A good move

[_subgenius]

How DO transgender members of the armed forces effect "readiness or lethality"?

Where is Cam when you need his input and expertise?

I don't beleive the policy is based upon those criteria unless you involve how any medical procedure is opted out for enlsitment medical qualification. In other words, being flat footed was not really an issue for readiness but for cost effectiveness. These type of qualifications are imposed upon recruits everyday without objection. However the simple minded folk who mistakenly insist that this is somehow related to slavery and the struggle for civil rights are not only insulting those real issue but also diminish our culture into a deeper chasm of selfishness and participation trophies, all due to an inability to grow up.

[_Jersey Girl]

There was a time not all that long ago that blacks were routinely excluded from regular military service in the US, because of perceived problems of integration. You really do need to crawl out of your bigoted eastern Tennessee.

Your hero Drumpf caught the US military unaware.
SEE http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/penta ... r-decision

Blacks weren't denied service for medical reasons. A person could be denied for any various medical circumstance that is deemed to be a cost to the military. For example, having a bunion that will eventually require surgery is a reason a person would be denied admission to service.
Get over yourself and get an education on at least one topic around here...your constant google-cut-n-paste scrambling to support whatever knee jerk reaction you seem to always have when your stodgy and cursory opinions are challenged and/or proven wrong.

You are addressing a military retiree. I'm afraid that your lack of respect for his time, service, education and experiences is in direct correlation to your poor showing on this thread.

That is to say, you don't give a damn.

[_Jersey Girl]

How DO transgender members of the armed forces effect "readiness or lethality"?

Where is Cam when you need his input and expertise?

I don't beleive the policy is based upon those criteria unless you involve how any medical procedure is opted out for enlsitment medical qualification. In other words, being flat footed was not really an issue for readiness but for cost effectiveness. These type of qualifications are imposed upon recruits everyday without objection. However the simple minded folk who mistakenly insist that this is somehow related to slavery and the struggle for civil rights are not only insulting those real issue but also diminish our culture into a deeper chasm of selfishness and participation trophies, all due to an inability to grow up.

The question was based on a direct quote from Mattis himself.

The rest of your babble is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. It's always a good idea to choose making sense over simply making noise.

[_Xenophon]

A nice piece by Washington Post discussing similarities of this to previous bans and providing some solid historical context. I'm going to do a fair bit of pasting here, because I think it is worth reading.

That latter point, though, the “disruption” that integration of transgender troops would spur? That is an argument we’ve heard before. When gay Americans sought the right to serve in the military, that was a central argument against the change. When women sought combat roles, a central argument. When blacks were integrated into the military? Warnings about disruption.

In 1948, President Harry Truman moved toward fully integrating black Americans into the military. At the time, members of his own party spoke out against the plan. The Washington Post reported on the objections in June of that year.

Former Tennessee U.S. senator Tom Stewart proposed “allowing men in the services to choose whether or not they would serve in mixed units” to avoid offending the sensibilities of those determined to maintain segregation. U.S. Sen. Lister Hill of Alabama argued that integration would “seriously impair the morale of the Army at a time when our armed forces should be at their strongest and most efficient.” He called Truman’s move “unfortunate.”

When the Democrats adopted an end-military-segregation platform, a contingent of Southern Democrats splintered off into a pro-segregation party known as the Dixiecrats. Strom Thurmond, running as a States Rights Democratic Party candidate while still nominally a Democrat, carried four Southern states in that year’s presidential election.

In the 1990s, the argument shifted to the role of women in the military. That year, Lou Marano wrote a piece for this paper arguing against allowing women to serve in combat roles.

“It is also said that sexual distraction in military life is an issue only for relics like me, and that today’s more enlightened generation of young men develop nothing but brotherly affection for their female ‘buddies,'” he wrote. “Not only does this go against all experience and common sense, but I found it to be false when reporting on U.S. forces deployed to the mountains of Honduras in 1988. . . . Human nature doesn’t change, and we are asking for trouble by pretending it has.”

The physiology of female soldiers also played a prominent role in the debate. Newt Gingrich, splitting time between serving as Speaker of the House and teaching a history course at Reinhardt College in 1995, told his students that women wouldn’t be able to handle certain combat realities.

“Females,” he said, “have biological problems staying in a ditch for 30 days because they get infections, and they don’t have upper body strength.” Men, on the other hand, like to roll around in filth, he said.

[_Jersey Girl]

My question was going to be, will this new policy result in forced separation for active duty currently serving and will they be denied benefits for those who are eligible.

I doubt this policy reversal will result in the sort of expulsion you're imagining, it's the government we're talking about. Money tree is what they do. At any rate this time in service can be applied towards any other federal position. If someone has 15 years in and they are not allowed to reenlist, which is something that happens on a regular basis anyway, they can march right over to the FBI, DOC, or a zillion other agencies, and easily get a job that will resume their retirement clock.

Try responding to the issue that I raised.

[_Jersey Girl]

Here's yet another consideration. Other people and organizations (Think ACLU, US Senate, etc.) are going to have to act as the voice for trans active dutyi n expressing criticism of the new President tweet policy.

There are only so many ways they can speak for themselves right now.

[_Jersey Girl]

Try responding to the issue that I raised.

You said, "forced separation" resulting in "denied benefits?" Am I reading this wrong? Other than those benefits associated with active duty, are you suggesting something else might be denied?

If you think or believe that I am going to engage in yet another series of exchanges wherein I elect to go around in circles with you while you misrepresent me, lie about me, and waste time misdirecting the conversation while I have to keep trying to get you to answer on point instead of manufacturing crap out of thin air, you are sadly mistaken, buddy.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Here's a press release from (R-AZ) John McCain:

"The statement was unclear. The Department of Defense has already decided to allow currently-serving transgender individuals to stay in the military, and many are serving honorably today. Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving. There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train, and deploy to leave the military—regardless of their gender identity. We should all be guided by the principle that any American who wants to serve our country and is able to meet the standards should have the opportunity to do so—and should be treated as the patriots they are."

Source:

https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/in ... 6C697CA235

I mean you really can't get a more credible person than him. I would think if Senator McCain, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, is ok with it our military folks ought to figure out how to be ok with it.

- Doc

[_Maksutov]

I mean you really can't get a more credible person than him. I would think if Senator McCain is ok with it our military folks ought to figure out how to be ok with it.

Oh brother.

Better to have draft dodger Donald advise us, right?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Oh brother, indeed. The CSASC literally has legislative oversight of the Merica's DoD, military R&D, nuclear energy (with regard to national security), service member benefits, the Selective Service System and about a metric crap load of matters related to defense policy. It's pretty much the policy maker for the DoD and arguably the most powerful Senate committee in our government.

So. Yeah. I think Senator McCain is among the most credible people vis a vis military matters.

And you're “F” ing all over Trump's nuts, a guy who got out of Vietnam because his “F” ing feet hurt. And you're worried about transgenders? Your priorities are not aligned, my friend.

- Doc