2 Transgender Cadets To Graduate But Will Not Serve

I know this thread is now dated as we just received word of the ban from the White House. My question is what do folks feel will happen to those who are a) currently serving and b) in service academies? Will the ban be applicable or for future service members as of the date it is implemented?
 
Entering as a trans person is still not allowed and before the announcement, DoD was preparing to lift that policy. Clearly that won't change in the short term.

My understanding is that actively serving (including cadets/mids) are not affected (for now) but the president can't change policy with a Tweet. There are limits to the executive's powers, including money for medical procedures (for example). Unfortunately, his Twitterstorm did more to create confusion and passionate partisanship than policy. Though I suspect that was the point and meant to distract everyone from the ACA repeal proceedings and Mueller investigation.
 
My own personal opinion doesn't matter much, but from a pragmatic standpoint, logistics, medical care, future abuse of the system, I can understand why the decision was made.

I've seen editorials comparing this with the anniversary of desegrating the military, but to me this isn't a disruption issue, but a pragmatic one.
 
No matter what opinion anyone has, the cost factor is simply a red herring to justify a position and shift the narrative. The military will spend millions more each year for Viagra then it would for any medical costs related to Transgender. Personally for me, ending DADT and allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly was a no brainer, still wrapping my head around the transgender issue but always open to civil discussions on both sides. Never to late for an old dog to learn new tricks.
 
I just received this. It is from the Chair of the SASC: https://www.mccain.senate.gov/publi...cain-on-transgender-americans-in-the-military
We will see.

Actually, if you are interested in this. Here is the overview and link to the FREE Rand report: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1530.html

Further, for background: From October 2016 until today the policy has been that you cannot join if you are IN TRANSITION. So, you can assess if you have already transitioned or if you discover you are transgender while serving. Prior to October 2016 you could not BE transgender and assess or serve. The services had more or less stopped outprocessing transgender service members during the lead up (years) prior to the release of the policy. This was not a National level issue that called for equity but rather a White House driven initiative much like the reverse on the policy today--only the original initiative was studied, planned and executed by a working group inside of the DoD.

Additionally, if we want to save cost in the MHS, let's look at low value care for lower back pain. Budget dust. Cost of readiness? Let's talk about pregnancy w/ the rich maternity leave package and sports concussions and fractures. Motorcycle accidents. The list goes on. No one has looked at the real numbers as part of a research protocol to look at the real number of servicemembers receiving treatment of any type for a diagnosed disorder. So that the RAND estimates are just that, estimates.

However, we know how the Chain of Command is structured. We also know that Congress sets policy through the NDAA and the budget. I think the discussion is not finished.
 
Last edited:
Jcleppe said:
No matter what opinion anyone has, the cost factor is simply a red herring to justify a position and shift the narrative. The military will spend millions more each year for Viagra then it would for any medical costs related to Transgender.
Click to expand...

I will add to that, DS is on his way back to the ME for a 4 month deploy. His only complaint is that he has to wait until Nov for his taxpayer paid for PRK. He doesn't fly an aircraft. He received a transfer by request by commanders who are fine with his correctable vision. He accomplishes the mission, in the dust, with glasses and contacts. This tops a mile-long list of bennies he receives as a lowly 1Lt.

If the White House--the Pentagon referred all questions about the policy change to the White House--wants to take a look cost savings and military readiness, they better be a lot more creative than this.

I'm not as highly evolved as @Jcleppe or my kids on LGBT issues, so I tend to wait for the heat to moderate and rely on the recommendations of the military commanders and the politicians who a have served. I sure as shootin' won't form or validate an opinion based on an early morning tweet by someone who qualifies as neither. I'm content to wait until the Secretary of Defense comes back from vacation.
 
Jcleppe said:
No matter what opinion anyone has, the cost factor is simply a red herring to justify a position and shift the narrative. The military will spend millions more each year for Viagra then it would for any medical costs related to Transgender. Personally for me, ending DADT and allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly was a no brainer, still wrapping my head around the transgender issue but always open to civil discussions on both sides. Never to late for an old dog to learn new tricks.
Click to expand...
Since the median age for male service members is about 25, DOD is probably not buying too much Viagra....the VA on the other hand...
 
DoD probably is as the majority of those are coming through retirees in Tri-Care. Heck it was no secret amongst the Marines back in the day the Docs handed that stuff out pretty liberally.
 
Yeah, maybe Rand will waste millions of hard earned tax payer money figuring out who spends more on Viagra...:(

Besides, what makes you think retirees on Tri-Care need Viagra...:)
 
Last edited:
DesertCaliMom said:
My own personal opinion doesn't matter much, but from a pragmatic standpoint, logistics, medical care, future abuse of the system, I can understand why the decision was made.

I've seen editorials comparing this with the anniversary of desegrating the military, but to me this isn't a disruption issue, but a pragmatic one.
Click to expand...

If you haven't already, read the Sparta Pride link I posted at the end of the first page of this thread. The realities on medical care and logistics are far over hyped. I didn't even realize how trivial they were (except the surgery) when it comes to hormone therapy and medications. It really destroys the logistics argument, and even many of the most socially progressive people like me needed a reality check before I understood.
 
Jcleppe said:
No matter what opinion anyone has, the cost factor is simply a red herring to justify a position and shift the narrative. The military will spend millions more each year for Viagra then it would for any medical costs related to Transgender. Personally for me, ending DADT and allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly was a no brainer, still wrapping my head around the transgender issue but always open to civil discussions on both sides. Never to late for an old dog to learn new tricks.
Click to expand...

That's right. People arent very patient with us older folks.
Heck, all the way through college I never even knew a person who was gay. Better stated I guess, a person that admitted being gay.

Now we are bombarded with a whole list of acronyms to describe the various sexual orientations and preferences, some of which I have to look up.
Whether it's religion, politics, or sex & gender issues, we were rsised our entire life to believe one way, and now if we don't jump on the bandwagon immediately, we are criticized.
As my friend Bob Dylan said,
These times, they are a changin.
Luckily, everything should shake out in the next thousand years or so.
 
Jcleppe said:
No matter what opinion anyone has, the cost factor is simply a red herring to justify a position and shift the narrative. The military will spend millions more each year for Viagra then it would for any medical costs related to Transgender. Personally for me, ending DADT and allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly was a no brainer, still wrapping my head around the transgender issue but always open to civil discussions on both sides. Never to late for an old dog to learn new tricks.
Click to expand...

Viagra is more red herring than the cost factor.

I doubt any Viagra prescription was given out in Iraq or Afghanistan. I doubt if any military memebr was determined to be non-deployable because of ED. I am not sure how true it is as to the claim of most Viagra was for retirees, but sounds reasonable

It's no secret that DoD wastes money, but when the budget is fixed in order spend millions on transgender matters, they can't spend on something else (perhaps on Viagra).

Ability to serve in the military is a privilege, not an entitlement. The idea of everyone should be allowed to serve in the military is noble, but literally thousands of folks get disqualified from serving in the military everyday. The question is why is transgender diffierent from other disqualifying condition? I have a simple request - before replying think about what are disqualifying conditions and why those conditions are disqualifying.
 
USAFA10s said:
1337BeachedWhale1337 said:
So if you keep a medical disqualification secret you are eligible that makes you eligible to commission? That seems extremely convoluted. What if someone entered a SA that was color blind but kept it a secret? If they reveal that they are color blind a week before graduation, should they too be absolved of any service obligation and walk away with no bill for their free 4 years of education?
Click to expand...

You are missing what the original DADT policy stated. Being CLOSETED and transgender was not disqualifying (only openly serving was prohibited), and being openly transgender WON'T be disqualifying once the policy is in place. Right now is a very strange loophole because of the transition period.

And again for the cost, it wouldn't even be an issue if we catch up to the rest of the world and get a universal healthcare system, but as it is, such a tiny increase seems worth it to me for the increased diversity, although on that point I can see where there is some disagreement and your point. My argument is that the increased diversity will contribute positively to the force (and in fact, diversity has been shown to improve a team's productivity and effectiveness) and there are plenty of better ways to save money than to force some servicemembers to pay for some of their healthcare themselves.
Click to expand...
Not trying to be an ass about this and not sure why I fall on the issue, but people love to say diversity is a strength. I really dont understand why this would be so. You say that it increases a teams productivity and effectiveness. How are 10 white guys or 10 black guys or 10 pick a group less effective and productive than 10 guys made up of highly diverse group of men or women. Is 5 straight and 5 gay men more effective than 10 gay men or 10 straight men? My issue isnt that I am against diversity. People come in all shapes and sizes and that is great. Everyone who wants to join and qualifies should be welcomed. Having said that, I dont undertand the concept of promoting any group so that we can say our military or any organization is more diverse. Honestly, that whole concept perplexes me.
 
hornetguy said:
If you haven't already, read the Sparta Pride link I posted at the end of the first page of this thread. The realities on medical care and logistics are far over hyped. I didn't even realize how trivial they were (except the surgery) when it comes to hormone therapy and medications. It really destroys the logistics argument, and even many of the most socially progressive people like me needed a reality check before I understood.
Click to expand...

It's not just availability of medical care, it's the types, necessity, specializations, and the medical issues themselves that accompany gender dysphoria.

Hormone therapy may be on its surface a trivial logistics issue, but I see it from 2 standpoints. With hormones come emotional and mental disruptions that will threaten the readiness of an individual. My experience with transitioning people involves intense battles with depression, mood swings, alienation, and body issues that weren't helpful to any environment. Some had been om disability for years. Hardly active duty capable.

The 2nd point - if someone can't serve because of eczema or mild asthma and require a corticosteroid, then why should someone requiring precise dosage, times and resources be allowed? Bending policy for diversity's sake isn't going to help Mattis achieve his force readiness he's wanting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top