A good move

[_subgenius]

I know you guys can't wait to be distracted from the healthcare debates so I will leave this right here
(And yes, it's actually a good decision he has made)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-u-s-mi ... 52235.html

President Trump announced on Wednesday morning that the U.S. military would not “accept or allow” any transgender service members.
In a series of tweets, the commander in chief argued that too much is at stake in the military’s current operations for it to be “burdened” by the medical costs of transgender people or the “disruption” he says transgender service members would cause.

[_The CCC]

From a P-resident that never served in the any military. He doesn't know the F*** what he is talking about. The brave men and women who regardless of orientation voluntarily serve, and potentially die, our nation deserve better.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Out of curiosity, has this been transmitted in a way other than his Twitter feed?

[_Jersey Girl]

I know you guys can't wait to be distracted from the healthcare debates so I will leave this right here
(And yes, it's actually a good decision he has made)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-u-s-mi ... 52235.html

President Trump announced on Wednesday morning that the U.S. military would not “accept or allow” any transgender service members.
In a series of tweets, the commander in chief argued that too much is at stake in the military’s current operations for it to be “burdened” by the medical costs of transgender people or the “disruption” he says transgender service members would cause.

How is it a good decision?

[_Jersey Girl]

Out of curiosity, has this been transmitted in a way other than his Twitter feed?

Don't think so, Steuss.

[_Xenophon]

I too am curious what makes Subs think this was such a good decision.

Here were my thoughts from where Water Dog posted this.

I can't say that I am surprised by Trump's decision (much like my response to the OP, incidentally). If I'm not mistaken the Pentagon had already put Obama's order on hold till Jan 1 2018 in order to study potential impacts anyway.

I'm uncertain if some might be worried that a transgendered individual will volunteer for military service just for the medical insurance (it looks like only hormones and therapy are covered under Tricare, I'd appreciate a correction if this is not right though). I think it remains to be seen if that would be a huge issue and debatable that isn't deserved for service. I suppose the only other real concern might be in accommodating their needs for things like private facilities, much like for women in combat zones. I trust if the Pentagon really put their minds to it, they could figure it out though.

I guess my question is if the benefits of potentially strong recruits outweigh the costs. I think Kristin Beck is a pretty good example of a transgendered Navy SEAL that we were better off with having on our side. I would hate for us to lose some potentially very good members just because we thought the challenge was too great.


I was able to find a analysis report done by the RAND Corp;

Assessing the Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly

Essentially their major findings are:

1. There Are an Estimated 1,320–6,630 Transgender Service Members in the Active Component, but Not All Will Seek Gender Transition–Related Treatment
2. The Costs of Gender Transition–Related Health Care Treatment Are Relatively Low
3. Previous Integration Efforts and the Experiences of Foreign Militaries Indicate a Minimal Likely Impact on Force Readiness

And here are their recommendations:

1. DoD should ensure strong leadership and identify and communicate the benefits of an inclusive and diverse workforce to successfully implement a policy change and successfully integrate openly serving transgender service members into the force.
2. DoD should develop an explicit written policy on all aspects of the gender transition process to minimize any impact on service member or unit readiness.
3. DoD should provide education and training to the rest of the force on transgender personnel policy, and it should integrate this training with other diversity-related training and education.
4. DoD should develop and enforce a clear anti-harassment policy that addresses harassment aimed at transgender personnel alongside other targets of harassment.
5. DoD should make subject-matter experts and gender advisers serving within military units available to commanders seeking guidance or advice on gender transition–related issues.

[_subgenius]

From a P-resident that never served in the any military. He doesn't know the F*** what he is talking about. The brave men and women who regardless of orientation voluntarily serve, and potentially die, our nation deserve better.

There are several reasons why people are denied entry to the armed services and why theit service contracts may be cancelled, etc.

Your "participation trophy" rhetoric is a baseless emotional appeal that really doesn't speak to any reasonable position.

[Guest]

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

[_Maksutov]

Here's a really bad move:

http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/26/j ... be-robbers

[_subgenius]

I too am curious what makes Subs think this was such a good decision.

Pretty sure that is detailed in the OP, see also reasons from actual military leaders and the whole distraction thingy

I guess my question is if the benefits of potentially strong recruits outweigh the costs. I think Kristin Beck is a pretty good example of a transgendered Navy SEAL that we were better off with having on our side. I would hate for us to lose some potentially very good members just because we thought the challenge was too great.

Its not a challenge to implement good policy and that is what has just been done.
And your crap anecdote is unconvincing because the counter argument (by your logic) is that we would not have needed the one Seal had we not lost probably 10 Seals from abortions. See how anecdotal evidence works?