You forgot one part... in the USMC it is change your socks and have a Motrin!
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.
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...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.
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.
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.
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.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?
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.
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.