The Ban On Transgender Individuals In The Military May Soon Be Lifted

originally posted by: TrappedPrincess
As a veteran and woman in transition I will say that training standards should be of the represented gender on account of the added or diminished strength resulting form either the estrogen or testosterone. For a basic PFT in the Marine corps the running portion and the crunches are pretty much the same for either gender, if your fast your fast and if your core is strong you will be good at crunches. Speaking of crunches guys lets be honest, everybody gets 100...right?

I would have have loved female standards for at least pull ups too btw simply because I have long arms so pulling my long torso up with those long arms has always been tough. I was a decent runner though 22 min 3 mile and well crunches we all get 100, right?

Oh and as for the rifle qualifying again a non gender biased skill.

So there are physical gender differences? I've been told here over and over that it is just a societal construct.

Damn the political correctness. I love my brothers and sisters but this may step on toes and I'm sorry in advance.

"Transgender". "Transition". Can we be a little more specific? These words are so nebulous and of broad scope, nobody knows what the hell somebody else is talking about when they're used. It confuses me, someone that should supposedly be an expert in these matters.

Had the phrase "transsexual that had completed transition" been used, what picture would you have in your mind? In mine it is of someone that has completed all the surgical procedures to have the anatomical aspects of whatever gender they are so we're not talking about "chicks with dicks" which I can't even believe I just typed.

As a woman that has been through the transsexual process nearly forty years ago, the only special concession that would be needed by the military would be to supply a daily low dose estrogen pill or even alternately, a bi-weekly or monthly injection. Even at that, it is not like they are something like heart or thyroid medication and could even be discontinued for months with no huge consequence. I've skipped as long as a couple years at time and it didn't kill me and I didn't turn into a man. I laughed when I wrote that last part.

So, does the military allow women that have had a hysterectomy to join? Same difference.

originally posted by: Baldryck
a reply to: NavyDoc

I think they will most likely just make someone on that list Non world wide qualified. At least at the onset of the policy. It would not play too well socially and politically if they just push the first ones out the door based on medical needs. It will be a few years before they start doing that in my opinion.

Exactly. And then the lie of "equality" would vanish almost immediately.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Blue Falcon!!! I thought that was just a local thing. We actually have Blue Falcon cards we hand out to Blue Falcons. You just made my day Shamrock.

On topic so this doesn't get removed... Yes, let them serve. Make both genders draft eligible.

originally posted by: EKron


So, does the military allow women that have had a hysterectomy to join? Same difference.

They don't. Having chronic medical needs is pretty much an automatic dis-qualifier.

a reply to: NavyDoc

The word equality when used with the Military is to just get in the door. There really is no equality in the Military. We both know this.

Just like the business world, it is politics that gets promoted on the whole. Equal standards get thrown by the way side when someone is being groomed. There will be poster children when this is instituted. They will be groomed and not allowed to fail.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: EKron


So, does the military allow women that have had a hysterectomy to join? Same difference.

They don't. Having chronic medical needs is pretty much an automatic dis-qualifier.

So if a natal woman in the military has to undergo a hysterectomy, is that an automatic discharge? After treatment, how is this condition considered chronic?

originally posted by: EKron

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: EKron


So, does the military allow women that have had a hysterectomy to join? Same difference.

They don't. Having chronic medical needs is pretty much an automatic dis-qualifier.

So if a natal woman in the military has to undergo a hysterectomy, is that an automatic discharge? After treatment, how is this condition considered chronic?

You are confusing starting in the military and being an existing member. Having chronic medical needs is usually an automatic dis-qualifier for joining. Think about it logically--the military doesn't want people or need people who start out with issues from day one, they need and want healthy people that they can train and deploy and do, you know, their job which is a lot more than being a social experiment. They need to be able to break things and kill people in very austere conditions.

A member that gains a medical problem may or may not be retained depending on their billet, manpower needs, performance, and many other different factors. Since we are drawing down, people are being discharged for any little thing at the moment and a chronic medical condition is a reasonable place to make the decision as to who stays and goes.

a reply to: NavyDoc

K, thanks. So this whole thing then is just hopping on some political bandwagon so the military can say "gee, look what we're doing now aren't we cool"?

originally posted by: EKron
a reply to: NavyDoc

K, thanks. So this whole thing then is just hopping on some political bandwagon so the military can say "gee, look what we're doing now aren't we cool"?

Yes and no--political pressure on the political animals known as "flag officers" is what it is.

a reply to: NavyDoc

What will be interesting to see is how this impacts boat space (manpower requirements and allotments for you non seagoing types).

Will there be a "quota" to attain now? And maintain? Will otherwise qualified applicants be turned down? Will otherwise qualified serving members be sent walking to retain TGs?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: NavyDoc

What will be interesting to see is how this impacts boat space (manpower requirements and allotments for you non seagoing types).

Will there be a "quota" to attain now? And maintain? Will otherwise qualified applicants be turned down? Will otherwise qualified serving members be sent walking to retain TGs?

If past experience is an indicator, the answer is an emphatic yes.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: NavyDoc

What will be interesting to see is how this impacts boat space (manpower requirements and allotments for you non seagoing types).

Will there be a "quota" to attain now? And maintain? Will otherwise qualified applicants be turned down? Will otherwise qualified serving members be sent walking to retain TGs?

If past experience is an indicator, the answer is an emphatic yes.

You are correct there will be quotas
and otherwise qualified serving members
will be fired to retain TG's.

I spent over 50 years as a military dependent
and saw this happen over and over;
under-qualified minorities promoted over
better qualified white men who
were "fired" because they were not promoted;
under-qualified women promoted over
better qualified men,who were
"fired" because they were not promoted;

no reason at all not to assume
that under-qualified gay and TG's
will be promoted and retained over better qualified
heterosexual males and females and racial minorities
who will be "fired" for not getting promoted.

Just ask anyone who has sat on a promotion board
which decided who stays and who goes,

there are stringent quotas that must be filled,
qualifications are secondary to filling quotas.

The military, at least the Army is big on
filling quotas first
and looking at best qualified second.

I have seen it first hand.

Just the way the military works now.

Lol yeah you gotta watch out for those pesky blue falcons always trying to crap on somebody.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Well hello EK, you know i sent you a heartfelt U2U which went unanswered leading me to believe that I may have somehow offended you with that message though I don't see what I possibly could have said that would cause that reaction.

I also assume you were referring to my post in which I used the word "transition" which if I understand your post correctly you found to be confusing somehow.

a reply to: EKron

a reply to: TrappedPrincess

I was referring to the use of transition as used in the quote in the OP's post.

As to your U2U, I took no offense at all. I simply didn't know how to respond and without knowing what you expected to hear, was a little afraid to as I found it quite confusing. That's OT, so 'nuff said.

ooooh ok, no worries or hard feelings. I understand we don't see eye to eye on some things but that's cool.

a reply to: EKron

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is one problem with this, a person that is going through sex change can not sing in in the military while in transition and I don't see this particular cases been allowed in the military for now.

You either a male or female when signing in, is not such thing as in between, I guess they will allow already people that has their sex change and gender to join but no when the change is on going.

See this is exactly the kind of mentality that worries me. It seems like people can accept and tolerate those that have went the distance and had the surgery more than they can the "in the middle" people. I don't mean you personally so don't take this the wrong way. Its just that I kind of run into this even within my own community their is a certain degree of separation of those that have had the surgery versus those that have not.

In my experience I have never heard someone post-op say directly that they are somehow better but some of the language used by some does seem to come off as condescending or exclusive not that I really care. I guess I'm just frustrated because it seems like you have to have the surgery to be taken seriously as a woman and without it your just some abomination. I don't plan on having the surgery because of the A. the cost, B. the post surgery maintenance required, C. any major surgery has risks of complication. So I guess I'll never be considered a true woman despite how pretty and sweet I am. Oh well I guess, I'm comfortable with who I am and don't need one label or another to feel validated.

a reply to: marg6043

a reply to: TrappedPrincess

Hey, a chick is a chick. The part that people fuss about isn't even seen by others unless you show them. I'm also pre-op and I fully understand the subtle allusions that are sometimes used to imply inferiority. You may have a penis but it's a woman's penis, dammit. It's not that hard to comprehend but some people still struggle with the concept. Give it time, I suppose.

The reason it's being discussed in this thread as a marker of disparity between transgender people being post-op or not is because there are genitalia issues in the military where everybody seems to like to shower together. I can understand that and I wouldn't expect the other ladies to feel comfortable with me in the showers with my shenis (what I call my penis) flopping around, no matter how much they see me as a woman.

It's one of those aspects of discrimination I will quietly shoulder without complaint because it's a lot to ask for somebody to not be bothered by it. Some women have been victims of rape and I would hate to act as a traumatic trigger for them just by being naked.

But yeah, the usage of SRS as some sort of confirmation of gender is pretty tiresome, I agree with you there.