excuse for rudeness, John.

  • cc2||

    you might care to remember that Saddam bragged about his WMD. Whether he had them or not, he bragged, and at one time he did have them.

  • timbo||

    Drawing the line on any military spending is a good thing. This is certainly a fine place to start. Stop all increases of spending and include spending on a special group of people who would certainly cost more to deal with.

    Allowing someone who is openly transgender to enlist is to invite the inevitable lawsuits that will come in the constant harassment of that guy or girl or whatever it is.

    This is more tranny bathroom distraction to pull people away from questioning our shaky economy.
    It works to rile up the stupid people who think there is a large enough population of transgender nuts to warrant changing laws for.

  • Tony||

    We have to treat them as second-class citizens for their own good. Heard that before (DADT).

  • John||

    We don't let people with cancer join the military. Is that treating them as second-class citizens? Look, you sick little bastard, we don't owe you surgery. Cut your nuts off all you like, but you can't join the military and expect the taxpayers to do it for you.

  • Tony||

    How about we kick out all the retarded hypocritical scum who think Libya was worse than Iraq because of the letter after the president's name. Are you this horrible of a person in real life?

  • John||

    Yes Tony, you have no argument here other than "I want". That is how it always is.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""How about we kick out all the retarded hypocritical scum who think Libya was worse than Iraq..."

    That would be nobody.

    No one thinks Libya was worse than Iraq. However it is worthy to take to task any Nobel Peace price winner that uses weapons of war on a country, or promotes the use of.

  • John||

    Vic,

    Iraq is worse than Libya if you are an American. If, however, you are a Libyan or an Iraqi, I think Libya is likely worse. I would much rather be in Iraq than Libya right now.

  • Tony||

    John does, and he does because of the (D) after the president's name who presided. He's a terrible human being.

  • John||

    Yes Tony, you think war is judged by how politically hard it is. The fact that Obama is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Libyans doesn't matter to you. They are like all other people in the world, just something that matters in so far as they affect your politics.

    Obama could have nuked Libya and you wouldn't care.

  • Tony||

    Unlike the Iraq war, the Libyan civil war wasn't started by a US president lying through his teeth.

    I am partisan because the evidence shows that one party is better. You're partisan because fat people on the radio and teevee tell you that brown and gay people are responsible for all your problems.

  • Finrod||

    Fuck off, slaver. You only care about the "evidence" that supports your side, ignorant fuckwit.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "I am partisan because the evidence shows that one party is better."

    Yeah Tony, we call them republicans. And they suck. That's how bad your marxist friends are, that republicans look good by comparison. You really are among the worst people i the world. Just a conniving pedophile faggot, with no principles or scruples, salvaging at the idea of enslaving everyone else (and little boys rectums).

  • retiredfire||

    The Iraq war was started by Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait.
    Our involvement was to liberate that Middle Eastern country, the same way we did in the 40's with Germany and Japan, both of whom lived up to the terms of surrender.
    Saddam refused to live up to the terms of the cease-fire by not proving he had destroyed his WMD programs. The effort to remove him was due to the fact that many Americans, in government believed he still had them, even HiLIARy, who approved the military's return to the conflict.
    Stop blaming George W. Bush for the decision or that he "lied" to justify it. It was done as a consensus. Only moronic communists want to use it as a wedge.
    Here are some quotes from democraps from that time period:

  • retiredfire||

    "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

  • retiredfire||

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

  • retiredfire||

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and weshould assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

  • retiredfire||

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

    "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

  • retiredfire||

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I stand corrected.

    Really John?

  • John||

    If you live in Libya, Obama's intervention left your country utterly broken and a giant slave pen. If you live in Iraq, the US intervention got rid of Saddam and triggered a civil war but one that ended in a relatively stable and peaceful country until ISIS showed up and even then that is just the north.

    Who would you rather be, a Shia living in Iraq today or anyone living in Libya? I would take Iraq. The Libya civil war and aftermath has been just as bloody as anything that happened in Iraq. And it has ended in a much worse way. Also, Obama's intervention in Libya is what caused the radicals to branch out and go into central Africa. So add the misery caused by organizations like Boco Haram to Obama's butcher's bill. Sure, it didn't cost any American lives, but Libyan and African lives count too don't they?

  • Tony||

    Apparently not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, though.

  • Tony||

    Might I add, you disingenuous cunt.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Tony|3.26.18 @ 4:39PM|#

    Might I add, you disingenuous cunt.

    Tony|3.26.18 @ 3:46PM|#

    There's never an excuse for rudeness, John.

    LOL, I could do this all day.

  • John||

    Sure their lives count. But so do the 100s of thousands of Libians whose death obama caused. Bush at least had the decency to stick around and try to fix it. Obama just walked away and let the place turn into a slave pen. And you don't care about the people Obama killed because it doens't help you politically. That is all you care about Tony is politics.

  • Tony||

    Okay John. Obama caused the Libyan civil war and "Iraq, what's Iraq?" Silly partisan little me.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Apparently not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, though."

    So Tony, deaths only count when you think you can blame them on someone with an 'R' after their name? Typical progressive. This is why people who think like you murdered over a hundred million people in the 20th century, and are still at it now.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "and he does because of the (D) after the president's name who presided"

    Tony, that's what you do every day. Silly bitch.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    How many chaplains should taxpayers be funding?

  • Mark22||

    We have to treat them as second-class citizens for their own good. Heard that before (DADT).

    No, they are simply mentally ill. If they weren't mentally ill, they wouldn't require medical treatments and wouldn't have absurdly high suicide rates.

  • dontquestionit||

    Only to people who hated math in high school and ended up with a BA after 7 years of college.

    It is positioned as a moral judgment to distract from the actual issue, which can go either way. If people were so sure that the math would favor them, then they would make a math argument. Not lots of spending for incomparable group or item. Like the increase in cost associated with some thing is x-dollars and negligible impact on readiness and performance.

  • JoeBlow123||

    THEY ARE NON DEPLOY-ABLE.There are enough chicks who join up and get pregnant everytime it is time to deploy, no one in the military needs more worthless bodies that cannot deploy.

    NEWSFLASH FOR EVERYONE. The military is for dying and killing. Not gender transition. Do it as a civilian.

  • John||

    I guess you could argue that the ones that are there developed the condition while in and therefore are entitled to some kind of treatment for it. It is a mental illness, no different than any other mental illness. So, if you are going to cover treatment for depression and other mental issues, you should probably take care of people with this issue.

    But if someone knows they have this, then they shouldn't be allowed in. Accommodating and treating them is not consistent with readiness and not something the military should be doing. If they want to self treat by doing whatever in their own time, then that is their business as long as it doesn't affect their performance on duty.

    Other than not giving the ones who are in a medical discharge, this isn't a bad or unreasonable policy.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If it is a mental illness, so is believing that fairy tales are true.

    This collides with wingnut dogma, however, so the ostensible libertarians in this discussion will find a way to argue that taxpayers paying for chaplains is a libertarian position.

  • John||

    Paying for chaplains increases morale and readiness. There are practical reasons to do it. There is no reason to do this other than making delusional idiots like you happy.

  • BYODB||

    Believing in fairy tales actually does make you sort of nuts, but you'd have to *really* believe it. Like to the point where, if you're in the military, you would sincerely and loudly state that you need to shoot at all the leprechauns around you.

    Should delusion be acceptable grounds to deny someone a military career? Is having a military career a right? Those seem like pertinent questions.

  • Mark22||

    If it is a mental illness, so is believing [in God].

    No, for the obvious reason that gender dysphoria requires medical treatment while Christian belief does not.

    The same distinction exists between gender dysphoria and homosexuality.

  • John||

    In some ways, this weird, middle-of-the-road response may actually be for the best. The military will develop more experience in sorting out whatever privacy issues develop between transgender troops and the rest of the unit, and over time all sides will grow more comfortable with the idea. Fundamentally, the end of the ban on gay troops succeeded because it did not have the impact on readiness or morale that people feared.

    In the end, everyone will just have to suck it up and believe whatever Scott demands they believe. That is nice. It never occurs to Scott that people have a right to not only disagree with his position on these things but continue to do so. Scott forever is about showing his tolerance of these issues by saying "hey we will let you voluntarily do what I demand so that we don't have to force you".

  • Tony||

    Disagree all you want. Throw a goddamn red-faced screaming tantrum in the middle of town square. Just stop equating your right to be a bigot with the government forcing hardship on people.

  • John||

    Go fuck yourself Tony. You are the most hateful bigot on this board. You will latch onto any cause that you think will allow you to punish and degrade the people you hate. And there is no lie too degrading for you to tell. You will pretend that someone is really a woman even though they are not because that is the lie you have been told to tell.

    The rest of us still think for ourselves and have self-respect. Don't confuse the truth with bigotry as a way to rationalize how degraded and depraved you are.

  • Tony||

    Trans people are all delusional! What an honest and thought-provoking original thought you have expressed.

    I'm just trying to keep up with the times. Don't see any point in making complete strangers suffer because you're a small-minded idiot who is scared and confused by new things.

  • John||

    Yes Tony they are. You are who you are. I am not six foot seven and won't be playing in the NBA. My body isn't that. I am not a dinosaur or Napoleon or a dog or a dragon or anything other than what I am. Pretending otherwise and mutilating my body to try and make it so, doesn't change that. It would just make me a sad and confused person. And everyone has a right to be sad and confused or believe they are something other than what they are. What they do not have a right to do is demand that everyone else go along with their fantasy. That is all this is. They have a fantasy and demand that everyone else believes it and treat them as if it were true. No, you have no right to demand that I lie and neither you nor Scott are going to change that, no matter how much you claim that refusing to lie is "bigotry".

  • Tony||

    But how does it affect you? The rest of us aren't on this earth to make you personally feel comfortable all the time.

  • John||

    It doesn't unless you demand I lie and pretend you are something other than what you are. No one says these people can't pretend all they like. They can. What they can't do is demand everyone else pretend along with them. And telling a lie absolutely effects me. You have no right to force me to say something is other than what it is.

  • Tony||

    There's never an excuse for rudeness, John.

  • Finrod||

    Gee, how come you don't think that every time you're rude to people whose politics you don't like, you fucking hypocrite.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""But how does it affect you? The rest of us aren't on this earth to make you personally feel comfortable all the time."'

    If only progressives understood that.

  • John||

    I love how Tony pretends that forcing someone to act as if a man is really a woman or vice versa is not infringing on their rights and failing to do that is somehow infringing on the person pretending's rights. Freedom is slavery I guess.

  • Tony||

    You really think you're gonna turn this around and make the transgender thing go away, don't you? Just like you thought you'd win on gay marriage. However much a bigot you are, there's no question that you're fucking delusional. The ship has sailed. You're just too brain-pickled by right-wing hate media to know it.

    You're actually crying because you can't go up to a trans person and tell him or her that they're wrong about their sex. Like a rude ass motherfucking asshole. Why do you insist on a right to treat people horribly? What kind of sick fuck are you?

  • John||

    No Tony. It will still be there. It has always been there. And the truth will continue to be what it is. the fact that you and Shackford have decided that forcing people to tell lies is the latest and greatest way to degrade and humiliate yourselves and your enemies won't change that.

    It is really that simple. Eventually, you will find some other excuse to try and stick your boot on people's faces. But in the mean time, you are not sticking your boot on mine and a lot of other people's faces over this.

  • Tony||

    "Male" and "female" are just words. Words mean whatever we want them to mean. Your right to a traditional definition of a word doesn't trump another human being's right to be free from discrimination and harassment. You're actually saying people should be barred from a career in military service because you are made uncomfortable by a new approach to the definition of two words. You're weird.

  • John||

    "Male" and "female" are just words

    Sure but the chromosomes and phenomena that they describe are not, you delusional fucking half wit.

  • Tony||

    For some time in some specific cultures they referred both to identity and certain biological characteristics. In today's society right now they refer to identity. We have a more specific way of talking about this. And you're such a whiny crybaby weakling that you can't handle a mere semantic shift. But that is the defining trait of the conservative brain: unable to cope with novelty.

  • Finrod||

    You can't change reality or DNA with words, you fucking idiot,

  • Tony||

    Let's take your freakishly childish emotional reactions out of this. Instead of male and female, let's use bleep and bloop. Johnny is born assigned a bleep. Susie is born assigned a bloop. But Susie actually feels like ble is a bleep. Being a bleep or a bloop in modern usage is a matter of identity, not biology, thus Susie is a bleep. And now ble's name is Larry.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trans people are mentally ill.

    People like you can cover for them but they are sick in the brain.

  • WoodChipperBob||

    Whether one is a bleep or a bloop is irrelevant, as is which one calls oneself. Where it becomes relevant is when one joins the military and says, "Although I was born with a body that is genetically bleep, I want to call myself a bloop. And I want to decrease my readiness for military service by having medical procedures that make my body more bloop-like."

    If the only thing involved were what someone wanted to be called, there would be no military reason to keep anyone from serving. But because of the readiness issue, the policy (as described in the bullet points above) makes a lot of sense.

  • Flinch||

    Plastic surgery plus hormone therapy has a term: elective surgery. The military, if it doesn't pull back from funding trans, will wind up being attacked for 'discrimination' by aspiring strippers who want to use uncle same for their expensive implant surgery and have taxpayers pay for it all. As an "investor", we should demand dividends from the altered, as they go to college afterwards on our dime, while cashing in. Those girls would actually emerge from college with not just a degree, but a well funded IRA and no student loan debt to boot.
    But I digress. What the hell is a "tri-gender pyro fox"?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Let's take your freakishly childish emotional reactions out of this. Instead of male and female, let's use bleep and bloop. Johnny is born assigned a bleep. Susie is born assigned a bloop. But Susie actually feels like ble is a bleep. Being a bleep or a bloop in modern usage is a matter of identity, not biology, thus Susie is a bleep. And now ble's name is Larry."

    As Susie has never had a bleep. she has no concept of what it would be like to have one. So therefore Susie is delusional.

    By your description, being a bloop or a bleep is absolutely a function of biology. Just in the same way that I am not a Vulcan, or a Time Lord. As I do not have green blood, or two hearts and a bypass respiratory system. No matter how hard I wish. Nor do I have any real understanding of what that would feel like, because I have no perspective.

    You got one thing right. Susie can change her name to whatever the fuck she wants. Other than that, everything you wrote is progtarded drivel.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""You can't change reality or DNA with words, you fucking idiot,""

    Or improperly developed hormone levels

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Says the half-educated yahoo who has never studied intersex births.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • StackOfCoins||

    There's valid plumbing mix-ups, and then there are people who are biologically one gender and think, for whatever reason, they are another. Often there is no evidence they are correct, except the contents of their minds, which are opaque to us. But we have a medical community that has decided to endorse this madness, and given it the sanction of expertise. Why people believe these hustlers, I do not know. Perhaps it has to do with our veneration of science in this country. The Church of I Fucking Love Science.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Arty, you are the least educated person amongst the commentariat, with the exception of Tony. So shut up, and learn to obey.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    Intersex and transsexual (i.e., gender dysphoria) are entirely different things. But it's always fun to watch someone insult other's intelligence while displaying their own ignorance.

  • retiredfire||

    The sick fucks are the ones that pander to these people's delusions, instead of urging them to get treatment.
    Pandering to a person with this delusion is like putting an anorexic on a diet, because they think they are fat.

  • Nardz||

    "You really think you're gonna turn this around and make the transgender thing go away, don't you?"

    Just make IT go away?
    That is one solution.
    Still, just making IT go away doesn't make a female of a male.
    No, the proper term is eunuch.

    Belief that one has been born in the wrong body does not make one a worse, or less, human - but it does mean they have a mental disorder. Literally.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Just stop equating your right to be a bigot with the government forcing hardship on people."

    Tony, your whole life is based around forcing hardship on people. Plus you are the biggest bigot on Reason.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Stormy Daniels is transgendered?

  • timbo||

    She sells it well making all that noise and bouncing and what-not.

    She fooled the Donald apparently.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    That's what the hush money was about. I think he mentioned it was a pain in his ass.

  • John||

    If Trump came out tomorrow as transgendered Bruce Jenner style, the reaction of the various partisan idiots in this country would be entertaining to say the least.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Yeah, and it's been pretty entertaining thus far.

  • John||

    Yes it has.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Is Reason pushing the view that the TG situation is just like the gay situation ?

    I can't quite tell, but if so, its a position lacking any true understanding of the topic.

    Does Reason deny that Gender Dysphoria exists ? If it acknowledges it exists, does Reason not believe its a mental illness ?

    People are denied military service for a whole lot of reasons, from obesity, to mental illness, to taking ADHD meds, such that less than half of those of age are fit for service.

    Why is Reason picking the Transgender hill to die on ? If this one, why not fight the battle for other mental illness to serve ? What would be the stopping point ?

    Oh, I DO know the stopping point. The stopping point is when you reach groups that don't offer opportunities for smug self-satisfaction.

  • Tony||

    20% of Americans believe transgender people are mentally ill. Not among them is the American Psychiatric Association.

  • John||

    It has always been a mental illness. And the guy who invented gender reassignment surgery stopped doing it because he realized it wasn't helping people. Transgenerd are as a group incredibly unhappy, prone to suicide and deeply troubled. And no amount of enabling them in their delusions helps. It is like all other mental illnesses, something that is beyond today's medical ability to treat. it is a tragedy but one that afflicts a small number of people. If you actually cared about these people and saw them as human beings and not just tools to further your politics, you would know that.

  • Tony||

    Are you proposing, Dr. John, psychiatrist, a heretofore unknown genetic link between transgenderism and mental illness?

    Or are you once again being a disingenuous shithead? Sexual minorities have elevated rates of psychological problems because of the existence of bigots like you. What don't you get about that?

  • John||

    Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC3043071/

    this is one of the numerous studies that have found the same thing. You are just pig ignorant Tony. You seem to take pride in being utterly ignorant. There isn't a single subject you know anything truthful about. All you know is lies and untruths.

  • Tony||

    So the thing you quoted says exactly what I said and you think you got me on something?

  • John||

    That quote says that it doesn't help. these people are sick and mutilating their bodies doesn't fix that. And you don't fucking care. You just want to force people to lie as a way of controlling them.

  • Tony||

    I'm not the one advocating forcing people to do things.

  • Finrod||

    You're advocating forcing the military, you fucking idiot.

  • Tony||

    I think Trump is.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Being Trump is the Commander-in-Chief, he has some latitude about how the military is ran. That's a privilege you, I, John, and everyone else in the nation does NOT have.

  • Tony||

    Fair enough, but did anyone ask for this other than the hypocrites Trump is trying to pander to?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    This is a cheap bone thrown to the backward and bigoted. They know it won't last, because society is passing them by, but they will enjoy gnawing on it a while.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Fair enough, but did anyone ask for this other than the hypocrites Trump is trying to pander to?"

    Yes, the troops did. they don't like being the subject of proggy social experiments that put them in unnecessary danger. But you could never understand, as a selfish piece of shit like you would never have guts to serve his country.

  • Echospinner||

    This is a cohort study which compares those with transgender treatment to the random population.

    It does not compare outcomes in transgenders with or without sex reassignment and the authors state this.

    "It is therefore important to note that the current study is only informative with respect to transsexuals persons health after sex reassignment; no inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism."

    Many populations have higher risk of suicide or mental illness. War veterans for example.

    That does not constitute a mental illness. In medical terms it is called a risk factor.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    From the DSM5

    F64.1 Gender dysphoria in adolescents and adults
    F64.2 Gender dysphoria in children

  • Tony||

    Gender dysphoria is the distress people feel as a result of their transgenderism. This means that sufferers are transgender people who aren't permitted to express the gender they identify with. Being allowed to express their transgenderism cures gender dysphoria. Get it? Hello? Did you even try to understand what you're talking about before you started typing?

  • John||

    LOLOL. That is like saying "depression is the stress people feel when people are depressed". And gender reassignment surgery has been shown to have no long term effect on the well being of the people who get it. They get a short burst of happiness at first but very quickly return to the same mental state they were in before. You cruel ignorant bastard, you are not helping these people.

  • Tony||

    John, transgender activist.

    You're supposed to be a student of history. Yet your conception of gender norms is quite historically and geographically specific. Plenty of cultures in existence today and many throughout history have accepted gender identities beyond the European norms of boy and girl that are instilled culturally (not biologically) at a young age. If our society were more accepting of less rigid gender norms, then what we call transgender people would not have such high rates of mental illness.

    Stop telling other people what's good for them. Strangely it always seems to coincide with what makes your lizard brain most comfortable.

  • John||

    You fucking moron. Cultures accept that men can be feminine and women can be masculine. Transgenderism does the opposite of that. It says that if you don't fit the gender ideal, you are the opposite gender.

  • Tony||

    Cultures have often had more than two genders. Is your problem that trans people want to work within the constraints of the English language?

    Do you not realize that the substance of your bitching is all semantic, and thus why the smoke coming from your ears? But that's probably because the real source of your incomprehensible busybodyness and bellyaching is that you're actually just a bigoted asshole.

  • BearOdinson||

    I think that using the term "often" is a stretch. Certainly across time and different cultures, there are differences in gender role. Some societies see blue as feminine, or clothing styles (look at the Scottish kilt for example).

    But, there are certain biological imperatives that limit the ability to stretch gender roles (at least historically, nowadays, probably less so). So you would be hard pressed to find a society (other than perhaps in a few very small, limited, isolated cases) wherein the males weren't the majority of the warriors, hunters, or their modern analogues.

    But I do agree with you, Tony that a feminine man has every right to be feminine. Or a masculine girl to be masculine. And I certainly teach my kids not to pick on anyone, including anyone who has different sexual preference, or a different way in expressing their own gender.

  • Kivlor||

    Some societies see blue as feminine

    Random trivia: in European cultures red was considered masculine and blue feminine up until the feminist movement. Young boys were typically dressed in pink--an offshoot of red--while girls in blue. The Virgin Mary was often depicted in blue because of the feminine association with the color.

    A bunch of feminists decided to declare pink belonged to women, and eventually society just went with it, because honestly, who wants to fight over something that petty.

  • Tony||

    I'm saying the (Christian) Western European gender norms we're accustomed to are probably the outlier when it comes to "human nature." Tribal cultures have total acceptance of third genders or other variations all the time. Christians just have a nasty habit of suppressing such things, and they're still going at it.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "I'm saying the (Christian) Western European gender norms we're accustomed to are probably the outlier when it comes to "human nature." Tribal cultures have total acceptance of third genders or other variations all the time"

    Bullshit. There are boys and girls. Your visions of fantasyland don't count.

  • Kivlor||

    I'm saying the (Christian) Western European gender norms we're accustomed to are probably the outlier when it comes to "human nature."

    Tony believes that "Science" is actually an evil colonized tradition of the White-Cis-Het-Christian-Patriarchy. #ScienceMustFall

    Who are we to judge witchcraft with our European norms. They're the outlier.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "gender identities beyond the European norms of boy and girl that are instilled culturally (not biologically) at a young age"

    Bullshit. Gender norms ARE a function of biology. Boys and girls are physiologically different as kids, and the differences become far more pronounced at puberty. Seriously Tony, your grasp of science is just a pathetic joke. A byproduct of being a slavish to drone to the progtard hive mind.

  • Iheartskeet||

    I believe Gender Dysphoria, the term I used (and the term referenced in General Mattis' letter) is indeed considered a mental illness by the APA and is in the DSM.

  • BearOdinson||

    John and Vic kind of beat me to it. But to be clear, gender dysphoria is absolutely a mental disorder. Anyone who is transgendered would agree.

    It is the treatment of this condition that is contentious. Some people believe the best treatment is to assist those to transition to the gender they identify with. Others believe it would be best to try to assist these folks to live with their biological sex as-is. Regardless of one's position, most with gender dysphoria need help of some kind. Either way, I should think that a person who suffers with this, shouldn't be allowed to enlist, anymore than a person with anorexia, or bolemia, or borderline personality disorder, or any of a number of other issues. And it has NOTHING to do with a person's value. EVERY person deserves to be treated with respect (at least until they earn one's disrespect like a violent felon or something). This in no way means that trans people are somehow "less" than others. Anymore than someone with bad eyesight can't be a fighter pilot.

  • John||

    Pretty much that. It is really sick what we are doing in this society. We are encouraging people to permanently and irreversibly mutilate their bodies without any evidence that doing so is going to make them happier or better off in any way.

    Transgenderism is a sick lie in so many ways. It claims to make gender fluid and meaningless but in fact does just the opposite. Instead of saying that "gender" can mean any degree of masculine or feminine that the person is, it says that if their nature doesn't match some idealized version of their body that they are some kind of broken freak who must mutilate their body to fit the ideal. If you are a more masculine woman or feminine man, you are a masculine woman or a feminine man, not some freak whose body needs to be altered to align to some idealized nature. You want people to be happy, encourage them to accept their bodies and nature as it is, do not tell them that they need to mutulate themselves to be "normal", which is all transgenderism does.

  • Tony||

    Spoken with many transgender people to reach this conclusion about what's best for them?

  • John||

    Yes, Tony, the facts and reality are what they are. if you are too fucking stupid to understand that going through life running away from who you are and pretending that you are something else is a road to ruin, then there is nothing I can do for you.

  • Finrod||

    Tony has spent his entire life running away from the fact that he's a bigot and an idiot.

  • Tony||

    Oh? How many transgender people have you spoken with?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Spoken with many transgender people to reach this conclusion about what's best for them?"'

    Why would you ask that? Liberals reach conclusions about what's best for other people all day long.

  • Tony||

    Liberalism is a big tent. Constituents of liberalism say what they need and then they listen to themselves.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Liberalism is a big tent"

    Yes, as long as you stay on the progressive plantation and completely agree with everything they tell you to think. I know black people that are treated like absolute pariahs by other blacks because they don't agree with al the progressive bullshit.

    Progressives leave no room for dissent. That's why they were rioting and burning Berkeley last year, because a gay englishman was going to come talk about things they didn't agreee with but were in no way obligated to listen to him. Just the idea that they knew someone would be disagreeing sent them into a violent rage.

  • Mark22||

    Transgendered people can decide for themselves what's best for them as long as they pay for it themselves.

    If they want to take my money to pay for gender reassignment surgery, hormone treatments, or special accommodations in the military, then I am going to weigh in on these decisions, and my criteria there are "what is minimally necessary", not "what accommodates them in the ideal way".

    That's how a progressive welfare state works: not only are some people forced to part with their money because a majority decides it's the right thing to do, recipients of the money are forced to make due with what they get according to what the majority decides is sufficient.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I guarantee you that a lot more than 20% of Americans believe transgender people are mentally ill. 20% are just the fraction of the population who aren't afraid to say so under current circumstances, where noticing certain realities can have consequences.

  • Tony||

    Am I supposed to applaud the possibility that more Americans rather than less are ignorant bigots?

  • Kivlor||

    No one is applauding your ignorance, nor expecting you to applaud it Tony. We're all hoping that some day you'll achieve self-awareness, and attempt to correct it.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Am I supposed to applaud the possibility that more Americans rather than less are ignorant bigots?"

    Tony, you're the bigot here. Not them. You are one of the most evil, hate filled, close minded, bigoted, trash I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.

  • Tony||

    Because I make fun of white Christian heterosexuals. Right?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Amd the paternalistic way you treat blacks, and Latinos too.

  • Mark22||

    Why do you think 300 million Americans have an obligation to learn about the trials and tribulations of transgendered people?

  • Kivlor||

    There's only 2 types of people that say "No, transgender people aren't mentally ill": Those who have not considered the facts, and those who are lying.

    For anyone willing to use a couple brain cells it should be easy to recognize that gender dysphoria is just a subcategory of a well-documented mental illness commonly known as body dysmorphic disorder. And after decades of attempts at dealing with it, the only successful method has been to teach such people how to accept themselves for who they are, and to control the urge to mutilate their bodies.

    Just like other forms of body dysmorphic disorder, gender dysphoria has high instances of depression, suicidal ideations, and suicide attempts.

  • Tony||

    And then there's the APA. You guys are awfully cavalier with science in these parts.

  • BearOdinson||

    Honestly Tony, please hear me. I have NOTHING against someone who is transgendered. If they and their doctor(s) feel that hormone therapy and GRS is the best solution to their problem, than that is between them.

    But I don't think anyone should argue that there isn't a problem. I think what the argument really is about revolves around the appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria. People on your side of the fence feel that hormone therapy, GRS etc. is the best, most viable treatment. Others think that counseling and assistance in living within their biological sex is the better treatment.

    I am not arguing one way or another. But, certainly someone who feels that way has a mental illness. (I am not saying that is true about those who identify as non-binary, or gender fluid. I think that might be a different issue, but I honestly don't know).

    I mean, if someone genuinely feels that something is wrong, then (at least mentally) there is indeed something wrong.

  • Tony||

    Being transgender is not an ailment in and of itself because it does not harm a person's ability to function normally in society. The ailment is the distress caused by both feeling that you're in the wrong body and by how society treats you.

    I'm not saying it's easy to accept given our traditional cultural notions, but it's been a part of that culture since at least the 70s, so people here are kind of lagging behind.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Being transgender is not an ailment in and of itself because it does not harm a person's ability to function normally in society. The ailment is the distress caused by both feeling that you're in the wrong body and by how society treats you.

    I'm not saying it's easy to accept given our traditional cultural notions, but it's been a part of that culture since at least the 70s, so people here are kind of lagging behind."

    Just stop. You have no idea what you're talking about, and the things you say are idiotic. This is all just more progtard maneuvering to destroy our culture. You don't give a fuck about those people any more than you do anyone else. Which is zero. They are nothing more to you than cannon fodder for you to get more communism.

  • Mark22||

    Being transgender is not an ailment in and of itself because it does not harm a person's ability to function normally in society.

    Well, great! Then it doesn't need medical treatment.

    I'm not saying it's easy to accept given our traditional cultural notions, but it's been a part of that culture since at least the 70s, so people here are kind of lagging behind.

    I have no problem "accepting" that people cross dress of have their private parts surgically altered. I have a problem being forced to pay for it. Beyond that, I judge people as individuals; don't expect automatic respect just because you are transgendered, you still have to demonstrate that you're worth my time and my respect, just like any cis-gendered heterosexual white male has to as well.

  • Kivlor||

    Bear, Tony has been quite clear:

    IT IS NOT A MENTAL ILLNESS. WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE WHETHER THEY ARE A BOY OR A GIRL? THOSE ARE JUST WORDS AND THEY CAN MEAN WHATEVER WE WANT THEM TO MEAN. NOW GIVE THESE PEOPLE THEIR FREE HORMONES AND APPLAUD THEM FOR THE BRAVERY NECESSARY TO MUTILATE THEIR GENITALIA.

    At some point, we need to stop trying to pretend that these people don't recognize that it is a mental illness. Tony knows. He doesn't care, because this is a political football that he can use to crush teh evul breederz and get even since they picked on him in school. It's about forcing someone to kneel and tell a lie that they know is a lie. It's about humiliating people.

  • Tony||

    I actually know a lot of transgender people. Do you? Or are you just a scared little pussy who can't handle anything he didn't grow up being taught on grampy's front porch?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "I actually know a lot of transgender people"

    Do they hate you for using them as a political tool for your marxist agenda? I hope they do. Just another reason you should commit suicide Tony.

  • Kivlor||

    I've met plenty Tony. And we've gotten along fine unless they start making demands that I lie to ease their feelings. Most of the time, we don't discuss transgender stuff, because there's everything else in the world to talk about.

  • StackOfCoins||

    I've met a couple, and they are people with a whole lot of problems. Not exactly the most rational sort of folks.

  • StackOfCoins||

    Also

    I actually know a lot of transgender people.

    This sounds a whole lot like the man who is accused of racism, and falls back on "hey I have lots of black friends." Your true colors are showing, Tony. You're fooling no one here except the occasional tourist, if that.

  • Tony||

    It certainly does hurt to talk to the actual people under discussion. There's no crime in talking to a black person to gain some empathy for their experiences as a black person. I have seen trans people in social life my entire adult life, and my mere observational and conversational insight leads me to believe that they wouldn't have chosen this if they had any choice at all, but since it's their lot in life, they're going to do what makes them feel best. Just like you do.

  • Mark22||

    It certainly does hurt to talk to the actual people under discussion. There's no crime in talking to a black person to gain some empathy for their experiences as a black person

    Why should people spend the time? Everybody has their own problems.

    but since it's their lot in life, they're going to do what makes them feel best. Just like you do.

    And good for them. Where I draw the line is if they demand my respect, my association, or my money simply because they are transgendered.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "This sounds a whole lot like the man who is accused of racism, and falls back on "hey I have lots of black friends." "

    Please, don't use that stupid argument. I am really tired of being told that having black friends, living in a mixed race neighborhood, and being interracially married, just proves how racist I am.

    Yeah, having black friends really is evidence you're not a racist. Not conclusive, but evidence. The people who came up with that line you're adapting just wanted allegations of racism to be unfalsifiable, "proven" by any effort to disprove them.

  • Azathoth!!||

    I actually know a lot of transgender people. Do you? Or are you just a scared little pussy who can't handle anything he didn't grow up being taught on grampy's front porch?

    No. You don't.

    If you knew even one you would never say something as stupid as this--

    Being transgender is not an ailment in and of itself because it does not harm a person's ability to function normally in society. The ailment is the distress caused by both feeling that you're in the wrong body and by how society treats you.

    Everything is a challenge. All the time. Your best day can be ruined simply by having to go to the bathroom--not because of any toilet mafia, you idiot--but because your parts in your mind don't match the parts you have.

    Being dysphoric--ANY kind of dysphoric--makes basic functioning difficult.

  • BearOdinson||

    It does seem the long term research seems to indicate what you are saying and that is by no means a moral argument. I hold NO moral reservations about homosexuality, swinging, group sex, plural marriage, role-play, BDSM or anything as long as it is consensual. If a person genuinely feels that they are trapped in the wrong body, they should be helped, by whatever means seem to be the most effective.

    But I fundamentally agree with you that anyone who suffers from gender dysphoria does have a mental illness. And even doctors who perform GRS agree. That is why they perform the surgery. They feel that it is a valid treatment for this disorder.

  • Kivlor||

    Maybe we should start taking issue with doctors who perform surgery because of feelings?

  • John||

    I don't judge them morally either. They can't help how they feel. the problem is that people like Shackford and Tony have decided that this can become another club to force people to jump to the tune of whatever the current culture war is.

  • Tony||

    You're so full of shit John.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No, he's right and you're wrong. Stop hurting trannys Tony. You evil shitbag.

  • Mark22||

    20% of Americans believe transgender people are mentally ill. Not among them is the American Psychiatric Association.

    There are two mutually exclusive possibilities.

    If it is not a disease, then there is no medical need for treatment and treatment shouldn't be covered by insurance plans and there is no problem with requiring people to dress gender appropriately in the military.

    If, on the other hand, you argue that it requires medical treatments (including major surgery and lifelong hormone treatments), then necessarily it is a disease.

  • silver.||

    "Why is Reason picking the Transgender hill to die on ?"

    I expect because it's so rare as to be a non-issue. You make a good point that it's just an arbitrary line for the military to draw, and generally they can draw it wherever they please, civil rights and equality be damned. Inviting a deluge of identity politics over $10mil is not worth it to them. How much overlap is there between people who want to transition and those who want to be in the military? I guess if thousands of people a year started joining explicitly to have taxpayers foot the bill it'd be a problem, but that's not going to happen. If it does, we'll probably have single-payer by then so it'd be irrelevant.

    Identity politics are bullshit, but they are a part of society, so we've got to learn to work with them.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Yep, I get why the DoD might do a cost/benefit...was trying to understand why Reason Mag was all over it. It appears to be another bit of evidence of a certain sympathy for identity politics. For selected identities.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The chief argument here isn't just the cost, and the logistics chain complications, it's that you don't want to take people you already know are a bit crazy, and at high risk for suicide, and hand them weapons under stressful circumstances.

    It's just not a smart thing to do.

  • GILMORE™||

    You are a hatemonger for denying crazy people the right to murder foreigners on behalf of our oil companies.

  • mtrueman||

    What's a transgender person? And whatever the answer, they should probably be banned.

  • AlgerHiss||

    There is absolutely no difference twixt a tranny, especially post-op, and a cutter. Do we allow cutters in the military?

    Removing and reconstructing your genitals: It's the new norm to have massive amounts of scar tissue in your nether region.

  • Kivlor||

    Sure there is. One of them has a mental illness. The other was totally born in the wrong body and it makes complete sense for us to encourage them to mutilate their body until it resembles whatever they wish they had been born as.

    /s

  • dontquestionit||

    You can't compare the cost of a satellite to the cost of something for some number of persons in the military. That is not how math works.

    The cost of troops would need to be compared to the cost of other troops to determine whether or not it is excessive. If Group A troops cost average of $100,000 per year, then you compare that number with average cost for Group B: say $110,000 or $200,000 or $400,000.

    Then you determine if the additional spending is worthwhile for military readiness and performance. Maybe $300,000 more might not be a large price to pay for benefits you get. Maybe it is. That is how you look at it though. You compare things that are comparable.

    Just pulling out big numbers make any spending okay: "Well, the satellite cost $1 billion, so $200 million on new Tesla vehicles as troop transports really is a deal!"

  • John||

    Scott also totally forgets the concept of moral hazard. Making joining the army a way to get your sex change operation for free might cause more people to join the army for that specific purpose. there is no way Scott doesn't understand that. he is not stupid. He is just dishonest and pretends it isn't the case.

  • EscherEnigma||

    If you get a job for health insurance and a 401(k) match, are you getting those for "free", or are you earning them?

  • John||

    It is a benefit of the job. People who want 401Ks are more likely to take jobs that offer them. People who want sex change operations are more likely to want a job that offers it as a benefit. What is so hard to understand about that?

  • EscherEnigma||

    What is so hard to understand about that?


    That if you understand it's an earned employment benefit, you continue framing it as "free" anyway even while you know you're wrong.

  • John||

    And that creates the moral hazard of people joining just so they can get it paid for., Once you have joined, they are effectively free since you have joined anyway. I am sorry reality doesn't fit your narrative.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Reality is that your employment compensation isn't "free" by any honest definition. I am sorry reality doesn't fit your narrative.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    They don't do cosmetic surgery for women who want breast augmentation, why should they do cosmetic surgery for trannies. They can get their genitals lopped off but that pesky DNA doesn't change.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    People need to quit equating the military to 'a job'. It isn't nearly as simple as that. And that is a large part of why TG's are not compatible with military service. It isn't fair to TG's, and it isn't fair to everyone else that could be endangered by that incompatibility.

  • StackOfCoins||

    Any job that you can't walk from without incurring the equivalent of a felony conviction is definitely not just "a job". It's called "service" because that is what it is: strenuous commitment of the body and mind to a single purpose for several years. The pay is pathetic, considering the effort involved. And then there's that whole, "you can get shot and it's in the job description" thing.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Which is an entirely separate issue from John and others equating an earned benefit to "free".

  • StackOfCoins||

    Odd you're focusing on his semantic usage. His point is, if signing up for military service includes the provision of sexual reassignment for those who want it, and it's an expensive procedure (it is), then the moral hazard (the crux of his argument) is people signing up to get that benefit. When really, military service should not be about the material rewards (meagre as they are, and they should be raised, but that's a hard thing to argue with our military budget where it is (not that soldier pay makes up an substantial part of it)). People who earnestly want to put in a turn doing something very unpleasant for their country; THOSE are the people who should be signing up. That they get paid a decent wage is just simple decency.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Odd you're focusing on his semantic usage.
    Semantic?

    Neat. Next time you buy your lunch, you should be aware that whether you paid for that lunch is merely "semantic".

  • StackOfCoins||

    You are either being totally dishonest by persisting in this stupid line of objection (quibbling over the word "free" when the argument is whether gender reassignment should be part of compensation for military service), or you are really that stupid. I don't much care either way.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    It's because he/she only has semantics for an argument, i.e has none. I don't care if trannies serve if they can adapt to the normal order of military service. No special heads or any accommodation and no cosmetic surgery like anyone else. If they can deal with that I don't care, but we all know it will never stop there.

  • Kivlor||

    It wasn't enough for Scott to get government enforced gay wedding cakes. Now it's on to government-paid genital mutilations for the mentally ill.

    I can't wait to see where you libertines take it next. Supposing our society lasts long under your retarded rules.

  • BearOdinson||

    Actually, I am a libertine (or at least I want to be!) But that doesn't mean I want anyone else to pay for it. Want to remove your external genitalia and take hormones to present as the opposite gender to your biological sex? As long as you can find a doctor who is willing to help, and you aren't forcing anyone else to pay for it, do whatever feels right. But, I agree with you that it also means those who don't want to participate in that activity, or any other activity they choose not to, shouldn't be forced to.

    This really isn't that hard from a libertarian/political standpoint:
    You are fundamentalist Christian who opposes same-sex marriage, pornography and any kind of sexuality beyond missionary style within marriage? Fine. You absolutely have the right not to participate, and to try to convince others that they are going to hell. As long as you pay for your own newsletter, etc.

    You are a transgender man, who sometimes expresses yourself as a butch, sub, gender-queer? Great! Enjoy your nights at the club, and just play safe. But don't ask anyone else to foot the bill for your fun, or for your treatment (whatever that might consist of).

  • Kivlor||

    I think we've learned that this is not how such things will be implemented. We can live under the tyranny of the conservatives, or the tyranny of the libertines. And I choose the conservatives, because it is not an imposition on 95% of the population to tell the LGBTQAAIP group to shut up and get back to work. On the other hand, giving the libertines like Shackford power will result in the 5% of the population that is LGBTQAAIP imposing their will on the remaining 95%.

    Plus, at least the non-alphabet soup people have truth on their side. And I tend to like truth. They're not exactly demanding that all people tell a lie in order to fan their narcissism and humiliate their enemies, which is the basis of the whole LGBTQAAIP nonsense.

  • Tony||

    You morons divide yourselves into like 400 versions of a single religion.

    You just don't like things you're uncomfortable with, and you're fine imposing that childishness on the rest of us. It's what defines the conservative brain.

  • Kivlor||

    400 versions of a religion? What are you on about?

  • Tony||

    There are infinity variations of Christianity, and you're bitching about a 6-letter acronym.

  • Kivlor||

    Ah. There is only one true Church though Tony.

    And my comment about conservatives is not limited to Christians. If you think the Muzzies are going to go easy on you and your transgender friends, you are a fool.

    Maybe it's hard to imagine, but one can be conservative, dislike the LGBTQAAIP nonsense, and not belong to Christianity. They don't even have to belong to a religion.

  • Tony||

    You're missing the point. You are uncomfortable with there being 6 different sexual identities when 400 versions of a single god-cult doesn't phase you. Because you're used to it. That's all this is about: your small-mindedness.

  • John||

    No Tony, it is all about you demanding people bow to your will. There are not 25 genders there are two. You can pretend all you like. I really don't care. It doesn't make me uncomfortable at all to tell you that you are a lunatic. Go fuck yourself. No one cares what goes on in your head.

  • EscherEnigma||

    There are not 25 genders there are two.


    Nah. Even without touching trans and social identities, the most you can reduce it to is three (male, female, and those that defy such simple binary delineations).

    To put it simply, nature is way more complicated then what they teach in high school biology.

  • BearOdinson||

    From a practical standpoint, it seems to me to come down to this:
    What a person feels about themselves (do they feel more "male", more "female", gender fluid, gender queer, etc.) is totally and completely up to them. If they are happy with it, and they would be happy except for people that are assholes to them, then fuck the assholes! Let your freak flag fly!!

    But, at the same time, physically, there are 2 sexes (just like in all mammals, fish, birds, reptiles, etc.) Those 2 sexes are defined by their physical arrangement related to reproduction. Now, are there individuals who are missing parts, or who have extra parts? Sure, but we don't define a new category because of a few outliers. But, please understand, I mean no disrespect for individuals who don't have everything, or have extra or whatever. And frankly, it isn't any of my business for the most part.
    So maybe we could all use some more of a "live and let live" attitude in our lives.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Sure, but we don't define a new category because of a few outliers.


    That's like 90% of scientific advancement right there. "Hey, we have a rule!" "This case doesn't fit that rule." "Well lets find out why not, characterize it, and then make a better rule!"

    Sticking to a definition 'cause it works most of the time might be "practical", but it's not right.

  • BearOdinson||

    We also don't change "the rule" because of a tiny number of statistical outliers. If 99% of the data fits the hypothesis, you don't throw out the hypothesis. You figure out why there are a few outliers. In general, it would turn out that the few outliers in this case (ambiguous genitalia, hermaphroditism) are obviously a product of a failure of development. It doesn't mean that these should be defined as new "sexes".

    Please understand, there is no moral judgement here. But sexual dimorphism is based around reproduction. I am not saying that gender is. I will even grant you the idea that gender is different than sex. Like I said previously, what a person feels about themselves is totally up to them. And if they want to dress a certain way or something, more power to them.

  • Kivlor||

    That's like 90% of scientific advancement right there. "Hey, we have a rule!" "This case doesn't fit that rule." "Well lets find out why not, characterize it, and then make a better rule!"

    Sticking to a definition 'cause it works most of the time might be "practical", but it's not right.

    You know what I love about this kind of pedantry? It was hilarious for you types to use it on the Christians, but in the end, the Christians were right: You'll tear yourselves apart. And here we see it. Science must fall. Because one anomaly in 1,000,000 means not all, therefore we have to throw out all previous observation and start over.

  • EscherEnigma||

    You know what I love about this kind of pedantry?
    That we would only have a small fraction of discoveries if scientists didn't have that kind of "let's get the real answer" mentality rather then simply accepting the "good enough" answer that's always been taught?

    Y'all choose the weirdest things to take offense to.

  • Kivlor||

    No, Tony, you're missing my point: There is only one legitimate Church in Christianity. With that said, trying to break down a theology--or philosophy--and say "Well if there can be multiple sects/religions then there can be multiple genders" is retarded.

    There are males and females. There is of course the third "ambiguous" option, where someone is born with incomplete or malformed genitalia, but we are talking about biology and the "normal" status of the species. There is of course need for us to caveat the discussion with the third option except when dealing with pedants.

    We don't need to make stupid caveats about polydactyls when we discuss the fact that humans have 2 hands with 5 fingers each. This is absurd.

  • John Rohan||

    There really are only men and women, with no "ambigious" option. Everyone reproduces either through the female side (creating an egg) or the male side (fertilizing it). Not all intersex people have children, but the ones who can have had kids have done it through one of those two sides. No one in human history has been fertile both ways.

  • StackOfCoins||

    Believing in fanciful things is not the same as observing that people who think they are something they are not are mentally ill.

  • Tony||

    This repeated question begging gets us nowhere.

  • BearOdinson||

    I guess it depends on your definition of libertine.

    But basically I hate anyone who tells me what to do, when I am not bothering anyone else. So I equally hate the WoD, laws against prostitution (particularly against ads for escorts that don't involve streetwalkers interfering with other businesses), laws against consensual sexual behavior, and laws forcing people to participate in activities they disagree with (whatever those activities may be).

    I will be honest, I am not a Christian, and I am not a particularly big fan of Christianity. But I certainly would never advocate a Christian being forced to participate in an activity they disagree with.
    Of course I equally would not advocate a human sacrifice to the Allfather (at least today).

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You figure no one should be forced to participate in an activity with which they disagree?

    How can that be a reasonable, practical, effective position?

  • EscherEnigma||

    As a minority voice in a society, it works well enough. It's when it becomes a majority voice that it becomes problematic, but most folks have something they're willing to force, so I don't think it's ever come to that.

  • BearOdinson||

    So let's start at the extremes and work our way in:

    1) a. Should you be forced to participate in a Catholic communion ceremony?
    b.Should someone else be forced to participate in sexual activity they disagree with?

    I am guessing the answer to both is "No".

    2 a. Ok, so should you be forced to participate in military service?
    b. Should you be forced to attend a group marriage?

    Again, I am betting you would say "No".

    3) a. Should your children be forced to participate in a moment of silence at school?
    b. If you have a flower shop, should you be forced to create arrangements for a same-sex marriage?

    So here is where I bet you go "No" and "Yes".

  • BearOdinson||

    So tell me, why draw the line here? Because money is involved? Should a straight prostitute in Nevada be forced to have sex with a lesbian? After all, she serves the public and public accommodation laws shouldn't allow her to discriminate!

    Would a more reasonable, practical and effective position be that YOU get to decide what activities people have to participate in? I would imagine you would not agree to that. So then do I get to decide? Probably not.

    What about 50% +1 of the people? That's democracy right? Except, California actually passed a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. A federal judge just overturned it. So why wasn't democracy good enough then?

    I would argue that my way is the ONLY reasonable, practical and effective position. That way YOU get to decide what YOU do, and I get to decide what I do. The only conflict comes from when one of us chooses to do something to someone else without their permission.

  • EscherEnigma||

    If you have a flower shop, should you be forced to create arrangements for a same-sex marriage?


    My answer is the same as the answer to the following question: "If you have a flower shop, are you legally prohibited from considering a customer's religion when deciding whether to sell them flowers"?

    Either we all have to play nice, or we all get to pull out the long knives. But forcing me to accept abuse while my tormentors are immune to reprisal is untenable. The status quo must change.

    The only conflict comes from when one of us chooses to do something to someone else without their permission.


    Yes, human nature is the real villain of any story. Which is why such a hippy "live and let live" commune can only exist if it exists under a larger umbrella that threatens violence if folks don't play nice.

    Or to put it another way: sure, you and I could agree to "live and let live", and do away with all the structures forcing us to do so. But sooner or later, we'll get a neighbor who doesn't agree and has a big enough stick to force their point.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    You are a statist moron, EE.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    FOAD, slaver.

  • Azathoth!!||

    These two things are not equivalent--

    If you have a flower shop, should you be forced to create arrangements for a same-sex marriage?
    If you have a flower shop, are you legally prohibited from considering a customer's religion when deciding whether to sell them flowers?

    It should be--

    If you have a flower shop, should you be forced to create arrangements for a same-sex marriage?

    and

    If you have a flower shop, should you be forced to create arrangements for a First Communion celebration?

    or

    If you have a flower shop, are you legally prohibited from considering a customer's religion when deciding whether to sell them flowers?

    and

    If you have a flower shop, are you legally prohibited from considering a customer's sexual orientation when deciding whether to sell them flowers?

    Those are equivalent couplets

    The first is about being forced to get creative on behalf of something one might not agree with. The second is about people making simple purchases.

    But here's the truth--you SHOULD be able to decide who you do business with for ANY reason--however venal or noble.

  • Kivlor||

    To be clear Bear, I wasn't aiming my comment as if you support doing those things to Christians (or to most of society, since the overwhelming majority are not LGBTQAAIP) but pointing out that we have plenty of evidence of exactly where this is going to end up from previous experimentation with using the law to enforce Libertinism. (Which I am again not accusing you of endorsing)

    In reality, this will be enforced. So we have a choice: We can enforce tradition on the libertines or we can enforce libertinism on the traditional. And since 95% of the population doesn't fall into this particular libertine category, it is obvious that the best decision is to enforce tradition.

    Theoretically it doesn't have to be this way. But in practice, it evidently will be

  • BearOdinson||

    I understand where you are coming from. And perhaps you are right. But I fervently hope and pray (though admittedly not to the same god as you) that this is not the case. I still believe that we can get to a place where disapproval doesn't equal illegal.

  • StackOfCoins||

    Unfortunately it looks like the train on disapproval has already left the station. Not sure if you've ever watched the freakshow called I Am Jazz, but this is the indoctrination occurring in our society. If you can stomach it, have a watch: it's very informative.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWuLz6WebU
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG-U8oFpa8o

    The people who applaud and support this will be in a serious position to call the shots in 10, 20, 30 years time. If they have their way, it will be Civil Rights 2.0, except this time, the "oppressed" are seriously deranged individuals who don't want rationality getting in their way of taking a knife to their kids.

    Circumcision is barbarism perpetuated in the name of religion; this is a whole new level of madness, in the name of the new religion: I Fucking Love Science. Not to be confused with the discipline of scientific inquiry, though it has cloaked itself in the same colors.

  • Kivlor||

    Haven't heard of it. I don't watch TV really. But honestly, we had a couple of public schools that made news by administering hormone therapy treatments on kids despite parents being opposed, and that did it for me. I won't be sending my children to a public school to be abused mentally, emotionally and physically by a bunch of loons.

    Parents who do this to their children should be charged, tried, and executed. This is why I argue that we need to just put the gayz back in the closet and treat the trans as the mentally ill they are.

  • EscherEnigma||

    To be clear, Kivlor, do you claim to be Libertarian and/or libertarian? I'd hate to slander a mostly-harmless group by falsely associating you with them.

  • Kivlor||

    No, I am not a libertarian Escher. I used to be, then I grew up. Libertarianism, is in my eyes, much like Anarchism or Communism in that it is an idealist system that cannot actually be implemented in any effective way.

    I agree with libertarians in reducing large portions of the federal government. The idea that we shouldn't tell people that they can't do something because they're adults and should be able to make their own decisions is patently childish, so I diverge there. The question is what should we not allow.

  • StackOfCoins||

    This is why I argue that we need to just put the gayz back in the closet and treat the trans as the mentally ill they are.

    Might I gently suggest you modify your argument to not lump in homosexuals with people who are legitimately nutjobs? It weakens the argument as a whole. Now, you may believe the gay people are nuts, or have strayed from God's light, whatever. Not going to argue the particulars since I'm not in a congregation.

    What's important here is that legitimizing this particular strain of madness is resulting in real trauma to children and deluded adults. The greatest crime is of course the parents who force this madness on their kids, and the doctors who aid and abet them. I can't believe it's even gotten to this point, where people with graduate degrees in science are helping it along. Maybe it's because they're apostates like me; but I'm on your side when I say that making gender reassignment the de jure best method of treating trans people is a great travesty of morality. These people need real help and counseling; maybe that includes getting in touch with Jesus. What they don't need is the butcher's knife.

  • Kivlor||

    Nope. It has nothing to do with "nuts" or "God's light". It's the fact that there are people attempting to teach children to be gay / trans in school. There's a huge difference between tolerance and preaching. And we've long entered into preaching territory.

    And if the gayz don't want to be lumped in with the Trannies, maybe they shouldn't be associating themselves as the same identity via LGBTQAAIP. Don't want to be included with the crazies, don't include them as part of your identity bloc.

  • Flinch||

    I wonder... whatever happened to the ideal of "do no harm" and the hippocratic oath? If adults want gender surgery that's their business as they aren't hurting anyone. Anyone doing this to minors needs to do time, and their assistants charged with aiding and abetting. No apology will remove the scars, and most undergoing surgery will find [in about 5 years] that they have the same problems as before smothered by... a new pile of problems.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    I pretty much agree, but the left will never stop trying to shove their version of reality down everyone's throat,

  • Trigger Warning||

    Shackleford is a pretty cool guy. Eh bakes cakes and doesn't afraid of anything.

  • Flinch||

    The next step, Kivlor is [at the next democrat presidency] somebody in the military asserting the right to a hairstyle. It will begin on "religious" grounds, then expand into... no standards whatsoever. The hat problem emanating from that will be interesting. Are we going to have mil-spec visors? Do-rags? Something never seen before? It's hard to get away from some type of head covering, and given the relative unavailability of sunscreen when deployed, troops need something useful - there is no 7/11 in krapistan. I know one guy about had his nose fried to a crisp standing watch in the Persian Gulf decades ago - because his ballcap was unwearable with kevlar on his head, and no visor attachment was approved for that design. He tried once to revert to his ballcap on account of the pain, and was threatened with possible court martial for violating a direct order. Had he done that fishing during time off, he would have been charged with "destruction of government property" [a practice for dealing with the sunburned at the time]. I think he finally requested captains mast, just to show the c/o his face and personally request the erection of a sunshade so kevlar stayed on his head.
    Anyway, be ready to bombard your congressmans office when the progs crank up their next bad idea to make america worse. Libertines are fun to be around/watch... but they should never be in charge of anything.

  • Eidde||

    If we could trust the authorities to confine themselves to considerations of military efficiency, expertly evaluating how someone's...eccentricities...will affect hir military usefulness, then that would be fine.

    But of course it's gone way beyond that. Certain eccentricities, it seems, aren't eccentric at all, but such a fundamental expression of identity that it's elevated to an issue of civil rights.

    I mean, you wouldn't resegregate the Army by race, would you? Of course not! So by extension you must be for trans rights, too, ergo, there is automatically no concern fit to be be articulated about military efficiency except by racist clingers.

  • Trigger Warning||

    I'm done giving a fuck. If trannies can do their fucking jobs, not be assholes, deploy when needed, and not expect to have a taxpayer-funded dick-chopping or tit-growing, fuck it. Let's go. See where this ride stops.

  • Meerkatx||

    You're okay with dick hardening meds, and boob jobs though?

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Guess what, stupid, they don't get cosmetic surgery, not medically necessary. now back under your bridge, you dipshit troll.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Meerkat: ED can be caused by numerous medical problems, psychological and physical. Being against military members being prescribed ED meds is like objecting to blood pressure meds. Cruel, stupid, and pointless.

    Titty surgery can also be medically necessary for cancer. Beyond that, a gargantuan rack, while awesome, can cause lady servicemembers issues from back injury, being unable to run properly, looking bad in uniform, etc. I've known a couple ladies who had reduction, mastopexy, etc. Perfectly fine.

  • ||

    "That sounds like a lot until you look at..."

    Fer fuck's sake, can we give up on this ridiculously overused fallacy? 10M is a shitload of money regardless of what other stupid crap the government pays for.

  • Flinch||

    No doubt. $5M would be critical mass for me: I could retire off of interest & dividends, and never touch principal.

  • Agammamon||

    In some ways, this weird, middle-of-the-road response may actually be for the best. The military will develop more experience in sorting out whatever privacy issues develop between transgender troops and the rest of the unit, and over time all sides will grow more comfortable with the idea. Fundamentally, the end of the ban on gay troops succeeded because it did not have the impact on readiness or morale that people feared.

    People didn't like DADT - and it went on far longer than necessary - but it *was* necessary.

    You can't just wave a legislative wand and expect everything to be worked out overnight with no kinks or problems. Slow and easy, incrementally, is the way to go. 10 years from now TG's in the military won't be an issue.

  • JoeBlow123||

    This is pretty fair. Let society catch up to rules and rules catch up to society, makes things work better.

  • Meerkatx||

    Can we ban every single drug to fix erectile dysfunction, boob jobs, tummy tucks, lifts of any sort, any drug or operation that is in fact not necessary but only elective, and any dental work that has no impact on a persons function like veneers?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Except for ED--which is an actual medical condition--the rest are not covered unless they're reconstructive.

  • Benitacanova||

    If I were in the army showers and saw anything swinging below regulation, I'd cut it off. No charge.

  • Flinch||

    I don't wish the less than 1% ill, but I have a question: are transgendered people even fit to receive orders? Troop movements are generally classified, and where somebody has undergone radical surgical procedures to mask their natural identity, a reasonable background check question is twofold. Are they trying to hide something, and are they of sound mind? We haven't even touched on esprit de corps, and may not need to. Putting in place policies that either don't work, or can't be managed are a threat to national security when talking about the military. Some people want to let their freak flag fly... ok. Just don't roll the dice on something that if it fails, endangers that same right.

  • vek||

    There are some things that will effect performance in the military, and there are some things that won't. Frankly if you could recruit enough people from any subset of qualified people it WOULD be most efficient to have as little friction as possible. We can't really do that because we get involved in too many wars, and got rid of the draft, so we've had to lower standards. But the question is HOW LOW do we want them to go?

    Women are frankly garbage in actual combat positions. If you look at the military's own numbers on male vs female testing, it basically showed that only something like 10% IIRC of women even matched the LOWEST 50% of male performance. Given that they enlist in much smaller numbers, literally only a couple percent are even as good as the worst 50% of men. Keep in mind 50% of the army is NOT even combat duty... In other words perhaps a single percent or two actually are good enough to be put into combat duty in theory... But when you factor in all the accommodations required to slide 1 woman in out of 100, it's simply retarded and not worth it.

    Trannies are the same type of cluster fuck, although they may actually be physically better than women if they're biologically male and not on estrogen. They're just a pain in the ass, and there's no reason to muck everything up to make them feel better.

  • vek||

    There are just too many issues, and they DAMN sure shouldn't be getting medical procedures paid for. A female soldier shouldn't get breast implants, and a man shouldn't get a penis extension surgery, so why should a tranny get their cosmetic genital work paid for? It's preposterous.

    And what specs are they to be held up to? Their biological sex, or their perceived gender? Do they go in male units or female? Blah blah blah. It's just a huge pain in the ass that isn't worth it for .5% of the population, that probably enlists at 1% of the rate that the straight male population does... .005% of the population is simple not worth the BS of dealing with. If the next Audie Murphy was going to be the 1 in a million tranny recruit, so what... The military will survive without he/she/it.

  • LifeStrategies||

    Scott Shackford, you're obviously egregiously over-paid since you dismiss ten million dollars ($10,000,000 sic) as not being a lot of money.

    Being a Reason writer, you presumably think that the government spends too much, so savings millions should be a good start, even to someone as biased as you...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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