Posted on Aug 1, 2017
She’s one of the Army’s first transitioned transgender soldiers — and an infantryman — but now...
3.23K
14
17
7
7
0
Sounds like POTUS needs some transition surgery in order to morph into a caring human being --
something obviously totally foreign to him. CW3 Lindsey Muller LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow 1LT Sandy Annala COL Mikel J. Burroughs PO1 William "Chip" Nagel SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL @
something obviously totally foreign to him. CW3 Lindsey Muller LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow 1LT Sandy Annala COL Mikel J. Burroughs PO1 William "Chip" Nagel SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL @
She’s one of the Army’s first transitioned transgender soldiers — and an infantryman — but now...
Posted from navytimes.com
Infantryman
Transgender
Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
2
2
0
I don't know how well this issue is going to work in the military. I suppose those that have FULLY transitioned before entering the military should have a shot. Those that have not - I envision a multitude of problems. "Women" in the female showers with a penis? "Males" in the male showers without one? With boobs? PT standards? Harassment? Discrimination? MOS's requiring strength females don't have? The military paying for transitions? Soldier/Soldier personal relationships where one has transitioned but hasn't told the other? After reading this story I am sympathetic to this Soldier, however, I know how people are. Yes, times are changing. I still haven't worked out my own personal feelings about this but regardless, I will follow UCMJ and regulations to the T - whichever way this ultimately goes. Best of luck to SPC Ketchum.
(2)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
All these type issues are in place in the military today as a result of the PC agenda over the past eight years. None of these actions, in the words of Mattis, improve our lethality. Quite the opposite, COs and many others we have trained and were at the top of their game have lost their careers due to infractions regarding gender and other sex related incidents. Lots more I could add, but being a mild mannered sailor, couldn't handle the hate mail.
(0)
(0)
CW4 Russ Hamilton (Ret)
MCPO Roger Collins - "None of these actions, in the words of Mattis, improve our lethality." No bang for the buck. Clearly this will require massive changes and expense - just rewriting UCMJ and the regs would cost a fortune. Plus no one knows the effectiveness of the end game. I assume we're talking about making such expenditures to accommodate a miniscule fraction of servicemembers and it will affect 100% of the force - who may or may not accept it. Potentially sacrifice the good of the many for the benefit of a very few - no doubt a majority of servicemembers (many?) will object to this change, maybe not, I don't know. More to ponder... Great comment though.
(0)
(0)
CW4 Russ Hamilton (Ret)
I am wondering what percent of the US population is trans? Sorry, don't know if there's a more appropriate term. What percentage of the US military is trans? Of both those, what percentage are not 100% "complete"? Where am I going with this? We are proposing massive changes to the institution of the military for how many people? The military is a completely different animal from the civilian world - what would be the benefit of making such massive changes to accommodate a few? Should it be measured by numbers or is this a "morally right" thing to do? Where does it end (making such changes)? We ban some people because of tattoos...
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
How is he not caring? This is a policy decision that recognizes that there's more to consider than just the feelings of transgendered people. Maybe he cares about the women who don't want to be forced to shower with a man.
If I were to take the same tone as those who are attacking Trump, I would say that they were part of the war on women for not respecting the privacy of female service members. But I think it's more productive to recognize that each side has different priorities than it is to go in with accusations and invective.
If I were to take the same tone as those who are attacking Trump, I would say that they were part of the war on women for not respecting the privacy of female service members. But I think it's more productive to recognize that each side has different priorities than it is to go in with accusations and invective.
(1)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
Women are being forced to shower with men when a male, who identifies as a female, is assigned to female berthing. They are then forced to sleep in the same compartment and shower in the same head as a male. I believe they should have a right to privacy that includes not being naked in the presence of someone of the opposite sex.
And, no, they are not female once they transition. We may be forced to treat them as such, but it doesn't change their actual sex. If it could, this wouldn't be a problem.
It's nice that you mind your own business, but how many women -do- actually have issues with this? I know it's easy to dismiss them as bigots - we often use such slander to try to discredit those we disagree with - but is it right?
They never should have been allowed to serve in the first place. Trump is in a situation where he has to decide between protecting the body privacy of women (and men, for that matter - but our culture doesn't really let them object) or the service of transsexuals. It's a crappy choice, but one that needs to be made. Obama chose in favor of transsexuals; Trump chose in favor of women. I agree with Trump.
As for the war on women comment, the point was that knee-jerk saying Trump is a hater is about as reasonable as if I were to call the previous policy part of a war on women. But stances are bovine excrement.
And, no, they are not female once they transition. We may be forced to treat them as such, but it doesn't change their actual sex. If it could, this wouldn't be a problem.
It's nice that you mind your own business, but how many women -do- actually have issues with this? I know it's easy to dismiss them as bigots - we often use such slander to try to discredit those we disagree with - but is it right?
They never should have been allowed to serve in the first place. Trump is in a situation where he has to decide between protecting the body privacy of women (and men, for that matter - but our culture doesn't really let them object) or the service of transsexuals. It's a crappy choice, but one that needs to be made. Obama chose in favor of transsexuals; Trump chose in favor of women. I agree with Trump.
As for the war on women comment, the point was that knee-jerk saying Trump is a hater is about as reasonable as if I were to call the previous policy part of a war on women. But stances are bovine excrement.
(1)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
More justification for the social engineering done by Obama and Carter, it has nothing to do with the bravery or ability of those that serve. The other considerations have been gone over and the activists will continue to reject them, for a variety of personal reasons.
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
I think he figured "repealing DADT worked, so this should be fine, too." That's the problem with deciding policy based on analogy. If someone's not going to tell me the differences, I don't care for them to presume to tell me about the similarities.
In the case of repealing DADT, it didn't require us to deny biological reality.
In the case of repealing DADT, it didn't require us to deny biological reality.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google