Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(From article) Biden’s campaign said he will direct the Pentagon to allow transgender troops to serve and get required medical care. The Trump policy is “discriminatory and detrimental to our national security,” the campaign website says.

The Pentagon denied the policy is discriminatory. It “seeks to protect the privacy of all service members and treat all service members with dignity and respect,” the department said in response to an emailed request for comment.

The military has argued the policy isn’t a ban at all, despite outcry and legal challenges from advocacy groups. The policy doesn’t bar transgender people outright, but forbids medical gender transition treatments and requires everyone to serve in their birth gender.


https://about.bgov.com/news/transgender-...akes-over/

If transgender service members are held to the same rigorous high standards as any other service member, what's the problem? If Trump's main concern was that transgender troops would be a financial burden on the military, that seems odd considering Obama felt the opposite, and I believe that ''theory'' has been debunked. 

The problem is US taxpayers funding transgender treatments. Would you be as sanguine about your tax money paying for breast implants for genetic female service women, just because they identified as buxom women?

Bullets don’t care about sexual orientation. Want to be a soldier.....be a soldier. Millions of people who wanted to be something put it on hold, never to be realized.

Rereading the current policy, it sounds like a transgender person who has completed transition, can serve. The military views someone in the process of transitioning as “needing accommodations,” and Trump felt that put our troops at risk. I get that part and upon reviewing the policy again, there isn’t a ban on transgender people serving in the military, there are just stipulations.

But there are stipulations for anyone interested in joining the military - you need to be able to serve to the highest of standards without “accommodations.” That makes sense, then.

Armed forces love badges don’t they? Just have personnel wear badge that’s means bio-male/female. Cheap.

(Nov 15, 2020 05:20 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]Rereading the current policy, it sounds like a transgender person who has completed transition, can serve. The military views someone in the process of transitioning as “needing accommodations,” and Trump felt that put our troops at risk. I get that part and upon reviewing the policy again, there isn’t a ban on transgender people serving in the military, there are just stipulations.

But there are stipulations for anyone interested in joining the military - you need to be able to serve to the highest of standards without “accommodations.” That makes sense, then.

Sometimes it seems like they've virtually forgotten what the purpose of military is. It probably shouldn't be a lab-rat for politics, human sciences, social philosophy, and new avenues of litigation -- as the rest of [civilian] society has become. OTOH, if there are vast, idle parts of it with personnel who are never going to directly be in battle situations, then they maybe should be regarded more like employees of an industry. Those needing conveniences, treatments, special accessories, etc that are not injury-related could be routed there until otherwise no longer qualifying as a potential Achilles' heel or burden for a unit in the field.

It's almost a form of indentured servitude (rights and equality are expected to be restricted), where one is required to rigidly follow orders and conform to a hierarchy of leadership. It needs to be efficient and effective as possible in order to succeed and limit injury / loss of life. The complexity of constant technological advances probably complicates that enough in its own right without bureaucracy adding more paperwork mazes of vulnerability and new grounds for dismissing what might otherwise be competent individuals for what the original function of military was.