U.S. Military Transgender Policy

[gryphonv]

Navel gazing, hacking on the US. We'd do well to mind our business and put our own house in order instead of second guessing POTUS decisions for the US military.

We can't even figure out how to buy boots for our troops. Op Honour and similar initiatives have become the military's raison d'être, instead of war fighting. We best clean a bunch of black off our kettle before we start calling their pot out.

:2c:

Meeting NATO commitments would be a good start.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Our kettle is rainbow now RG 

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Meeting NATO commitments would be a good start.

Dare to dream  ;D

The boys on the hill are preying for a one term Presidency so they don't actually have to follow through on any of their promises.

Realistically, we don't need to spend 2% GDP on Defence nor do I think we should.  Militarism for the sake of militarism is stupid.

I find it interesting that earlier in the thread, someone mentioned the creation of an entirely female special forces unit in Norway.

Firstly, a new unit wasn't created, what they did was bolt a platoon on to the FSK (Norwegian SOF) that was all female.

The reasoning, which was very logical, was because an operational requirement was identified that the FSK needed female operators on certain mission sets they did (MTT/SR,etc).

This isn't new, the SOE employed female operatives in WW2 and women have always had roles in combat.

So while this was portrayed in the media as some sort of SJW victory for feminism, etc.  It was simply a logical step to take in meeting an operational requirement.

 

[mariomike]

I find it interesting that earlier in the thread, someone mentioned the creation of an entirely female special forces unit in Norway.

For discussion see,

Hunter Troop: Norway's tough-as-nails female soldiers
https://army.ca/forums/threads/125494.0

 

[The Bread Guy]

Back in the U.S.A., this, reportedly from the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (source) ...

 

[Blackadder1916]

Just a bit of musing about knock-on effects.

Since this new Presidential "twitolicy"© (policy announced via twitter) was promulgated apparently without prior consultation that included appropriate review by DoD manpower and personnel authorities, what would be the reason for, and category of the discharge from military service for those individuals who have already identified as transgendered?  While the US military are not bound in the same way as the CAF with regard to human rights legislation, they are probably a more legislation/regulation driven organization than we will ever imagine.  If you think you would get a headache trying to explain the release regulations for the CAF (as well as veterans coverage) you'd have a migraine X10 multiplied by five (DoD, Army, Navy/Marines, Air Force, VA) trying to wade through the existing policies affecting US military members.  As President Trump touts "medical costs" as a primary reason for his twitolicy, would currently serving members receive a "medical discharge" since they have now "developed during military service" a medical condition that requires them to be separated from the service?  If that would be the natural progression of the fevered thinking that lead to this twitolicy would not those individuals discharged for medical reasons be entitled to Veterans' medical (and other) benefits for their condition just like any other veteran who was medically discharged?

Thankfully there are sensible military leaders, like the CJCS, who actually know how the world works.

 

[Old Sweat]

This issue could go bad very quickly. One commentator on a cable news network (I forget which commentator and which network) suggested the lack of support for the policy voiced by the chairman is significant. I am not sure as General Dunford is clear that he has not yet received notification and direction from the Secretary of Defense. A couple of questions seem moot: first, what release item would be used, medical, misconduct, service no longer required or what; and, second, if it is a physical issue, do these personnel then qualify for a medical pension and/or veterans' pension and benefits? I'll bet it is headed for the courts, and the supreme court eventually.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Back in the U.S.A., this, reportedly from the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (source) ...

... with the very latest via the Pentagon info-machine:

Statement by Chief Pentagon Spokesperson Dana W. White on Transgender Policy
Press Operations
Release No: NR-275-17
July 27, 2017

The Department of Defense is awaiting formal guidance from the White House as a follow-up to the commander-in-chief's announcement on military service by transgender personnel.  We will provide detailed guidance to the department in the near future for how this policy change will be implemented.  The department will continue to focus on our mission of defending our nation and on-going operations against our foes, while ensuring all service members are treated with respect.

... what release item would be used, medical, misconduct, service no longer required or what; and, second, if it is a physical issue, do these personnel then qualify for a medical pension and/or veterans' pension and benefits? I'll bet it is headed for the courts, and the supreme court eventually.

... what would be the reason for, and category of the discharge from military service for those individuals who have already identified as transgendered?  ... would currently serving members receive a "medical discharge" since they have now "developed during military service" a medical condition that requires them to be separated from the service?  ... would not those individuals discharged for medical reasons be entitled to Veterans' medical (and other) benefits for their condition just like any other veteran who was medically discharged? ...

All VERY good questions - it'll be interesting to see how it all unfolds.

 

[angus555]

Hence my point about us not being a serious military, vice the US military, which is a serious military.

Do you think we would have a "serious military" if Canada was a hegemonic power incessantly thirsty for resources offshore, and picking sides in unending religious or political conflicts for decades on end?

I think that's besides the point anyway.

If someone has the balls to be themselves as they wish to be, withstanding all the judgmental people left in society, and in the military, I think they should be wholeheartedly allowed to fight for their country as they wish.

In all the criteria of a good warrior, "fitting in" to societal norms has never been one of them. It never has been, for thousands of years.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=angus555] .

In all the criteria of a good warrior, "fitting in" to societal norms has never been one of them. It never has been, for thousands of years.
[/quote]
Not even for the Spartans? Or knights?

 

[angus555]

Not even for the Spartans? Or knights?

I meant society in terms of broader civilization. It's easy to see the Spartans or knights as outliers in that way. That's why they're notable.

Anyways, great examples. Made me think of the good old days.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Interesting article about Transgender people in the US MILITARY and various costs and problems.

https://www.funker530.com/transgender-troops/

Transgender troops are more than a financial burden on the military. They are also a burden on their unit’s readiness and effectiveness.

Facebook and left leaning news sources are full of military experts these past few days. Funny thing is, I don’t recall seeing very many of them in Iraq or Afghanistan. I do however recall hearing several hundred stories of “I was going to enlist, but (insert generic disqualifying disorder)”

We’re going to break this down shotgun style. Currently there’s an 18 page order commanders need to follow to the letter that explicitly states a service member, once diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria by a military doctor, must be catered to at all costs to avoid an incident. This includes accommodating for time off of work, and having the service member limited duty in a non-deployable role at their parent unit for the duration of their transition which will last until the medical personnel overseeing the transition deem said transition complete. The overall cost of this is covered by the taxpayer, and yes the current overall cost of this is less than a single percent of the overall spend of medicine for troops and veterans, for now.

Here’s what’s not listed in that cost to the taxpayer. That service member will still receive a check on the first and the fifteenth of every month while doing almost no work in support of the military’s overall mission of winning wars while they are in a transitional stage between genders. On top of this, all unit leaders from the lowest level to the highest have to take time out of their day to ensure that a single individual service member is being taken care of. This detracts from their ability to accomplish the mission, and ensure the welfare and well-being of all service members in their charge. This point is proven in the amount of time that is currently being spent on the few thousand individuals currently serving with Gender Dysphoria of the 2.26 million men and women that make up our armed forces.

This transitional period can last up to, and beyond, the entire duration of the service members tenure in the military, especially if they are put on a medical hold and not allowed to EAS or ETS at the appropriate time while pending further treatment or complications with their transition. On top of this, individuals who complete transition require on-going and continual psychological support for the duration of their lives in order to maintain their overall mental health. If we medically separate dudes who have PTSD caused from war, why should we allow an individual suffering from any of the after effects of a gender change to continue to serve? Also, when word of the military’s program gets out, there is nothing stopping a person who thinks they may be suffering from this from simply enlisting just to undergo the costly and long procedures under a program that will not only pay their way, but actually pay them to have a sex change, while providing them with lifetime benefits under the visage of service.

If you don’t think the system will be played and abused in its entirety, then you don’t understand how the military works. Not every single person enlists into the military with selfless service and sacrifice for their nation on the mind. In fact, I would say close to ten percent of the overall operational forces joined the military as a free ride to improve their life, and they are currently finding every nook and cranny that they can to hide under.

This isn’t a human rights issue. It’s not a political issue to shine another negative light on the POTUS. It is in fact the correct decision that is needed to change the status quo of waste and fraud in the Department of Defense. While this may seem like some slight against the LGBTQ community, or a step back and away from LGBTQ rights, I assure you it is not. This should be a disqualifying disorder for military service similar to childhood asthma or poor vision. Those individuals are kept out of military service because they would be a burden on the institutions they wish to serve in.

Gender Dysphoria is a very real condition. I know genuinely good people who suffer from this, and I treat them as I would any other person on this planet. However, note the word diagnose. There are an uncountable number of diagnosable conditions that can bar someone from military service, and in this instance I completely agree with an overwhelming majority of active duty and veteran service members that catering to, and treating people with the condition is not the responsibility of an organization that exists only to win our nation’s wars.

 

[Jarnhamar]

.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

[quote author=angus555 link=topic=119881/post-1497613#msg1497613 date=1501210112]
Do you think we would have a "serious military" if Canada was a hegemonic power incessantly thirsty for resources offshore, and picking sides in unending religious or political conflicts for decades on end?

I think that's besides the point anyway.

If someone has the balls to be themselves as they wish to be, withstanding all the judgmental people left in society, and in the military, I think they should be wholeheartedly allowed to fight for their country as they wish.

In all the criteria of a good warrior, "fitting in" to societal norms has never been one of them. It never has been, for thousands of years.
[/quote]

If we were the above, we would have a serious military; however, we aren't so we can put out whatever circus road show we feel like.

That includes catering to whatever political agenda is flavour du jour for domestic consumption. 

I've got nothing personally against anyone but the military is a business and should be treated as such.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Some of the latest ...

• "Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security" (White House memo, 25 Aug 2017)
• "President Trump Has Taken a Key Step to Implement His Transgender Military Ban" (Time, 25 Aug 2017)
• "ACLU Sues White House Over Transgender Soldiers Ban" (Bloomberg, 28 Aug 2017)

And, for the record, this statement issued by the U.S. SecDef on 29 Aug 2017:

The Department of Defense has received the Presidential Memorandum, dated August 25, 2017, entitled “Military Service by Transgender Individuals.”  The department will carry out the president’s policy direction, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security.  As directed, we will develop a study and implementation plan, which will contain the steps that will promote military readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion, with due regard for budgetary constraints and consistent with applicable law.  The soon arriving senior civilian leadership of DOD will play an important role in this effort.  The implementation plan will address accessions of transgender individuals and transgender individuals currently serving in the United States military.

Our focus must always be on what is best for the military’s combat effectiveness leading to victory on the battlefield.  To that end, I will establish a panel of experts serving within the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to provide advice and recommendations on the implementation of the president’s direction.  Panel members will bring mature experience, most notably in combat and deployed operations, and seasoned judgment to this task.  The panel will assemble and thoroughly analyze all pertinent data, quantifiable and non-quantifiable.  Further information on the panel will be forthcoming.

Once the panel reports its recommendations and following my consultation with the secretary of Homeland Security, I will provide my advice to the president concerning implementation of his policy direction.  In the interim, current policy with respect to currently serving members will remain in place.  I expect to issue interim guidance to the force concerning the president’s direction, including any necessary interim adjustments to procedures, to ensure the continued combat readiness of the force until our final policy on this subject is issued.

 

[tomahawk6]

Trump has too many democrats in this administration. That includes the generals.

 

[Lumber]

Trump has too many democrats in this administration. That includes the generals.

I'm assuming you mean that from Trump's perspective? For the rest of us, it seems just right.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Trump has too many democrats in this administration. That includes the generals.

As in democrat - an advocate of democracy who believes in the political or social equality of all people . . . or . . . Democrat - a member of the Democratic Party?  Yes, those pesky democratic principles do get in the way.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Blackadder1916] Yes, those pesky democratic principles do get in the way.
[/quote]
They don't get in the way of droning pesky villages out of existence  [

 

[EpicBeardedMan]

They don't get in the way of droning pesky villages out of existence  [

Noooooo, that's Trump's fault obviously. People are more upset about a temporary travel ban than they were with Obama's bombings...