Posted on Jul 1, 2017
Pentagon Halts Obama's Transgender Endorsement Plan - Breitbart
2.39K
23
28
2
2
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
I have to agree with the decision. However, before the "hate" starts coming my way, it is not due to myself not wanting the military to be a "social experiment," it is a matter of "maximum lethality" of the force. As a retired member and now civil service with the Army, I (we) recieve the same annual training the uniformed members recieve and just recently "we" received the first transgender integration training. For civil servants there was no real change in daily business, yet for the uniformed members the changes were significant. Commanders had to come up with a transition plan with the individual, allowing time for medical care and eventual reassignment (if wanted). I have been told that this doesn't affect anyone with the exception of the member transitioning. Well for those who are living in a bubble the command requirements and finite resources required are clearly affecting more than the individual concerned. I am not against trans gender service members openly serving and with that being said, the transition needs to be solely on the member's shoulders (including bearing the cost, not the taxpayer, associated with the transition) while balancing the training or deployment requirements. Given the volatility of the international stage, the military needs to focus on more pressing needs and must make unpopular decisions to ensure lethality on a "fluid" battlefield..
(5)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
SSG Mangus, you're missing the main point. This policy is about allowing those who have ALREADY transitioned to join. They have to have been in their preferred gender for 18 mos. prior to enlistment, therefore the individual has already incurred a bulk of the associated costs (surgery, therapy, etc.). The military would have to provide ongoing cross sex hormones but that's no different than the 50+ year old generals on TRT or hormones for menopause.
(0)
(0)
SSG Steven Mangus
I have to disagree. The 50+ year old generals that receive that treatment is due to age and the natural cycle of life. The cost should not ever burden the taxpayer to change genders for anyone. I don't have an issue with what people do with their life; however, in this instance it is an individual hurdle not a collective hurdle..
(0)
(0)
I pretty much knew before clicking on the article what Gen.Mattis would say and he said it...! I agree with him. The United States Military is not the place to experiment with social and political issues....It is there to protect the United States of America with no distractions.
(5)
(0)
LTJG (Join to see)
Alan K. - That is absolutely not what SECDEF Mattis said on the matter. If you actually do agree with Mad Dog, then you would be fine with open transgender service in the military. He has stated that he is fine with it, will not reverse the policy, and is simply looking to have more time for figuring out the details.
(0)
(0)
I may get flak for this, but I agree with Mattis and the experiment should not be in the military. I have know individuals in the service that had . . . issues with their gender, and that is just how they feel. I have not one thing against people like this, I have many friends that have alternative life styles, even one that has lesbian mothers and a gay father. I just looked at some of the pictures of this though and thought "That is NOT the military I served" and it was disheartening to a point. Think of how other nations look at us. Are we progressive, of the now, weak? I am not sure what message this sends, but laughing stock I am sure is in there somewhere.
I just have a hard time, personally, taking men in skirts seriously. Perhaps that is a personality flaw in myself, perhaps I don't care. I just know that they people represent the United States of America. I think this may send the wrong message.
I just have a hard time, personally, taking men in skirts seriously. Perhaps that is a personality flaw in myself, perhaps I don't care. I just know that they people represent the United States of America. I think this may send the wrong message.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next