Should the US Military allow people who are transgendered to serve?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for ad1x2
Posted by ad1x2 (6649 posts) 3 years, 10 months ago

Poll: Should the US Military allow people who are transgendered to serve? (36 votes)

Yes, they should be allowed to serve no matter what as long as they meet all other requirements for their gender. 47%
Only the ones who don't need further medical treatment (hormones or surgery) should be allowed to serve. 25%
No, none of them should be allowed to serve at this time. 28%
Another opinion (please explain). 0%

Story.

An independent panel, led by Dr. Joycelyn Elders (served as surgeon general during President Clinton's first term), is encouraging President Obama to lift the ban on transgendered troops by executive order.

While the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" opened up the opportunity for homosexual and bisexual men and women to serve openly in the military, being transgendered is not allowed due to it being considered a medical disqualification similar to how medical conditions like asthma prevent service.

The panel argues that with modern medical advances, troops can receive hormones and gender reassignment surgery without being a burden to current policies. Some critics mention that in a combat situation they wouldn't have access to the treatment some people who are transgendered require such as hormones.

Should they be allowed to serve? Or should the current policy stay in place?

Avatar image for Nibroc420
#1 Posted by Nibroc420 (13571 posts) -

Only if they're finished all their surgeries, all their hormone treatment etc.

Avatar image for Master_Live
#2 Edited by Master_Live (18817 posts) -

Perhaps further research should be conducted? Live and death situations are no joke, but if the docs give the go then they should be allowed. And that is that.

Avatar image for lamprey263
#3 Edited by lamprey263 (34508 posts) -

as long as they meet the necessary physical requirements then I see nothing wrong with them serving

Avatar image for moloch999
#4 Posted by moloch999 (155 posts) -

I'll have to go with no on this one. We don't have the money to buy speciality weapons and boots to suit their needs. We have to go with the one size fits all method that's worked and charmed generations.

Avatar image for ad1x2
#5 Posted by ad1x2 (6649 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

if the docs give the go then they should be allowed.

I can only agree with that if they gave the thumbs up due to verified research and not political pressure alone.

Avatar image for junglist101
#6 Posted by junglist101 (5517 posts) -

I don't care as long as they have what it takes to do the job and do it right.

Avatar image for ariabed
#7 Posted by Ariabed (2121 posts) -

Yes put them on the frontlines lol...., just saying. Seriously though if they have finished there hormone stuff and are of sound mind then yes, the more the merrier. If they want to serve there country then fair enough. But I reckon they would get severely bullied and alienated.

Avatar image for deeliman
#8 Posted by deeliman (3746 posts) -

@moloch999 said:

I'll have to go with no on this one. We don't have the money to buy speciality weapons and boots to suit their needs. We have to go with the one size fits all method that's worked and charmed generations.

Why would transgendered people need different equipment?

Avatar image for Barbariser
#9 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -

Seriously? The article itself basically says that the ban was based on outdated medical ideas, proven by existing medical professionals to be baseless and that the policy's actively detrimental to performance, of course they should throw it out.

Avatar image for dave123321
#10 Edited by dave123321 (35333 posts) -

Sure

Avatar image for AmazonTreeBoa
#11 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

I can see it now. You will end up with a transgender going on a killing spree due to being bullied everyday.

Avatar image for ad1x2
#12 Posted by ad1x2 (6649 posts) -

@Barbariser said:

Seriously? The article itself basically says that the ban was based on outdated medical ideas, proven by existing medical professionals to be baseless and that the policy's actively detrimental to performance, of course they should throw it out.

The ban was mostly based on the idea that people who identified as a different gender than their birth sex had mental issues. While the mental issue may not be an issue with everybody who is transgendered, there is still the issue with people who are taking hormones on a regular basis.

If you are in a warzone and supply lines get cut there is no guarantee you will be able to get a resupply of hormones before you run out. It isn't just people being on hormones who are looked that way, almost any medical condition that requires you to take medication on a regular basis has the potential to make you ineligible to serve.

My guess is if the military does start allowing people who identify as transgendered to serve they will start out only allowing people who aren't on any type of current treatment.

Avatar image for ad1x2
#13 Edited by ad1x2 (6649 posts) -

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

I can see it now. You will end up with a transgender going on a killing spree due to being bullied everyday.

Regardless of whether or not you are joking, opponents of allowing transgendered troops in can always bring up the fact that the most famous transgendered US servicemember is currently serving 35 years in Leavenworth for giving classified information to WikiLeaks. While that shouldn't be a reflection of all people who identify as transgendered, the subject of Private Manning will probably be a talking point for awhile.

Avatar image for GazaAli
#14 Posted by GazaAli (25216 posts) -

Yes why not. And in order to avoid ambiguity and dispute over standards, enlistment's requirements, bathrooms, sleeping arrangement...etc, they should establish the "transgender division".

Avatar image for gamerguru100
#15 Posted by gamerguru100 (12687 posts) -

Yeah

Avatar image for ultimate-k
#16 Edited by ultimate-k (2348 posts) -

I'm surprised they are banned, its not like the beings who create these wars gives a shit.

Avatar image for bobaban
#17 Posted by bobaban (10560 posts) -

God no, maybe as landmine fodder

Avatar image for ad1x2
#18 Edited by ad1x2 (6649 posts) -

@ultimate-k said:

I'm surprised they are banned, its not like the beings who create these wars gives a shit.

When the government lets somebody in the military with a medical condition they pretty much inherit the condition and the costs of any treatment that was a result of the condition being aggravated by military service. That is why the military has a book of policies stating what can and cannot be allowed so they don't run into that problem later and end up paying for it.

Avatar image for toast_burner
#19 Posted by toast_burner (24737 posts) -

Can anyone give a reason why they shouldn't be allowed?

Avatar image for themajormayor
#20 Posted by themajormayor (25617 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

Can anyone give a reason why they shouldn't be allowed?

Read the OP.

"Some critics mention that in a combat situation they wouldn't have access to the treatment some people who are transgendered require such as hormones."

Avatar image for GreySeal9
#22 Posted by GreySeal9 (28247 posts) -

@reaper4278 said:

I am sure I will catch flak for this but personally I think you have something wrong with you mentally if you do such a thing, and we certainly do not need mental cases in our military. We have enough of them already.

It doesn't really matter what you think tho. You're not a mental health expert.

Avatar image for deeliman
#23 Edited by deeliman (3746 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

@ultimate-k said:

I'm surprised they are banned, its not like the beings who create these wars gives a shit.

When the government lets somebody in the military with a medical condition they pretty much inherit the condition and the costs of any treatment that was a result of the condition being aggravated by military service. That is why the military has a book of policies stating what can and cannot be allowed so they don't run into that problem later and end up paying for it.

He's talking about our "reptiallian overlords". Not the government. No point in responding to him.

Avatar image for toast_burner
#24 Posted by toast_burner (24737 posts) -

@themajormayor said:

@toast_burner said:

Can anyone give a reason why they shouldn't be allowed?

Read the OP.

"Some critics mention that in a combat situation they wouldn't have access to the treatment some people who are transgendered require such as hormones."

And what about trans people who have already finished their hormone therapy?

Avatar image for ad1x2
#26 Edited by ad1x2 (6649 posts) -

@deeliman: You would be surprised how many thumbs up David Icke's videos get on Youtube.

Avatar image for GreySeal9
#27 Edited by GreySeal9 (28247 posts) -

@reaper4278 said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@reaper4278 said:

I am sure I will catch flak for this but personally I think you have something wrong with you mentally if you do such a thing, and we certainly do not need mental cases in our military. We have enough of them already.

It doesn't really matter what you think tho. You're not a mental health expert.

Well with all due respect none of us are experts in 99% of the things we discuss on message boards, are we? What makes you any more qualified to have an opinion on this than me? Just my opinion sir, and I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night so I think that allows me to have it.

I didn't say I'm more qualified to have an opinion on this than you. I'm saying that determining that something is wrong with someone mentally in any kind of credible way requires knowledge and expertise. Just because you don't find being transgendered "normal" doesn't mean that they are in any way mentally compromised.

If people on these message boards actually did research on stuff they formed opinions about, the discussions here would be more intelligent.

Avatar image for themajormayor
#29 Posted by themajormayor (25617 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

@themajormayor said:

@toast_burner said:

Can anyone give a reason why they shouldn't be allowed?

Read the OP.

"Some critics mention that in a combat situation they wouldn't have access to the treatment some people who are transgendered require such as hormones."

And what about trans people who have already finished their hormone therapy?

I don't know or care. I'm just saying you should read the OP.

Avatar image for limpbizkit818
#30 Posted by limpbizkit818 (15044 posts) -

I'm pretty sure hormone therapy can have some serious side effects. Sounds like a real bad idea to allow someone who is going through that to participate in combat, which is an event that also has serious side effects.

Avatar image for Diablo-B
#31 Posted by Diablo-B (4063 posts) -

If some one wants to die for country let them. I surely don't want to. They can take my place

Avatar image for GreySeal9
#32 Edited by GreySeal9 (28247 posts) -

@reaper4278 said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@reaper4278 said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@reaper4278 said:

I am sure I will catch flak for this but personally I think you have something wrong with you mentally if you do such a thing, and we certainly do not need mental cases in our military. We have enough of them already.

It doesn't really matter what you think tho. You're not a mental health expert.

Well with all due respect none of us are experts in 99% of the things we discuss on message boards, are we? What makes you any more qualified to have an opinion on this than me? Just my opinion sir, and I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night so I think that allows me to have it.

I didn't say I'm more qualified to have an opinion on this than you. I'm saying that determining that something is wrong with someone mentally in any kind of credible way requires knowledge and expertise. Just because you don't find being transgendered "normal" doesn't mean that they are in any way mentally compromised.

If people on these message boards actually did research on stuff they formed opinions about, the discussions here would be more intelligent.

Well I did a quick 5 minutes of research and posted the link, there you go -mental disorder.

But in the end this is a gaming forum with off topic board, I research for my job, I researched for my degree, I really don't feel I have to research for Gamespot. When it warrants it I will, but it will be at my choosing not yours. I understand this can make my point less credible but I think I can live with that. And let's not kid ourselves here, I am not changing your mind with a ton of evidence so why should I bother?

The APA declassified transgender as mental disorder a few years ago in the same way that homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder.

An abnormality does not necessarily that something is mentally wrong with the person, though it can.

Avatar image for GreySeal9
#33 Posted by GreySeal9 (28247 posts) -

@reaper4278 said:

When it warrants it I will, but it will be at my choosing not yours.

Also, you don't have to get all weird and defensive. I didn't command you to do any research. I simply said that merely thinking that something is "mentally wrong" with transgendered people doesn't make it so.

Avatar image for dave123321
#34 Edited by dave123321 (35333 posts) -

Yeah allow them

Avatar image for dave123321
#35 Edited by dave123321 (35333 posts) -

Oh I already posted that

Avatar image for deeliman
#36 Posted by deeliman (3746 posts) -

@reaper4278 said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@reaper4278 said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@reaper4278 said:

I am sure I will catch flak for this but personally I think you have something wrong with you mentally if you do such a thing, and we certainly do not need mental cases in our military. We have enough of them already.

It doesn't really matter what you think tho. You're not a mental health expert.

Well with all due respect none of us are experts in 99% of the things we discuss on message boards, are we? What makes you any more qualified to have an opinion on this than me? Just my opinion sir, and I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night so I think that allows me to have it.

I didn't say I'm more qualified to have an opinion on this than you. I'm saying that determining that something is wrong with someone mentally in any kind of credible way requires knowledge and expertise. Just because you don't find being transgendered "normal" doesn't mean that they are in any way mentally compromised.

If people on these message boards actually did research on stuff they formed opinions about, the discussions here would be more intelligent.

Well I did a quick 5 minutes of research and posted the link, there you go -mental disorder.

But in the end this is a gaming forum with off topic board, I research for my job, I researched for my degree, I really don't feel I have to research for Gamespot. When it warrants it I will, but it will be at my choosing not yours. I understand this can make my point less credible but I think I can live with that. And let's not kid ourselves here, I am not changing your mind with a ton of evidence so why should I bother?

It's not a disorder, the APA doesn't classify it as a disorder anymore.

Avatar image for GreySeal9
#39 Edited by GreySeal9 (28247 posts) -

@reaper4278 said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@reaper4278 said:

When it warrants it I will, but it will be at my choosing not yours.

Also, you don't have to get all weird and defensive. I didn't command you to do any research. I simply said that merely thinking that something is "mentally wrong" with transgendered people doesn't make it so.

Weird and defensive? Hmmm, okay lol. You felt you were lecturing me, I responded appropriately.

No longer recognizing such things as a mental disorder is more of a result of political correctness than science. No one can pretend this is "normal" by any stretch of the imagination. It is about as normal as wanting to be a dog. Again, just my opinion. I don't have any hate for homosexuals or transgenders, really I don't. Just stop trying to fool me into believing it is normal. When a man and a man can reproduce as a result of evolution we can talk.

And this does not come from any religion or political view, just sayin.

No, you felt I was lecturing you and got defensive. Just so you can relax, I didn't intended to lecture you, so I'm sorry if it came off that way.

Do you have evidence not recognizing such things as mental disorders is a result of political correctness?

Again, you're stuck on this abnormality thing. Like I said, abnormality/=/mental disorder. That is way too simplistic. How "normal" something is not the sole criterion for mental illness.

Lastly, it doesn't matter to me where your view comes from.

Avatar image for airshocker
#41 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

As long as there's no untoward special treatment I don't really see why not.

Avatar image for Nibroc420
#42 Posted by Nibroc420 (13571 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

I can see it now. You will end up with a transgender going on a killing spree due to being bullied everyday.

Regardless of whether or not you are joking, opponents of allowing transgendered troops in can always bring up the fact that the most famous transgendered US servicemember is currently serving 35 years in Leavenworth for giving classified information to WikiLeaks. While that shouldn't be a reflection of all people who identify as transgendered, the subject of Private Manning will probably be a talking point for awhile.

He was a dude when he committed the crimes.
I suspect he felt women's prison would be easier, or that if he was going to live the rest of his life in prison, he might as well embrace "the bottom"

Avatar image for ad1x2
#43 Edited by ad1x2 (6649 posts) -

@Nibroc420 said:

@ad1x2 said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

I can see it now. You will end up with a transgender going on a killing spree due to being bullied everyday.

Regardless of whether or not you are joking, opponents of allowing transgendered troops in can always bring up the fact that the most famous transgendered US servicemember is currently serving 35 years in Leavenworth for giving classified information to WikiLeaks. While that shouldn't be a reflection of all people who identify as transgendered, the subject of Private Manning will probably be a talking point for awhile.

He was a dude when he committed the crimes.

I suspect he felt women's prison would be easier, or that if he was going to live the rest of his life in prison, he might as well embrace "the bottom"

If you want to get technical Manning started identifying as a woman long before the leaks but kept it under wraps due to DADT (a lot of people were actually unaware a DADT repeal wouldn't open the door for transgendered people). At least until Manning took a picture dressed as a woman while on vacation and forwarded it to his boss. The funny thing is the transgendered situation has effectively overshadowed the leaks themselves, with the editing wars going on the past few months with the "Chelsea Manning" Wikipedia page.

Also, coming out as a woman may have had more to do with trying to get major support from LGBT support groups to help push for an early release than getting put in a women's prison. If the Army did accept that Manning was a woman then the alternative for the USDB in Kansas would be Miramar in San Diego, California, which would probably be hotter in the summer and also houses men anyway.

Avatar image for whiskeystrike
#44 Posted by whiskeystrike (12172 posts) -

Provided all hormone treatments and whatnot are completed then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to.

Avatar image for hippiesanta
#45 Edited by hippiesanta (10299 posts) -

I choose # 2 ...

because no one shold be treated like a DIVA in military service

Avatar image for Braun_Roid_Rage
#46 Posted by Braun_Roid_Rage (790 posts) -

Hell no.

Avatar image for Gaming-Planet
#47 Posted by Gaming-Planet (18762 posts) -

Yes. Because why not?

No. Because I'll just use it as an excuse to never be drafted.