Yes, Mr. President.

[TemplarKormac]

A few days ago I took the position below that you shouldn't bar transgendered individuals from serving in the military. I even argued my position.

But yanno I thought it over. I am inclined to agree with Trump's transgender military ban now. Rather than take to my own judgement on the matter, I will defer to the judgement of those around me, among those of my friends and family who have served in the military and have most likely witnessed the effects.

You are there to serve. If you have a condition that prevents you from serving, you need not apply. An effective fighting force requires mental toughness, physical stamina and useful skills in various areas of warfare. When you're on a hospital operating table getting your body parts rearranged, you are providing none of those things.

When you need surgery to change what God gave you down below, you are taking yourself out of the fighting force. You are weakening those around you. Thus it makes you effectively useless. If you commit suicide while in service, you have also effectively weakened the fighting force.

So in this case, taking transgendered individuals is more of a risk than a benefit. I could argue the further inefficiency of this policy but this horse is well and surely beaten beyond death into the next life.

Take it or leave it. Being objective doesn't always mean changing a position to one you like.

I think banning "transgendered" people from serving in the military is a bit much. Armies for tens of thousands of years have thrived on strength of numbers and collective experience, thus in present day, that strength and experience is unaffected by being transgender. However, you also cannot have a man identifying as a woman running around the barracks filled with female soldiers/personnel and vise versa, as such in addition to thriving on strength of numbers and collective experience, armies also thrive on uniformity.

If a transgendered person is to serve in our military, this proverbial man identifying as a woman should be assigned to missions and facilities that match the capabilities and characteristics of his biological sex. If they refuse, charge them with insubordination under the UCMJ. Furthermore, when a soldier who identifies as the opposite sex wants a sex change, it should not be the responsibility of the government, and subsequently the taxpayer, to pay for it.

Our defense money is meant for DEFENSE. Getting a sex change does not have a modicum of impact on national defense. The will to serve this country should outweigh a gender preference; and if one places their gender identity over their willingness to serve, they don't belong in the military. Period. Duty above all.

With all that being said, you should never ban someone from serving our country. You take power away from our fighting force when you keep fully capable individuals from serving in our military. You limit the pool of prospective soldiers and personnel that you can draw from.

So, while I voted for you President Trump, I must disagree with this particular decision made by you and your generals. A compromise must be made to keep our fighting force strong and ready.

 

[gtopa1]

The 40% suicide attempt suicide rate is the no brainer. I feel sorry for them in a way but they are literally nuts.

Greg

 

[Pete7469]

We need to stop coddling these people. They need psychological help, instead we are enabling a mental disorder.

 

[The Great Goose]

The 40% suicide attempt suicide rate is the no brainer. I feel sorry for them in a way but they are literally nuts.

Greg

stop being an asshole

 

[theHawk]

Any male can serve in the military granted they meet the requirements and abide by their standards. The military has never allowed males to pretend to be females and allow males to be held by female standards. So the military has never allowed "trans-gender" bullshit. But, just because President Trump re-iterates an already accepted norm, the batshit crazy left looses their minds about it. Faggotry is tolerated, as in people can do whatever they want on their own time and on their own dime, but the military is not going to entertain that lunacy by accepting it and allowing queers to held to female standards and allow them to live in female barracks/dorms, ect.

 

[gtopa1]

The 40% suicide attempt suicide rate is the no brainer. I feel sorry for them in a way but they are literally nuts.

Greg

stop being an asshole

Not at all. I feel quite sad for them. The "treatment" of mutilation is not in any way a cure. I don't know the answer. I wish I did. But a "false" cure is NOT the answer. You tell me what it is?

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Any male can serve in the military granted they meet the requirements and abide by their standards. The military has never allowed males to pretend to be females and allow males to be held by female standards. So the military has never allowed "trans-gender" bullshit. But, just because President Trump re-iterates an already accepted norm, the batshit crazy left looses their minds about it. Faggotry is tolerated, as in people can do whatever they want on their own time and on their own dime, but the military is not going to entertain that lunacy by accepting it and allowing queers to held to female standards and allow them to live in female barracks/dorms, ect.

As my dear old Gran used to say; they're more to be pitied than censored; more to be pitied than blamed! I don't bear any animosity to those who are gender confused. It must be a horrid condition. But I also don't believe it should accepted as just another variation of "normal". It is not. It is very destructive and sad. Goose says I'm being an asshole about it. I am not. These people need understanding and care; not condemnation. I can't say the same for those who have turned it into a cause celebre; it should be kept private and compassionate as anyone with a mental dysfunction. I could no more condemn them than condemn someone with schizophrenia.

Causes of Gender Dysphoria

One thing IS certain; there needs to be a lot more research into causes and treatments. Suggesting that it is a permanent condition that is "OK" is not being compassionate; it's being cold bloody hearted.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

We need to stop coddling these people. They need psychological help, instead we are enabling a mental disorder.

I don't get the coddling bit; if you mean they should not be lied to then I agree. But it is I think not a psychological but a psychiatric condition. I have no idea what the cause or treatment should be but hormonal during gestation is the most logical place to have started looking. I have no idea what a"cure" would look like.

Greg

 

[LoneLaugher]

A few days ago I took the position below that you shouldn't bar transgendered individuals from serving in the military. I even argued my position.

But yanno I thought it over. I am inclined to agree with Trump's transgender military ban now. Rather than take to my own judgement on the matter, I will defer to the judgement of those around me, among those of my friends and family who have served in the military and have most likely witnessed the effects.

You are there to serve. If you have a condition that prevents you from serving, you need not apply. An effective fighting force requires mental toughness, physical stamina and useful skills in various areas of warfare. When you're on a hospital operating table getting your body parts rearranged, you are providing none of those things.

When you need surgery to change what God gave you down below, you are taking yourself out of the fighting force. You are weakening those around you. Thus it makes you effectively useless. If you commit suicide while in service, you have also effectively weakened the fighting force.

So in this case, taking transgendered individuals is more of a risk than a benefit. I could argue the further inefficiency of this policy but this horse is well and surely beaten beyond death into the next life.

Take it or leave it. Being objective doesn't always mean changing a position to one you like.

I think banning "transgendered" people from serving in the military is a bit much. Armies for tens of thousands of years have thrived on strength of numbers and collective experience, thus in present day, that strength and experience is unaffected by being transgender. However, you also cannot have a man identifying as a woman running around the barracks filled with female soldiers/personnel and vise versa, as such in addition to thriving on strength of numbers and collective experience, armies also thrive on uniformity.

If a transgendered person is to serve in our military, this proverbial man identifying as a woman should be assigned to missions and facilities that match the capabilities and characteristics of his biological sex. If they refuse, charge them with insubordination under the UCMJ. Furthermore, when a soldier who identifies as the opposite sex wants a sex change, it should not be the responsibility of the government, and subsequently the taxpayer, to pay for it.

Our defense money is meant for DEFENSE. Getting a sex change does not have a modicum of impact on national defense. The will to serve this country should outweigh a gender preference; and if one places their gender identity over their willingness to serve, they don't belong in the military. Period. Duty above all.

With all that being said, you should never ban someone from serving our country. You take power away from our fighting force when you keep fully capable individuals from serving in our military. You limit the pool of prospective soldiers and personnel that you can draw from.

So, while I voted for you President Trump, I must disagree with this particular decision made by you and your generals. A compromise must be made to keep our fighting force strong and ready.

You should research the matter further.

 

[gtopa1]

A few days ago I took the position below that you shouldn't bar transgendered individuals from serving in the military. I even argued my position.

But yanno I thought it over. I am inclined to agree with Trump's transgender military ban now. Rather than take to my own judgement on the matter, I will defer to the judgement of those around me, among those of my friends and family who have served in the military and have most likely witnessed the effects.

You are there to serve. If you have a condition that prevents you from serving, you need not apply. An effective fighting force requires mental toughness, physical stamina and useful skills in various areas of warfare. When you're on a hospital operating table getting your body parts rearranged, you are providing none of those things.

When you need surgery to change what God gave you down below, you are taking yourself out of the fighting force. You are weakening those around you. Thus it makes you effectively useless. If you commit suicide while in service, you have also effectively weakened the fighting force.

So in this case, taking transgendered individuals is more of a risk than a benefit. I could argue the further inefficiency of this policy but this horse is well and surely beaten beyond death into the next life.

Take it or leave it. Being objective doesn't always mean changing a position to one you like.

I think banning "transgendered" people from serving in the military is a bit much. Armies for tens of thousands of years have thrived on strength of numbers and collective experience, thus in present day, that strength and experience is unaffected by being transgender. However, you also cannot have a man identifying as a woman running around the barracks filled with female soldiers/personnel and vise versa, as such in addition to thriving on strength of numbers and collective experience, armies also thrive on uniformity.

If a transgendered person is to serve in our military, this proverbial man identifying as a woman should be assigned to missions and facilities that match the capabilities and characteristics of his biological sex. If they refuse, charge them with insubordination under the UCMJ. Furthermore, when a soldier who identifies as the opposite sex wants a sex change, it should not be the responsibility of the government, and subsequently the taxpayer, to pay for it.

Our defense money is meant for DEFENSE. Getting a sex change does not have a modicum of impact on national defense. The will to serve this country should outweigh a gender preference; and if one places their gender identity over their willingness to serve, they don't belong in the military. Period. Duty above all.

With all that being said, you should never ban someone from serving our country. You take power away from our fighting force when you keep fully capable individuals from serving in our military. You limit the pool of prospective soldiers and personnel that you can draw from.

So, while I voted for you President Trump, I must disagree with this particular decision made by you and your generals. A compromise must be made to keep our fighting force strong and ready.

You should research the matter further.

I am keeping an eye out for new research. It is being lost in the political hype. It needs to be elevated to the medical journals where it belongs.

Greg

 

[gipper]

Sex reassignment surgery is mutilating the body. These people who want to change their gender, are more likely mentally ill. They need psychiatric help, not surgery that mutilates the body.

Why would we want mentally ill people in the military?

 

[gtopa1]

The 40% suicide attempt suicide rate is the no brainer. I feel sorry for them in a way but they are literally nuts.

Greg

stop being an asshole

Goose; the stats I've read about it are truly disturbing. Whatever the causes making it a political cause is NOT an answer. The cause needs to be understanding the condition and working out the best way for those with it to be able to live happy and fulfilling lives. Those saying that "gender change" is even possible are frankly not giving real hope. I don't know what the answer is but I have deep doubts that it is in an operation.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Sex reassignment surgery is mutilating the body. These people who want to change their gender, are more likely mentally ill. They need psychiatric help, not surgery that mutilates the body.

Why would we want mentally ill people in the military?

You put it bluntly but correctly. There may of course be high functioning people in that category but how does one work out who when we don't even understand the condition? It is a most sad situation for them to be in. However, there are many conditions that prevent people from serving in active roles. They(myself included) seem to handle that OK.

Greg

 

[Care4all]

A few days ago I took the position below that you shouldn't bar transgendered individuals from serving in the military. I even argued my position.

But yanno I thought it over. I am inclined to agree with Trump's transgender military ban now. Rather than take to my own judgement on the matter, I will defer to the judgement of those around me, among those of my friends and family who have served in the military and have most likely witnessed the effects.

You are there to serve. If you have a condition that prevents you from serving, you need not apply. An effective fighting force requires mental toughness, physical stamina and useful skills in various areas of warfare. When you're on a hospital operating table getting your body parts rearranged, you are providing none of those things.

When you need surgery to change what God gave you down below, you are taking yourself out of the fighting force. You are weakening those around you. Thus it makes you effectively useless. If you commit suicide while in service, you have also effectively weakened the fighting force.

So in this case, taking transgendered individuals is more of a risk than a benefit. I could argue the further inefficiency of this policy but this horse is well and surely beaten beyond death into the next life.

Take it or leave it. Being objective doesn't always mean changing a position to one you like.

I think banning "transgendered" people from serving in the military is a bit much. Armies for tens of thousands of years have thrived on strength of numbers and collective experience, thus in present day, that strength and experience is unaffected by being transgender. However, you also cannot have a man identifying as a woman running around the barracks filled with female soldiers/personnel and vise versa, as such in addition to thriving on strength of numbers and collective experience, armies also thrive on uniformity.

If a transgendered person is to serve in our military, this proverbial man identifying as a woman should be assigned to missions and facilities that match the capabilities and characteristics of his biological sex. If they refuse, charge them with insubordination under the UCMJ. Furthermore, when a soldier who identifies as the opposite sex wants a sex change, it should not be the responsibility of the government, and subsequently the taxpayer, to pay for it.

Our defense money is meant for DEFENSE. Getting a sex change does not have a modicum of impact on national defense. The will to serve this country should outweigh a gender preference; and if one places their gender identity over their willingness to serve, they don't belong in the military. Period. Duty above all.

With all that being said, you should never ban someone from serving our country. You take power away from our fighting force when you keep fully capable individuals from serving in our military. You limit the pool of prospective soldiers and personnel that you can draw from.

So, while I voted for you President Trump, I must disagree with this particular decision made by you and your generals. A compromise must be made to keep our fighting force strong and ready.

we have thousands of transgender people serving their Nation already....what is THEIR suicide rate in the Military....?

IS IT any higher than the suicide rate of other Military men and women?

 

[TNHarley]

A few days ago I took the position below that you shouldn't bar transgendered individuals from serving in the military. I even argued my position.

But yanno I thought it over. I am inclined to agree with Trump's transgender military ban now. Rather than take to my own judgement on the matter, I will defer to the judgement of those around me, among those of my friends and family who have served in the military and have most likely witnessed the effects.

You are there to serve. If you have a condition that prevents you from serving, you need not apply. An effective fighting force requires mental toughness, physical stamina and useful skills in various areas of warfare. When you're on a hospital operating table getting your body parts rearranged, you are providing none of those things.

When you need surgery to change what God gave you down below, you are taking yourself out of the fighting force. You are weakening those around you. Thus it makes you effectively useless. If you commit suicide while in service, you have also effectively weakened the fighting force.

So in this case, taking transgendered individuals is more of a risk than a benefit. I could argue the further inefficiency of this policy but this horse is well and surely beaten beyond death into the next life.

Take it or leave it. Being objective doesn't always mean changing a position to one you like.

I think banning "transgendered" people from serving in the military is a bit much. Armies for tens of thousands of years have thrived on strength of numbers and collective experience, thus in present day, that strength and experience is unaffected by being transgender. However, you also cannot have a man identifying as a woman running around the barracks filled with female soldiers/personnel and vise versa, as such in addition to thriving on strength of numbers and collective experience, armies also thrive on uniformity.

If a transgendered person is to serve in our military, this proverbial man identifying as a woman should be assigned to missions and facilities that match the capabilities and characteristics of his biological sex. If they refuse, charge them with insubordination under the UCMJ. Furthermore, when a soldier who identifies as the opposite sex wants a sex change, it should not be the responsibility of the government, and subsequently the taxpayer, to pay for it.

Our defense money is meant for DEFENSE. Getting a sex change does not have a modicum of impact on national defense. The will to serve this country should outweigh a gender preference; and if one places their gender identity over their willingness to serve, they don't belong in the military. Period. Duty above all.

With all that being said, you should never ban someone from serving our country. You take power away from our fighting force when you keep fully capable individuals from serving in our military. You limit the pool of prospective soldiers and personnel that you can draw from.

So, while I voted for you President Trump, I must disagree with this particular decision made by you and your generals. A compromise must be made to keep our fighting force strong and ready.

we have thousands of transgender people serving their Nation already....what is THEIR suicide rate in the Military....?

IS IT any higher than the suicide rate of other Military men and women?

Who knows? They have only been able to be open about it for a year.

 

[TNHarley]

Why dont trans people fight for schizos right to be in the military? Or other forms of delusion? Oh, because they jumped on the gay movement. Thats why.

 

[Care4all]

A few days ago I took the position below that you shouldn't bar transgendered individuals from serving in the military. I even argued my position.

But yanno I thought it over. I am inclined to agree with Trump's transgender military ban now. Rather than take to my own judgement on the matter, I will defer to the judgement of those around me, among those of my friends and family who have served in the military and have most likely witnessed the effects.

You are there to serve. If you have a condition that prevents you from serving, you need not apply. An effective fighting force requires mental toughness, physical stamina and useful skills in various areas of warfare. When you're on a hospital operating table getting your body parts rearranged, you are providing none of those things.

When you need surgery to change what God gave you down below, you are taking yourself out of the fighting force. You are weakening those around you. Thus it makes you effectively useless. If you commit suicide while in service, you have also effectively weakened the fighting force.

So in this case, taking transgendered individuals is more of a risk than a benefit. I could argue the further inefficiency of this policy but this horse is well and surely beaten beyond death into the next life.

Take it or leave it. Being objective doesn't always mean changing a position to one you like.

I think banning "transgendered" people from serving in the military is a bit much. Armies for tens of thousands of years have thrived on strength of numbers and collective experience, thus in present day, that strength and experience is unaffected by being transgender. However, you also cannot have a man identifying as a woman running around the barracks filled with female soldiers/personnel and vise versa, as such in addition to thriving on strength of numbers and collective experience, armies also thrive on uniformity.

If a transgendered person is to serve in our military, this proverbial man identifying as a woman should be assigned to missions and facilities that match the capabilities and characteristics of his biological sex. If they refuse, charge them with insubordination under the UCMJ. Furthermore, when a soldier who identifies as the opposite sex wants a sex change, it should not be the responsibility of the government, and subsequently the taxpayer, to pay for it.

Our defense money is meant for DEFENSE. Getting a sex change does not have a modicum of impact on national defense. The will to serve this country should outweigh a gender preference; and if one places their gender identity over their willingness to serve, they don't belong in the military. Period. Duty above all.

With all that being said, you should never ban someone from serving our country. You take power away from our fighting force when you keep fully capable individuals from serving in our military. You limit the pool of prospective soldiers and personnel that you can draw from.

So, while I voted for you President Trump, I must disagree with this particular decision made by you and your generals. A compromise must be made to keep our fighting force strong and ready.

we have thousands of transgender people serving their Nation already....what is THEIR suicide rate in the Military....?

IS IT any higher than the suicide rate of other Military men and women?

Who knows? They have only been able to be open about it for a year.

It would make sense to find out, BEFORE any rash decisions are made due to suicide rate.

 

[TNHarley]

A few days ago I took the position below that you shouldn't bar transgendered individuals from serving in the military. I even argued my position.

But yanno I thought it over. I am inclined to agree with Trump's transgender military ban now. Rather than take to my own judgement on the matter, I will defer to the judgement of those around me, among those of my friends and family who have served in the military and have most likely witnessed the effects.

You are there to serve. If you have a condition that prevents you from serving, you need not apply. An effective fighting force requires mental toughness, physical stamina and useful skills in various areas of warfare. When you're on a hospital operating table getting your body parts rearranged, you are providing none of those things.

When you need surgery to change what God gave you down below, you are taking yourself out of the fighting force. You are weakening those around you. Thus it makes you effectively useless. If you commit suicide while in service, you have also effectively weakened the fighting force.

So in this case, taking transgendered individuals is more of a risk than a benefit. I could argue the further inefficiency of this policy but this horse is well and surely beaten beyond death into the next life.

Take it or leave it. Being objective doesn't always mean changing a position to one you like.

I think banning "transgendered" people from serving in the military is a bit much. Armies for tens of thousands of years have thrived on strength of numbers and collective experience, thus in present day, that strength and experience is unaffected by being transgender. However, you also cannot have a man identifying as a woman running around the barracks filled with female soldiers/personnel and vise versa, as such in addition to thriving on strength of numbers and collective experience, armies also thrive on uniformity.

If a transgendered person is to serve in our military, this proverbial man identifying as a woman should be assigned to missions and facilities that match the capabilities and characteristics of his biological sex. If they refuse, charge them with insubordination under the UCMJ. Furthermore, when a soldier who identifies as the opposite sex wants a sex change, it should not be the responsibility of the government, and subsequently the taxpayer, to pay for it.

Our defense money is meant for DEFENSE. Getting a sex change does not have a modicum of impact on national defense. The will to serve this country should outweigh a gender preference; and if one places their gender identity over their willingness to serve, they don't belong in the military. Period. Duty above all.

With all that being said, you should never ban someone from serving our country. You take power away from our fighting force when you keep fully capable individuals from serving in our military. You limit the pool of prospective soldiers and personnel that you can draw from.

So, while I voted for you President Trump, I must disagree with this particular decision made by you and your generals. A compromise must be made to keep our fighting force strong and ready.

we have thousands of transgender people serving their Nation already....what is THEIR suicide rate in the Military....?

IS IT any higher than the suicide rate of other Military men and women?

Who knows? They have only been able to be open about it for a year.

It would make sense to find out, BEFORE any rash decisions are made due to suicide rate.

I think there are PLENTY of variables in determining whether we let the mentally ill in the military. Not just their extremely high suicide rate; both pre and post op.

 

[gipper]

A few days ago I took the position below that you shouldn't bar transgendered individuals from serving in the military. I even argued my position.

But yanno I thought it over. I am inclined to agree with Trump's transgender military ban now. Rather than take to my own judgement on the matter, I will defer to the judgement of those around me, among those of my friends and family who have served in the military and have most likely witnessed the effects.

You are there to serve. If you have a condition that prevents you from serving, you need not apply. An effective fighting force requires mental toughness, physical stamina and useful skills in various areas of warfare. When you're on a hospital operating table getting your body parts rearranged, you are providing none of those things.

When you need surgery to change what God gave you down below, you are taking yourself out of the fighting force. You are weakening those around you. Thus it makes you effectively useless. If you commit suicide while in service, you have also effectively weakened the fighting force.

So in this case, taking transgendered individuals is more of a risk than a benefit. I could argue the further inefficiency of this policy but this horse is well and surely beaten beyond death into the next life.

Take it or leave it. Being objective doesn't always mean changing a position to one you like.

I think banning "transgendered" people from serving in the military is a bit much. Armies for tens of thousands of years have thrived on strength of numbers and collective experience, thus in present day, that strength and experience is unaffected by being transgender. However, you also cannot have a man identifying as a woman running around the barracks filled with female soldiers/personnel and vise versa, as such in addition to thriving on strength of numbers and collective experience, armies also thrive on uniformity.

If a transgendered person is to serve in our military, this proverbial man identifying as a woman should be assigned to missions and facilities that match the capabilities and characteristics of his biological sex. If they refuse, charge them with insubordination under the UCMJ. Furthermore, when a soldier who identifies as the opposite sex wants a sex change, it should not be the responsibility of the government, and subsequently the taxpayer, to pay for it.

Our defense money is meant for DEFENSE. Getting a sex change does not have a modicum of impact on national defense. The will to serve this country should outweigh a gender preference; and if one places their gender identity over their willingness to serve, they don't belong in the military. Period. Duty above all.

With all that being said, you should never ban someone from serving our country. You take power away from our fighting force when you keep fully capable individuals from serving in our military. You limit the pool of prospective soldiers and personnel that you can draw from.

So, while I voted for you President Trump, I must disagree with this particular decision made by you and your generals. A compromise must be made to keep our fighting force strong and ready.

we have thousands of transgender people serving their Nation already....what is THEIR suicide rate in the Military....?

IS IT any higher than the suicide rate of other Military men and women?

Really? Thousands serving...got any reliable data proving your position?

 

[TNHarley]

Here you go care4all
I doubt the results are very accurate though..
Prevalence of Gender Identity Disorder and Suicide Risk Among Transgender Veterans Utilizing Veterans Health Administration Care
Transexual vets are 20 times more likely to kill themselves than other military members