Hast thou not gone against sincerity
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
Transgender troops have been serving for quite some time. There's no more risk than with any other group of personnel, and less than some. The estimated cost of just over 8 million bucks, a fraction of what's already spent on ED meds, is assuming every transgender member chooses to transition while in the service; in point of fact, most do not wish to do so, as this might impair their warfighting ability, of which soldiers are (justly) proud.
In point of fact, the cost of separating all trans service personnel would be higher than the medical cost of said personnel. Trump's supposed justification is merely cover for his own transphobia.
As for drones, we have no AI capable of warfighting yet. All those misnamed "drones" are in fact RPVs, Remotely Piloted Vehicles. And, contrary to expectations, the pilots do indeed suffer from PTSD - they can see the living human beings through those cameras, and there's definitely an experiential difference from NPCs in a video game. You know NPCs are just code - and you know those guys on the remote cameras are real.
Jon, you're still sticking on financial cost. Operational cost is what I'm bringing up-the operational cost of having a soldier with a serious medical condition that requires constant maintenance and surveillance is paid in blood, not money.
Pentagon accounting is made up of eighty percent lies and twenty percent unicorn farts by volume-that is to say, they zero out their budget and pretend it's yesterday when they hit what would be redline for any business you care to name, and they always get the bailout (print moar money) from congress.
these are agencies paying eight grand per unit for claw hammers,and fifty grand for a toilet seat, and hundreds per item for common ASE steel hex-nuts.
this is an agency that spends money more easily expressed in scientific notation than in real dollars.
Hormonal imbalance has been successfully used as a legal defense in murder cases-because it destabilizes the person afflicted by it, and can to that extent.
two, Being Trans is a serious medical condition, once a person enters treatment for that condition, it's not like htey can say, "Oh, well the supply run's late? fine, I'll be Cisgender until tuesday".
An FTM is taking estrogen blockers and TESTOSTERONE. this is a chemical that increases your aggression factors, upper body muscle mass, and physical endurance. what happens when Joe's medicine is a week or two late? What's that going to do to things like his mental state, ability to hump that mortar baseplate, carry his share of Machinegun ammo, or drag a casualty out of an overturned Humvee?
Bob can still do his job if he can't get rock-hard until he's back in base. those little blue pills don't require constant, reactive medical monitoring, they're more of an "it either works or it doesn't" proposition,, but HRT? you've got a variety of sources and every patient requires a different mix of doses-and those mixes change over time and require manpower to keep up with, and denial of those doses is a serious threat to operational readiness. It might only be one out of ten thousand, but if that one is the guy responsible for okaying your air-support, or dragging you out of an overturned truck, or interpreting your coordinates for an artillery strike, that's a serious operational problem that makes the kid with type one diabetes a cheaper bet.
When a Pharmacists' mistake off of a doctor's bad handwriting can drop a 155 on friendlies, that's a risk that it might not be worth taking-enough mistakes are made without that factor added in.
Gender Dysphoria is not a joke and it's not something you can afford to pretend is. we've got a LOT OF PEOPLE who want to join the military, cutting off risk factors makes sense. warfare, especially the type that is becoming the current paradigm of urban operations against non-uniformed opponents under insurgency conditions isn't going to become 'safer' with the technology. Drop a drone strike on a neighbourhood, and you've just created fifty new insurgents overnight-from the collateral damage of using an RPV or cruise missile because it's 'safer' and 'surgical'.
^^^^^^^^^^ This!!!!!!
jonsills, I have a fair amount of friends who are trans, and understanding their conditions the way I do, as patrickngo has so succinctly pointed out, they should not be in the millitary, because of the limitations which their medical needs put upon them, and the impacts which potentially coming off those hormones, would have on those around them and the mission at hand. It is simply Not Worth It, when the price paid is in Blood.
This is simply not an arena where 'participation award' and eased qualification mentality can be tollerated.
Every Single Person in the armed forces, must be physically and mentally capable of performing the required task. Those tasks are strenuous, and so recruiting qualifications should Never be eased to allow entry for the less-than-capable who are there on a sympathy pass, because they could someday cost lives, when they aren't able to perform the task required.
Does that mean someone might not be accepted? Yes. Too bad. If someone can't deal with the rejection of not being fit to serve, well, that actually proves another reason why they aren't fit to serve...
What you have to accuse of being 'transphobic', rather than engaging with critically, is nothing more than the common sense upon which a military has to operate. As someone who has served, I would have expected you to understand that.
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
And what of transsexual service personnel who are medically unable to through hormone treatment and have had to settle for surgical treatment? For all intents and purposes their transition is over, are they still allowed to serve? Can they serve as the sex they now are? Is a surgical MtF then excluded from close combat units?
And what of transgender service personnel who don't chose to undergo either surgical or hormonal transition and instead simply modify their life or behaviour to whatever gender suits them best? No extra cost there.
Please note, there are questions not just statements with question marks, I have only marginal interest in what America does but it would be nice to clear it up a bit as to whether distinctions are made on cost/welfare or just on buzzwords.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
The idea that a society can return to the Garden of Eden has its appeal, but it fails to account for the utter boredom which would ensue. Humans require, (not enjoy, not prefer, not like, but affirmatively need,) a challenge to overcome. Lacking such a challenge they become lazy, self destructive, and incapable of adaptation to crisis.
Some people can set their own goals and devote a life towards achieving them. By far most require external stimuli to do so. As an example, look at the current generation of boys. Having never been required to work for anything, they are insulted by the suggestion that they should. Instead they use words like 'deserve' and 'entitled'.
Because female emancipation focused solely on women, young men now have zero authority in how their children are raised, and are treated by the young women of their generation as disposeable sperm donors, creating a requirement based in the the traditions of the 1800s to pay child support for children over whose life they have no influence. The new emancipated female doesn't need a man and the men, knowing they are only replaceable conveniences, never become responsible parents, though they may, in a last grasp at machismo culture, father half a dozen children with half a dozen women, and rely on society to finance their upbringing and education.
Now this is an example of Utopianism gone awry, so please don't detract from the topic by arguing the example instead of the issue. The point is that every silver lining has a cloud, and the law of unintended consequences always applies.
When one begins to unravel the old systems one tends to focus on one issue at a time, and thus the conditions are set up which create even more issues. As with any system, one must understand its entire function before one begins to replace parts. You can change the brake pads on your car as often as you like, but if you have a broken brake line it won't stop your car. Be sure the actual problems are being addressed, and consider how the proposed fix is going to affect parts of the system which are not broke.
And what of transsexual service personnel who are medically unable to through hormone treatment and have had to settle for surgical treatment? For all intents and purposes their transition is over, are they still allowed to serve? Can they serve as the sex they now are? Is a surgical MtF then excluded from close combat units?
And what of transgender service personnel who don't chose to undergo either surgical or hormonal transition and instead simply modify their life or behaviour to whatever gender suits them best? No extra cost there.
Please note, there are questions not just statements with question marks, I have only marginal interest in what America does but it would be nice to clear it up a bit as to whether distinctions are made on cost/welfare or just on buzzwords.
As far as I'm aware among my friends, even those who are fully transitioned surgically, they still need to take the correct hormones (and at the correct dosages for them) A bit like a diabetic who needs insulin (or whichever variant they're prescribed, such as metformin(sp), they can't simply stop taking it, because their body needs it to function. Someone who is F2M, for example, and stops taking their estrogen blockers and T, well, as patrickngo mentioned, the disruption to their cognitive process the resulting imbalance creates, while survivable in civilian life, under a millitary or combat situation, it doesn't bear thinking about...
It's not a case of excluding someone 'because they're trans', but one of excluding someone with complex medical needs, which if disrupted, could have catastrophic effects to a mission.
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Which also means currently serving trans people who have not come out yet (and haven't started a therapy, obviously) will have to hide it in order to not lose their jobs, putting these people into an even more stressful situation.
In 2014, Elders et al. concluded that there is no sound medical reasoning to ban transgender people from serving. Since they do so in multiple countries around the world the reasoning that they risk missions through their state of psyche or medical needs seems, to me, to be a non-issue. Very real though is the negative consequences this has for lots of veterans and currently serving personnel.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
And what of transsexual service personnel who are medically unable to through hormone treatment and have had to settle for surgical treatment? For all intents and purposes their transition is over, are they still allowed to serve? Can they serve as the sex they now are? Is a surgical MtF then excluded from close combat units?
And what of transgender service personnel who don't chose to undergo either surgical or hormonal transition and instead simply modify their life or behaviour to whatever gender suits them best? No extra cost there.
Please note, there are questions not just statements with question marks, I have only marginal interest in what America does but it would be nice to clear it up a bit as to whether distinctions are made on cost/welfare or just on buzzwords.
As far as I'm aware among my friends, even those who are fully transitioned surgically, they still need to take the correct hormones (and at the correct dosages for them) A bit like a diabetic who needs insulin (or whichever variant they're prescribed, such as metformin(sp), they can't simply stop taking it, because their body needs it to function. Someone who is F2M, for example, and stops taking their estrogen blockers and T, well, as patrickngo mentioned, the disruption to their cognitive process the resulting imbalance creates, while survivable in civilian life, under a millitary or combat situation, it doesn't bear thinking about...
It's not a case of excluding someone 'because they're trans', but one of excluding someone with complex medical needs, which if disrupted, could have catastrophic effects to a mission.
There are trans people for whom surgical modifications can be the end of the process. All they need to heal the mismatch between brain and body is implants and lifts and so on, they still are trans but don't require any more observation or intervention, but as they are still classed as trans are they included? I've not been able to find or get an answer either way on that or the ones simply living as another gender.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
And what of transsexual service personnel who are medically unable to through hormone treatment and have had to settle for surgical treatment? For all intents and purposes their transition is over, are they still allowed to serve? Can they serve as the sex they now are? Is a surgical MtF then excluded from close combat units?
And what of transgender service personnel who don't chose to undergo either surgical or hormonal transition and instead simply modify their life or behaviour to whatever gender suits them best? No extra cost there.
Please note, there are questions not just statements with question marks, I have only marginal interest in what America does but it would be nice to clear it up a bit as to whether distinctions are made on cost/welfare or just on buzzwords.
As far as I'm aware among my friends, even those who are fully transitioned surgically, they still need to take the correct hormones (and at the correct dosages for them) A bit like a diabetic who needs insulin (or whichever variant they're prescribed, such as metformin(sp), they can't simply stop taking it, because their body needs it to function. Someone who is F2M, for example, and stops taking their estrogen blockers and T, well, as patrickngo mentioned, the disruption to their cognitive process the resulting imbalance creates, while survivable in civilian life, under a millitary or combat situation, it doesn't bear thinking about...
It's not a case of excluding someone 'because they're trans', but one of excluding someone with complex medical needs, which if disrupted, could have catastrophic effects to a mission.
There are trans people for whom surgical modifications can be the end of the process. All they need to heal the mismatch between brain and body is implants and lifts and so on, they still are trans but don't require any more observation or intervention, but as they are still classed as trans are they included? I've not been able to find or get an answer either way on that or the ones simply living as another gender.
@silverlobes#2676, you and @patrickngo are both missing the boat on what Jonsills and Artan said. There is no rule that says a transgender person has to transition at any particular time by any method, which means the cost of their medical care is no more or less than that of a cis person. (And I'm including psychiatric counseling in that: a shrink gets paid the same whether he's treating gender dysphoria or PTSD.)
Again: Tricare spends a little under $100 million a year for Viagra and Cialis for people who aren't even on active duty anymore. The cost were every active duty transgender soldier in the US military to transition simultaneously, which as previously noted they wouldn't, would be about $8 million; the actual cost is peanuts compared just to Tricare's total budget (forget the entire Defense Department), yet this is the justification chosen. This is a mountain made out of a molehill by heteronormative crusaders struggling to remain relevant and by an incompetent hypocritical showman with an easily bruised ego, nothing more. Even Defense Secretary Mattis isn't buying it: he ordered an actual study to determine the military necessity of the policy rather than immediately implement it. (I love that guy.)
/10characterstoappeasetheeditmonster
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
@starswordc See my post above, studies have been made and there was the conclusion of no actual medical reasons (including psychological) against trans people serving. The rejection of them, though, sets a cascade in motion throwing not only trans people but the society as a whole back.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
@starswordc See my post above, studies have been made and there was the conclusion of no actual medical reasons (including psychological) against trans people serving. The rejection of them, though, sets a cascade in motion throwing not only trans people but the society as a whole back.
Yes, I saw that. I'm pretty sure former General Mattis is using it as an excuse to delay implementation of a rule he thinks is unnecessary.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
And what of transsexual service personnel who are medically unable to through hormone treatment and have had to settle for surgical treatment? For all intents and purposes their transition is over, are they still allowed to serve? Can they serve as the sex they now are? Is a surgical MtF then excluded from close combat units?
And what of transgender service personnel who don't chose to undergo either surgical or hormonal transition and instead simply modify their life or behaviour to whatever gender suits them best? No extra cost there.
Please note, there are questions not just statements with question marks, I have only marginal interest in what America does but it would be nice to clear it up a bit as to whether distinctions are made on cost/welfare or just on buzzwords.
As far as I'm aware among my friends, even those who are fully transitioned surgically, they still need to take the correct hormones (and at the correct dosages for them) A bit like a diabetic who needs insulin (or whichever variant they're prescribed, such as metformin(sp), they can't simply stop taking it, because their body needs it to function. Someone who is F2M, for example, and stops taking their estrogen blockers and T, well, as patrickngo mentioned, the disruption to their cognitive process the resulting imbalance creates, while survivable in civilian life, under a millitary or combat situation, it doesn't bear thinking about...
It's not a case of excluding someone 'because they're trans', but one of excluding someone with complex medical needs, which if disrupted, could have catastrophic effects to a mission.
There are trans people for whom surgical modifications can be the end of the process. All they need to heal the mismatch between brain and body is implants and lifts and so on, they still are trans but don't require any more observation or intervention, but as they are still classed as trans are they included? I've not been able to find or get an answer either way on that or the ones simply living as another gender.
Yes there are, but there are also those who are on hormones for life, and for those people, not getting their hormones, has drastic impacts.
You probably won't get an answer either way, simply because at present, so much in the legislature is up in the air and varies from location to location.
Personally speaking, nothing would make me happier, than for a person who has transitioned, to be able to contact The Authorities, and get them to push a button which re-classifies their gender on The System, and so The System ONLY then acknowledges them as per the gender they have transitioned to. Sadly, that's not a process which is yet universally in place
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Starsword covered one of the major points I was coming back for - that not every trans person is in the process of transitioning. (I personally know two trans women who were in the service - one was in my roommate's unit in Iraq. And several more have been on the local news recently, fighting back against the claims that they couldn't have been good soldiers because of their condition; they get to point at their actual service records for that.)
Further, even should a soldier choose to transition during service, it may surprise you to know that we no longer move our forward units beyond the capability of resupply. Particularly during such incidents as Iraq and Afghanistan, it's remarkably stupid to extend your supply chain to the point that random insurgents can cut you off - and whatever else you choose to say about the leadership on the ground in those places, they aren't remarkably stupid. My roommate was supposed to be a cook in Iraq, but since Halliburton had managed to win a contract to do the cooking, he wound up first gunning, then driving, on supply convoys. They made runs to FOBs every day. Nobody would have gone a week without necessary medications unless they chose to do so, declining to get their refills from the unit medic (in which case they buy a General Discharge for being too stupid to serve). We've made a few advances since Vietnam, after all...
The comparison to insulin is interesting, and potentially apt - because while Type 1 diabetes can be considered a disqualifying factor during enlistment, development of either Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes does not automatically call for the servicemember's discharge. Instead, the discharge risk comes from the difficulty many diabetes patients experience in controlling their weight. You could buy a medical discharge for failure to maintain weight standards, but you won't be discharged just because you need insulin. After all, it's not like you won't see resupply for a week.
Further, veterans with diabetes receive all necessary care, from insulin to possible implanted pumps (recommended in certain cases - the TRICARE doc was talking about getting one for my daughter, until it was pointed out that as a low-functioning autistic she probably wouldn't have been able to manage the maintenance needed) to supportive surgery and prosthetics in the event of diabetic complications. Yet this same move Trump desires would deprive trans veterans, who served honorably in the wrong body, from receiving any care for their issues after an Honorable Discharge or retirement. (It would also give trans people still in service Less Than Honorable discharges, which makes post-service employment, and thus health care of any sort, problematic.)
And what of transsexual service personnel who are medically unable to through hormone treatment and have had to settle for surgical treatment? For all intents and purposes their transition is over, are they still allowed to serve? Can they serve as the sex they now are? Is a surgical MtF then excluded from close combat units?
And what of transgender service personnel who don't chose to undergo either surgical or hormonal transition and instead simply modify their life or behaviour to whatever gender suits them best? No extra cost there.
Please note, there are questions not just statements with question marks, I have only marginal interest in what America does but it would be nice to clear it up a bit as to whether distinctions are made on cost/welfare or just on buzzwords.
As far as I'm aware among my friends, even those who are fully transitioned surgically, they still need to take the correct hormones (and at the correct dosages for them) A bit like a diabetic who needs insulin (or whichever variant they're prescribed, such as metformin(sp), they can't simply stop taking it, because their body needs it to function. Someone who is F2M, for example, and stops taking their estrogen blockers and T, well, as patrickngo mentioned, the disruption to their cognitive process the resulting imbalance creates, while survivable in civilian life, under a millitary or combat situation, it doesn't bear thinking about...
It's not a case of excluding someone 'because they're trans', but one of excluding someone with complex medical needs, which if disrupted, could have catastrophic effects to a mission.
There are trans people for whom surgical modifications can be the end of the process. All they need to heal the mismatch between brain and body is implants and lifts and so on, they still are trans but don't require any more observation or intervention, but as they are still classed as trans are they included? I've not been able to find or get an answer either way on that or the ones simply living as another gender.
@silverlobes#2676, you and @patrickngo are both missing the boat on what Jonsills and Artan said. There is no rule that says a transgender person has to transition at any particular time by any method, which means the cost of their medical care is no more or less than that of a cis person. (And I'm including psychiatric counseling in that: a shrink gets paid the same whether he's treating gender dysphoria or PTSD.)
Again: Tricare spends a little under $100 million a year for Viagra and Cialis for people who aren't even on active duty anymore. The cost were every active duty transgender soldier in the US military to transition simultaneously, which as previously noted they wouldn't, would be about $8 million; the actual cost is peanuts compared just to Tricare's total budget (forget the entire Defense Department), yet this is the justification chosen. This is a mountain made out of a molehill by heteronormative crusaders struggling to remain relevant and by an incompetent hypocritical showman with an easily bruised ego, nothing more. Even Defense Secretary Mattis isn't buying it: he ordered an actual study to determine the military necessity of the policy rather than immediately implement it. (I love that guy.)
/10characterstoappeasetheeditmonster
And you're missing the point that a vet who is no longer on active duty, but still needs Viagra (because of injuries/and or psychological trauma acquired through service) deserves to have that medication provided by the VA as part of their retirement care. Why should they no longer be Fully Functional, when the cause of their dysfunction, was a result of their service??
You're also missing the point patrickngo made, that there are way more male vets in need of Viagra, than there are folks going through a transition. So of course one cost is going to be higher. No, there's not some rule which states that someone has to transition Right Away, but equally, I wouldn't want to be living with that kind of dysphoria, and can understand why a transgendered individual doesn't want to put up with it either. But if someone is transitioning or transitioned, they still need their hormones. Just like a diabetic still needs their insulin(or analogue treatment) And missing the point, that the 'cost' is not just dollars and cents, but also Blood and Lives, when someone doesn't receive the hormones (or medicine) they need, to function as needed. I don't know about you, but someone in a high-stress environment (such as on an active mission deployment), in dire need of insulin and with live ammunition, is not a scenario I wish to contemplate. The phrase "monkey with a hand-grenade" comes to mind
Just because someone wants to join the military and serve, that doesn't oblige the military to accept them. And as before, someone who can't deal with the notion that the military doesn't have to accept them on legitimate medical grounds, and that it isn't just some kind of mean bias, isn't of the right frame of mind to serve anyway.
*Extratextbecausereasons...
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Starsword covered one of the major points I was coming back for - that not every trans person is in the process of transitioning. (I personally know two trans women who were in the service - one was in my roommate's unit in Iraq. And several more have been on the local news recently, fighting back against the claims that they couldn't have been good soldiers because of their condition; they get to point at their actual service records for that.)
Further, even should a soldier choose to transition during service, it may surprise you to know that we no longer move our forward units beyond the capability of resupply. Particularly during such incidents as Iraq and Afghanistan, it's remarkably stupid to extend your supply chain to the point that random insurgents can cut you off - and whatever else you choose to say about the leadership on the ground in those places, they aren't remarkably stupid. My roommate was supposed to be a cook in Iraq, but since Halliburton had managed to win a contract to do the cooking, he wound up first gunning, then driving, on supply convoys. They made runs to FOBs every day. Nobody would have gone a week without necessary medications unless they chose to do so, declining to get their refills from the unit medic (in which case they buy a General Discharge for being too stupid to serve). We've made a few advances since Vietnam, after all...
The comparison to insulin is interesting, and potentially apt - because while Type 1 diabetes can be considered a disqualifying factor during enlistment, development of either Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes does not automatically call for the servicemember's discharge. Instead, the discharge risk comes from the difficulty many diabetes patients experience in controlling their weight. You could buy a medical discharge for failure to maintain weight standards, but you won't be discharged just because you need insulin. After all, it's not like you won't see resupply for a week.
Further, veterans with diabetes receive all necessary care, from insulin to possible implanted pumps (recommended in certain cases - the TRICARE doc was talking about getting one for my daughter, until it was pointed out that as a low-functioning autistic she probably wouldn't have been able to manage the maintenance needed) to supportive surgery and prosthetics in the event of diabetic complications. Yet this same move Trump desires would deprive trans veterans, who served honorably in the wrong body, from receiving any care for their issues after an Honorable Discharge or retirement. (It would also give trans people still in service Less Than Honorable discharges, which makes post-service employment, and thus health care of any sort, problematic.)
Personally, I'd say that the US military (especially army) has made a lot of advances because of Vietnam
The reason I make the comparison to insulin, is due to the behavioural changes which occur. Having hypoglycaemia, I know only too well the way my behaviour changes if my balance drops for too long. Like I said, "monkey with a hand grenade", and that is the issue patrickngo was refering to with F2M transition. I know from what I've been told by such a person, how when they began taking T, their mental faculties changed. They said they became more analytical and logical, that they thought more clearly than they did before they started taking it. So applying that situation in reverse, and someone who is used to operating on T, is deprived it (because in war, tihs happens, and what may be thought of as guaranteed supply lines can become cut) there will be others relying on their capability, which is now reduced. It's simply not an acceptable proposition, IMO, to place the lives of everyone else, above that person's feelings.
I don't know the policy ins and outs of what The Donald is proposing, but I do understand the reason why some people (unfortunately for them) have to be denied service on medical grounds, because of potential operational impacts.
*Extratextbecausereasons...
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
And what of transsexual service personnel who are medically unable to through hormone treatment and have had to settle for surgical treatment? For all intents and purposes their transition is over, are they still allowed to serve? Can they serve as the sex they now are? Is a surgical MtF then excluded from close combat units?
And what of transgender service personnel who don't chose to undergo either surgical or hormonal transition and instead simply modify their life or behaviour to whatever gender suits them best? No extra cost there.
Please note, there are questions not just statements with question marks, I have only marginal interest in what America does but it would be nice to clear it up a bit as to whether distinctions are made on cost/welfare or just on buzzwords.
As far as I'm aware among my friends, even those who are fully transitioned surgically, they still need to take the correct hormones (and at the correct dosages for them) A bit like a diabetic who needs insulin (or whichever variant they're prescribed, such as metformin(sp), they can't simply stop taking it, because their body needs it to function. Someone who is F2M, for example, and stops taking their estrogen blockers and T, well, as patrickngo mentioned, the disruption to their cognitive process the resulting imbalance creates, while survivable in civilian life, under a millitary or combat situation, it doesn't bear thinking about...
It's not a case of excluding someone 'because they're trans', but one of excluding someone with complex medical needs, which if disrupted, could have catastrophic effects to a mission.
There are trans people for whom surgical modifications can be the end of the process. All they need to heal the mismatch between brain and body is implants and lifts and so on, they still are trans but don't require any more observation or intervention, but as they are still classed as trans are they included? I've not been able to find or get an answer either way on that or the ones simply living as another gender.
@silverlobes#2676, you and @patrickngo are both missing the boat on what Jonsills and Artan said. There is no rule that says a transgender person has to transition at any particular time by any method, which means the cost of their medical care is no more or less than that of a cis person. (And I'm including psychiatric counseling in that: a shrink gets paid the same whether he's treating gender dysphoria or PTSD.)
Again: Tricare spends a little under $100 million a year for Viagra and Cialis for people who aren't even on active duty anymore. The cost were every active duty transgender soldier in the US military to transition simultaneously, which as previously noted they wouldn't, would be about $8 million; the actual cost is peanuts compared just to Tricare's total budget (forget the entire Defense Department), yet this is the justification chosen. This is a mountain made out of a molehill by heteronormative crusaders struggling to remain relevant and by an incompetent hypocritical showman with an easily bruised ego, nothing more. Even Defense Secretary Mattis isn't buying it: he ordered an actual study to determine the military necessity of the policy rather than immediately implement it. (I love that guy.)
/10characterstoappeasetheeditmonster
And you're missing the point that a vet who is no longer on active duty, but still needs Viagra (because of injuries/and or psychological trauma acquired through service) deserves to have that medication provided by the VA as part of their retirement care. Why should they no longer be Fully Functional, when the cause of their dysfunction, was a result of their service??
You're also missing the point patrickngo made, that there are way more male vets in need of Viagra, than there are folks going through a transition. So of course one cost is going to be higher. No, there's not some rule which states that someone has to transition Right Away, but equally, I wouldn't want to be living with that kind of dysphoria, and can understand why a transgendered individual doesn't want to put up with it either. But if someone is transitioning or transitioned, they still need their hormones. Just like a diabetic still needs their insulin(or analogue treatment) And missing the point, that the 'cost' is not just dollars and cents, but also Blood and Lives, when someone doesn't receive the hormones (or medicine) they need, to function as needed. I don't know about you, but someone in a high-stress environment (such as on an active mission deployment), in dire need of insulin and with live ammunition, is not a scenario I wish to contemplate. The phrase "monkey with a hand-grenade" comes to mind
Just because someone wants to join the military and serve, that doesn't oblige the military to accept them. And as before, someone who can't deal with the notion that the military doesn't have to accept them on legitimate medical grounds, and that it isn't just some kind of mean bias, isn't of the right frame of mind to serve anyway.
*Extratextbecausereasons...
Believe me, I know full well that the military has no obligation to accept all applicants: I myself was disqualified from enlisting in the Navy because I'm on the autism spectrum, high-functioning but still noticeable. My own father, a twenty-year vet (five as a surface warfare officer, fifteen as an engineering duty officer) who is also probably on the spectrum (he has some of the same issues I do but was never formally diagnosed), said the Navy probably missed out on a very good EM, ET, or EM-nuke as a result.
Rather than making blanket rules, it's considerably smarter to actually get an analysis applicant by applicant. What can they bring to the service? What are their particular diagnoses and needs? What is their ability to cope without treatment (I was on prescription stimulants from about age 6 to 17, but for the last decade I haven't taken any pills except for seasonal allergies)? But that takes more brainpower apparently than going with the knee-jerk reaction.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
The military wants replaceable parts, not individuals. Its entire structure is built on the premise that at any time under any circumstances a junior can replace his superior with little or no loss of capability.
This also leads to 'traditional values' and 'standard procedure' in the place of individual evaluation. If one cannot measureably perform up to the standard which includes the ability to both command and subordinate simultaneously, then one should not be in the military. Period.
This has lead to disqualification based on traditional values as opposed to actual qualifications, but our current military does not need as many bodies as apply, and so DQ is easier to do than to re-evaluate those traditional values which currently limit the service opportunities of a very small segment of our society. This may be a lazy and anti-inclusive, but it has worked so far, and military guys go with what works.
I personally prefer the Starship Troopers style military in which objective standards for all people are set, and failure or unwillingness to meet those objectives is the only criterion for inclusion. Medical maintenance can be a disqualificating factor regardless why the person requires it, and anyone who can meet those standards can qualify on that basis regardless of the contents of their underwear.
And what of transsexual service personnel who are medically unable to through hormone treatment and have had to settle for surgical treatment? For all intents and purposes their transition is over, are they still allowed to serve? Can they serve as the sex they now are? Is a surgical MtF then excluded from close combat units?
And what of transgender service personnel who don't chose to undergo either surgical or hormonal transition and instead simply modify their life or behaviour to whatever gender suits them best? No extra cost there.
Please note, there are questions not just statements with question marks, I have only marginal interest in what America does but it would be nice to clear it up a bit as to whether distinctions are made on cost/welfare or just on buzzwords.
As far as I'm aware among my friends, even those who are fully transitioned surgically, they still need to take the correct hormones (and at the correct dosages for them) A bit like a diabetic who needs insulin (or whichever variant they're prescribed, such as metformin(sp), they can't simply stop taking it, because their body needs it to function. Someone who is F2M, for example, and stops taking their estrogen blockers and T, well, as patrickngo mentioned, the disruption to their cognitive process the resulting imbalance creates, while survivable in civilian life, under a millitary or combat situation, it doesn't bear thinking about...
It's not a case of excluding someone 'because they're trans', but one of excluding someone with complex medical needs, which if disrupted, could have catastrophic effects to a mission.
There are trans people for whom surgical modifications can be the end of the process. All they need to heal the mismatch between brain and body is implants and lifts and so on, they still are trans but don't require any more observation or intervention, but as they are still classed as trans are they included? I've not been able to find or get an answer either way on that or the ones simply living as another gender.
@silverlobes#2676, you and @patrickngo are both missing the boat on what Jonsills and Artan said. There is no rule that says a transgender person has to transition at any particular time by any method, which means the cost of their medical care is no more or less than that of a cis person. (And I'm including psychiatric counseling in that: a shrink gets paid the same whether he's treating gender dysphoria or PTSD.)
Again: Tricare spends a little under $100 million a year for Viagra and Cialis for people who aren't even on active duty anymore. The cost were every active duty transgender soldier in the US military to transition simultaneously, which as previously noted they wouldn't, would be about $8 million; the actual cost is peanuts compared just to Tricare's total budget (forget the entire Defense Department), yet this is the justification chosen. This is a mountain made out of a molehill by heteronormative crusaders struggling to remain relevant and by an incompetent hypocritical showman with an easily bruised ego, nothing more. Even Defense Secretary Mattis isn't buying it: he ordered an actual study to determine the military necessity of the policy rather than immediately implement it. (I love that guy.)
/10characterstoappeasetheeditmonster
And you're missing the point that a vet who is no longer on active duty, but still needs Viagra (because of injuries/and or psychological trauma acquired through service) deserves to have that medication provided by the VA as part of their retirement care. Why should they no longer be Fully Functional, when the cause of their dysfunction, was a result of their service??
You're also missing the point patrickngo made, that there are way more male vets in need of Viagra, than there are folks going through a transition. So of course one cost is going to be higher. No, there's not some rule which states that someone has to transition Right Away, but equally, I wouldn't want to be living with that kind of dysphoria, and can understand why a transgendered individual doesn't want to put up with it either. But if someone is transitioning or transitioned, they still need their hormones. Just like a diabetic still needs their insulin(or analogue treatment) And missing the point, that the 'cost' is not just dollars and cents, but also Blood and Lives, when someone doesn't receive the hormones (or medicine) they need, to function as needed. I don't know about you, but someone in a high-stress environment (such as on an active mission deployment), in dire need of insulin and with live ammunition, is not a scenario I wish to contemplate. The phrase "monkey with a hand-grenade" comes to mind
Just because someone wants to join the military and serve, that doesn't oblige the military to accept them. And as before, someone who can't deal with the notion that the military doesn't have to accept them on legitimate medical grounds, and that it isn't just some kind of mean bias, isn't of the right frame of mind to serve anyway.
*Extratextbecausereasons...
Believe me, I know full well that the military has no obligation to accept all applicants: I myself was disqualified from enlisting in the Navy because I'm on the autism spectrum, high-functioning but still noticeable. My own father, a twenty-year vet (five as a surface warfare officer, fifteen as an engineering duty officer) who is also probably on the spectrum (he has some of the same issues I do but was never formally diagnosed), said the Navy probably missed out on a very good EM, ET, or EM-nuke as a result.
Rather than making blanket rules, it's considerably smarter to actually get an analysis applicant by applicant. What can they bring to the service? What are their particular diagnoses and needs? What is their ability to cope without treatment (I was on prescription stimulants from about age 6 to 17, but for the last decade I haven't taken any pills except for seasonal allergies)? But that takes more brainpower apparently than going with the knee-jerk reaction.
In principle, I agree with you: It would be nicer and fairer if people were evaluated individually. But the world isn't fair or nice. And so I can understand why militaries don't do this. As brian334 said: The military wants replaceable parts, not individuals.
Anyone who can't understand why they're not suited to serve (for whatever reason that may be) is doubly unfit to serve, for the fact that they also can't understand policy, without being butthurt about not betting a free-pass and participation award anymore, and take it as personal slight, rather than simply a "Thanks, but no thanks."
Like I said, I have friends (shocking, I know ) so I'm not unsympathetic to The Cause, but I can understand the need for criteria, guidelines, and a policy. Even though I think that individual assessments would be fairer, I can understand why that isn't, and can't be, so :-\
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Hast thou not gone against sincerity
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
As a trans gal myself, I got 2 stances on this:
1: Sure, go into the military if you choose.
2: I would suggest NOT doing so, since you'll be another disposable pawn in the ever lasting 'war on terror', which is nothing more than bombing the hell out of brown people, including children, for the sake of destroying a government who wanted to get away from the dollar/petro dollar, installing puppets leaders, establishing big banking cartels, and taking away resources and creating horrific mutations among the children, thanks to depleted uranium rounds (whomever thought that was a good idea, needs to have their you know what's shoved into a pencil sharpener) and pretty much making 2001-present (though I will probably count the 1990's the new Vietnam era. And all you will have to show for that, is probably a few less body parts, and possibly living on the streets when the government TRIBBLE you over and does not help you when you need it.
And what of transsexual service personnel who are medically unable to through hormone treatment and have had to settle for surgical treatment? For all intents and purposes their transition is over, are they still allowed to serve? Can they serve as the sex they now are? Is a surgical MtF then excluded from close combat units?
And what of transgender service personnel who don't chose to undergo either surgical or hormonal transition and instead simply modify their life or behaviour to whatever gender suits them best? No extra cost there.
Please note, there are questions not just statements with question marks, I have only marginal interest in what America does but it would be nice to clear it up a bit as to whether distinctions are made on cost/welfare or just on buzzwords.
As far as I'm aware among my friends, even those who are fully transitioned surgically, they still need to take the correct hormones (and at the correct dosages for them) A bit like a diabetic who needs insulin (or whichever variant they're prescribed, such as metformin(sp), they can't simply stop taking it, because their body needs it to function. Someone who is F2M, for example, and stops taking their estrogen blockers and T, well, as patrickngo mentioned, the disruption to their cognitive process the resulting imbalance creates, while survivable in civilian life, under a millitary or combat situation, it doesn't bear thinking about...
It's not a case of excluding someone 'because they're trans', but one of excluding someone with complex medical needs, which if disrupted, could have catastrophic effects to a mission.
There are trans people for whom surgical modifications can be the end of the process. All they need to heal the mismatch between brain and body is implants and lifts and so on, they still are trans but don't require any more observation or intervention, but as they are still classed as trans are they included? I've not been able to find or get an answer either way on that or the ones simply living as another gender.
@silverlobes#2676, you and @patrickngo are both missing the boat on what Jonsills and Artan said. There is no rule that says a transgender person has to transition at any particular time by any method, which means the cost of their medical care is no more or less than that of a cis person. (And I'm including psychiatric counseling in that: a shrink gets paid the same whether he's treating gender dysphoria or PTSD.)
Again: Tricare spends a little under $100 million a year for Viagra and Cialis for people who aren't even on active duty anymore. The cost were every active duty transgender soldier in the US military to transition simultaneously, which as previously noted they wouldn't, would be about $8 million; the actual cost is peanuts compared just to Tricare's total budget (forget the entire Defense Department), yet this is the justification chosen. This is a mountain made out of a molehill by heteronormative crusaders struggling to remain relevant and by an incompetent hypocritical showman with an easily bruised ego, nothing more. Even Defense Secretary Mattis isn't buying it: he ordered an actual study to determine the military necessity of the policy rather than immediately implement it. (I love that guy.)
/10characterstoappeasetheeditmonster
And you're missing the point that a vet who is no longer on active duty, but still needs Viagra (because of injuries/and or psychological trauma acquired through service) deserves to have that medication provided by the VA as part of their retirement care. Why should they no longer be Fully Functional, when the cause of their dysfunction, was a result of their service??
You're also missing the point patrickngo made, that there are way more male vets in need of Viagra, than there are folks going through a transition. So of course one cost is going to be higher. No, there's not some rule which states that someone has to transition Right Away, but equally, I wouldn't want to be living with that kind of dysphoria, and can understand why a transgendered individual doesn't want to put up with it either. But if someone is transitioning or transitioned, they still need their hormones. Just like a diabetic still needs their insulin(or analogue treatment) And missing the point, that the 'cost' is not just dollars and cents, but also Blood and Lives, when someone doesn't receive the hormones (or medicine) they need, to function as needed. I don't know about you, but someone in a high-stress environment (such as on an active mission deployment), in dire need of insulin and with live ammunition, is not a scenario I wish to contemplate. The phrase "monkey with a hand-grenade" comes to mind
Just because someone wants to join the military and serve, that doesn't oblige the military to accept them. And as before, someone who can't deal with the notion that the military doesn't have to accept them on legitimate medical grounds, and that it isn't just some kind of mean bias, isn't of the right frame of mind to serve anyway.
*Extratextbecausereasons...
Believe me, I know full well that the military has no obligation to accept all applicants: I myself was disqualified from enlisting in the Navy because I'm on the autism spectrum, high-functioning but still noticeable. My own father, a twenty-year vet (five as a surface warfare officer, fifteen as an engineering duty officer) who is also probably on the spectrum (he has some of the same issues I do but was never formally diagnosed), said the Navy probably missed out on a very good EM, ET, or EM-nuke as a result.
Rather than making blanket rules, it's considerably smarter to actually get an analysis applicant by applicant. What can they bring to the service? What are their particular diagnoses and needs? What is their ability to cope without treatment (I was on prescription stimulants from about age 6 to 17, but for the last decade I haven't taken any pills except for seasonal allergies)? But that takes more brainpower apparently than going with the knee-jerk reaction.
Problem: we don't customize the global supply chain to suit individual needs in wartime.
Which is why type 1 diabetes is grounds for being kicked from active duty. HRT is teh same way, only worse, because every individual is different. that's why you can't pop down to Rite Aid and pick up a box of transition hormones over-the-counter, and why you need a GOOD Endocrinologist to write the scrip-and you need to keep SEEING that good Endocrinologist to maintain it.
A vet who's already done their time, has already done their time. THAT stuff is filed by social security numbers that don't care if you wear pants or a dress to the VA appointments.
We're talking about active duty.
and we're talking about a serious medical condition that has one of the highest rates of SUICIDE of any demographic in the population. means witholding treatment is probably one of the nastier things you can do to get someone to top themselves.
I mean, it's a pretty clear dividing line. Being homosexual is not a medical disorder, being trans is. Not 'transvestite', but 'Transsexual'...is a disorder, it's treated with a combination of hormone replacement and surgery to align the body to fit the brain.
HRT is not something you just start, then stop at will. It has serious, provable, medical consequences to stopping, those consequences are also operational consequences in a field environment.
that means those consequences cost lives and kill people.
one size does NOT fit all with HRT. The hormone cocktail that Vanessa is taking to transition smoothly and comfortably isn't going to work on Heather, it can cause other medical problems and likewise the other way-Heather's scrip has the potential to put Vanessa in the hospital, with mystery bleeding and brittle bones, fever, etcetera, and Sally needs a different combination entirely, and HERS could send Heather or Vanessa into (literal) violent fits of rage on a hair trigger.
which isn't, in spite of Hollywood, what you want in the gunner on your MRAP in a stress situation.
Financial cost=/=operational cost.
Financial cost=gross dollars being spent...by an agency that will spend eight grand per unit on claw-hammers.
Operational Cost=How many bodybags do you want to fill today? How many flag-draped coffins before you hit your limit? How many "we regret to inform you" letters are sufficient to assure that your policies are acceptably progressive and sensitive. (me, I find "Zero" is a great number, zero bodybags, zero flag draped coffins and zero 'we regret to inform you's' is an AWESOME number, just not an achievable one, people die in training too, or in the bathroom, or on PT, or just walking across base...a distant second being 'can we get it lower please?' but we can actually WORK on that number.)
Donald might be talking dollars, and probably doing this as a sop to the GOP leadership he's been offending for years now, but the real "costs" here are in dead bodies, or worse, people coming back with pieces MISSING and damaged psyches. It's a blood price, not a dollar price. You've got to weigh whether cosmetic sensitivity is worth dead people, and how many dead people it's worth to appear 'sensitive' and 'inclusive'. If your number is greater than zero, then you've got other issues you should maybe consider dealing with before you start worrying about someone else's neanderthal mindset. Military rules aren't written to address the unique exceptions, they have to be written to the statistical average.
The supply chain is the same way.
^^^^^^ 100% This.
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
and we're talking about a serious medical condition that has one of the highest rates of SUICIDE of any demographic in the population. means witholding treatment is probably one of the nastier things you can do to get someone to top themselves.
(...)
I just want to take these two points here and leave the rest of your dripping pathos uncommented:
The sole example being given is active duty meaning frontline combat with supply scarcity. The rule in place though bars people from serving in the military period. There are some people that won't tire listing all the "non-killy" positions in the military if the topic at hoof somehow sheds a negative light on this, yet when it comes to discriminating against individuals it's simply to protect them from running out of supplies in a combat zone.
Second point, yes the rate of attempted suicide amongst trans soldiers serving is very high. But why do you think this is? It can't possibly have anything to do with the repercussions of oneself being diagnosed as mentally ill (which transsexuality was characterized still in 2012 methinks), having to hide ones condition in fear of losing ones job or facing sexism in a military environment which is infested with backwards ideals and certain morals? Banning persons for this reason is the same nonsense as "killing terrorists" - it's activism that'll never lead anywhere as the underlying problem is never addressed.
Now, I have no squealing idea about the US military but I trust respectable scientific studies which were undertaken with cooperation of the DOD concluding, while acknowledging the psychological issues like suicide rates, that there is no medical reason for banning trans people from serving, especially considering that 18 other countries allow trans servicepeople in their lines without collapsing in itself.
But yes, we are really far off-topic and probably have killed the topic with it. If not we should truly return to the OPs topic though to circumvent moderation.
*doesthisworkcircumventing the forumposteatingbug?testest
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
The fact that other countries do it is a non sequitur. The most expensive and useless luxury in the world is a second best military.
Heinlein, who also wrote Starship Troopers, said that first. I don't blame generals for being conservative in the face of social change, because social change isn't always for the better, and sacrificing military efficiency for the sake of political correctness could have catastrophic results.
I don't believe transgendered persons should be excluded because history is filled with examples of effective TRIBBLE soldiers, (it never hurt the Roman Legions, for example. However, anyone requiring medical maintenance of any kind, diabetes, immunosuppression therapy, dialysis, whatever, should be excluded because even in the support services such persons are dependant upon a supply chain which will certainly be attacked in the case of a war. Getting a dose of insulin to a specific soldier in that situation becomes a logistics problem the Quartermaster Corps doesn't need when simply getting food and ammo to the ToO is a challenge.
But then, I'm not a general with the fate of multiple nations and millions of lives resting on my epaulettes. In such circumstances change from what is known to work must always be seen first as a threat to efficiency until it is proven otherwise. I don't fault the military for being slow to adopt change.
and we're talking about a serious medical condition that has one of the highest rates of SUICIDE of any demographic in the population. means witholding treatment is probably one of the nastier things you can do to get someone to top themselves.
(...)
I just want to take these two points here and leave the rest of your dripping pathos uncommented:
The sole example being given is active duty meaning frontline combat with supply scarcity. The rule in place though bars people from serving in the military period. There are some people that won't tire listing all the "non-killy" positions in the military if the topic at hoof somehow sheds a negative light on this, yet when it comes to discriminating against individuals it's simply to protect them from running out of supplies in a combat zone.
Second point, yes the rate of attempted suicide amongst trans soldiers serving is very high. But why do you think this is? It can't possibly have anything to do with the repercussions of oneself being diagnosed as mentally ill (which transsexuality was characterized still in 2012 methinks), having to hide ones condition in fear of losing ones job or facing sexism in a military environment which is infested with backwards ideals and certain morals? Banning persons for this reason is the same nonsense as "killing terrorists" - it's activism that'll never lead anywhere as the underlying problem is never addressed.
Now, I have no squealing idea about the US military but I trust respectable scientific studies which were undertaken with cooperation of the DOD concluding, while acknowledging the psychological issues like suicide rates, that there is no medical reason for banning trans people from serving, especially considering that 18 other countries allow trans servicepeople in their lines without collapsing in itself.
But yes, we are really far off-topic and probably have killed the topic with it. If not we should truly return to the OPs topic though to circumvent moderation.
*doesthisworkcircumventing the forumposteatingbug?testest
Thinking about the bolded statement, that goes back in this thread to the thing starkaos said: basically that drones are making soldiers on foot obsolete.
No, they're not. And nothing ever will. As recent Masterverse stories by myself and patrickngo have discussed (and as discussed in this article about aforementioned General Mattis), defeating an insurgency isn't like defeating a country. Insurgencies are fueled by ideas and by popular anger: as long as they can keep people angrier at your guys than at their guys, they'll keep coming. You have to build relationships with the people on the ground and actively work to address their concerns, which you can't do from a Reaper drone 30,000 feet in the air. And yes, it means you're going to take casualties: it's a high-risk, high-reward scenario, which means it needs to be planned for in advance of deployment and not undertaken lightly. It also means actively working to maintain the moral high ground. One of your guys blows up a hospital (*cough* Kunduz *cough*)? Don't hide behind some "mistaken identity" story, investigate it in the open and send the f*cker to the Hague.
This is something that was, incidentally, known way back in Vietnam. The Marines were actually making some headway on defeating the Viet Cong with the "hearts and minds" strategy: building schools, building relationships with villagers and village elders, training them and providing weapons to defend themselves. It doesn't just look good for the cameras, it also makes the locals more willing to provide reliable intelligence. But the Army plain couldn't wrap its head around the idea that they had to do more than just kill the enemy. It's evidently an idea that American culture in general is really terrible at, maybe because spending resources to lift people up is an idea that reeks of socialism, gag, puke.
And speaking of "building schools", that's how you defeat the other half of what fuels an insurgency: with education. There's a reason for that old saw, "The pen is mightier than the sword": You can't kill an idea with a bomb, you can only kill it with a better idea. There's a great recent Nova episode on radicalization, and near the end they talk to a young man who was going down the path, but then he met an imam who did crazy things like point to a passage in the Qur'an that al-Qa'ida likes to use to justify itself, then goes, "Why do you start at verse 6? Why do you not start at verse 1?" Turns out that sura (book) of the Qur'an isn't an instruction, it's a historical text like the Books of Chronicles and Kings in the Old Testament: it describes a particular historical group of pagans who were to be destroyed, not for being pagans, but because they attacked the Muslims in violation of a secular treaty. (And factoring in, of course, that this was a time period before humanity as a whole had really grasped the idea that genocide is evil.)
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
and we're talking about a serious medical condition that has one of the highest rates of SUICIDE of any demographic in the population. means witholding treatment is probably one of the nastier things you can do to get someone to top themselves.
(...)
Second point, yes the rate of attempted suicide amongst trans soldiers serving is very high. But why do you think this is? It can't possibly have anything to do with the repercussions of oneself being diagnosed as mentally ill (which transsexuality was characterized still in 2012 methinks), having to hide ones condition in fear of losing ones job or facing sexism in a military environment which is infested with backwards ideals and certain morals? Banning persons for this reason is the same nonsense as "killing terrorists" - it's activism that'll never lead anywhere as the underlying problem is never addressed.
Just like how homosexuals were treated in the 50s? I haven't heard of any claim about homosexual men having that high of a suicide rate due to them being diagnosed as mentally ill or having to hide one's condition in fear of losing their job.
I don't believe transgendered persons should be excluded because history is filled with examples of effective **** soldiers, (it never hurt the Roman Legions, for example. However, anyone requiring medical maintenance of any kind, diabetes, immunosuppression therapy, dialysis, whatever, should be excluded because even in the support services such persons are dependant upon a supply chain which will certainly be attacked in the case of a war. Getting a dose of insulin to a specific soldier in that situation becomes a logistics problem the Quartermaster Corps doesn't need when simply getting food and ammo to the ToO is a challenge.
And back during the Roman Empire, they didn't have Gender Reassignment Surgery. So transgender Roman soldiers might be a little bit crazy, but they would fit right in with all the other crazies in the army and didn't require any cost to the army other than tolerating their wacky hijinks. So as long as any operations are done after their service to the army, then it shouldn't matter.
The Eaters of Light episode from the most recent Doctor Who season had homosexuals and heterosexuals as frowned upon in ancient Roman culture with bisexual being the dominant preference. Not sure how accurate that is, but it was interesting. Makes us wonder how much culture plays a role in who and what we like.
The most expensive and useless luxury in the world is a second best military.
Only correct if you don't know how to keep allies. The entire rest of the world happily plays next fiddle to the US and China/Russia (well except NK obviously).
When those three keep each other occupied with pointless proxy wars and over compensationally large nuclear arsenals the rest of the world is more or less fine.
And no. As long as you have any other advantage (including economic or allies) over another power you can happily have the second best military.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
So what would be the best type of utopia? A system where everything is provided and people itching for excitement can travel to other worlds to colonize their own world?
History is filled with second best militaries. We know them as conquered nations, and their borders sometimes remain on maps long after the indegenous people have ceased to exist. What we have now is the outlier, not the norm.
Comments
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
jonsills, I have a fair amount of friends who are trans, and understanding their conditions the way I do, as patrickngo has so succinctly pointed out, they should not be in the millitary, because of the limitations which their medical needs put upon them, and the impacts which potentially coming off those hormones, would have on those around them and the mission at hand. It is simply Not Worth It, when the price paid is in Blood.
This is simply not an arena where 'participation award' and eased qualification mentality can be tollerated.
Every Single Person in the armed forces, must be physically and mentally capable of performing the required task. Those tasks are strenuous, and so recruiting qualifications should Never be eased to allow entry for the less-than-capable who are there on a sympathy pass, because they could someday cost lives, when they aren't able to perform the task required.
Does that mean someone might not be accepted? Yes. Too bad. If someone can't deal with the rejection of not being fit to serve, well, that actually proves another reason why they aren't fit to serve...
What you have to accuse of being 'transphobic', rather than engaging with critically, is nothing more than the common sense upon which a military has to operate. As someone who has served, I would have expected you to understand that.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
And what of transgender service personnel who don't chose to undergo either surgical or hormonal transition and instead simply modify their life or behaviour to whatever gender suits them best? No extra cost there.
Please note, there are questions not just statements with question marks, I have only marginal interest in what America does but it would be nice to clear it up a bit as to whether distinctions are made on cost/welfare or just on buzzwords.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
The idea that a society can return to the Garden of Eden has its appeal, but it fails to account for the utter boredom which would ensue. Humans require, (not enjoy, not prefer, not like, but affirmatively need,) a challenge to overcome. Lacking such a challenge they become lazy, self destructive, and incapable of adaptation to crisis.
Some people can set their own goals and devote a life towards achieving them. By far most require external stimuli to do so. As an example, look at the current generation of boys. Having never been required to work for anything, they are insulted by the suggestion that they should. Instead they use words like 'deserve' and 'entitled'.
Because female emancipation focused solely on women, young men now have zero authority in how their children are raised, and are treated by the young women of their generation as disposeable sperm donors, creating a requirement based in the the traditions of the 1800s to pay child support for children over whose life they have no influence. The new emancipated female doesn't need a man and the men, knowing they are only replaceable conveniences, never become responsible parents, though they may, in a last grasp at machismo culture, father half a dozen children with half a dozen women, and rely on society to finance their upbringing and education.
Now this is an example of Utopianism gone awry, so please don't detract from the topic by arguing the example instead of the issue. The point is that every silver lining has a cloud, and the law of unintended consequences always applies.
When one begins to unravel the old systems one tends to focus on one issue at a time, and thus the conditions are set up which create even more issues. As with any system, one must understand its entire function before one begins to replace parts. You can change the brake pads on your car as often as you like, but if you have a broken brake line it won't stop your car. Be sure the actual problems are being addressed, and consider how the proposed fix is going to affect parts of the system which are not broke.
It's not a case of excluding someone 'because they're trans', but one of excluding someone with complex medical needs, which if disrupted, could have catastrophic effects to a mission.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
In 2014, Elders et al. concluded that there is no sound medical reasoning to ban transgender people from serving. Since they do so in multiple countries around the world the reasoning that they risk missions through their state of psyche or medical needs seems, to me, to be a non-issue. Very real though is the negative consequences this has for lots of veterans and currently serving personnel.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
There are trans people for whom surgical modifications can be the end of the process. All they need to heal the mismatch between brain and body is implants and lifts and so on, they still are trans but don't require any more observation or intervention, but as they are still classed as trans are they included? I've not been able to find or get an answer either way on that or the ones simply living as another gender.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
@silverlobes#2676, you and @patrickngo are both missing the boat on what Jonsills and Artan said. There is no rule that says a transgender person has to transition at any particular time by any method, which means the cost of their medical care is no more or less than that of a cis person. (And I'm including psychiatric counseling in that: a shrink gets paid the same whether he's treating gender dysphoria or PTSD.)
Again: Tricare spends a little under $100 million a year for Viagra and Cialis for people who aren't even on active duty anymore. The cost were every active duty transgender soldier in the US military to transition simultaneously, which as previously noted they wouldn't, would be about $8 million; the actual cost is peanuts compared just to Tricare's total budget (forget the entire Defense Department), yet this is the justification chosen. This is a mountain made out of a molehill by heteronormative crusaders struggling to remain relevant and by an incompetent hypocritical showman with an easily bruised ego, nothing more. Even Defense Secretary Mattis isn't buying it: he ordered an actual study to determine the military necessity of the policy rather than immediately implement it. (I love that guy.)
/10characterstoappeasetheeditmonster
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Yes, I saw that. I'm pretty sure former General Mattis is using it as an excuse to delay implementation of a rule he thinks is unnecessary.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
You probably won't get an answer either way, simply because at present, so much in the legislature is up in the air and varies from location to location.
Personally speaking, nothing would make me happier, than for a person who has transitioned, to be able to contact The Authorities, and get them to push a button which re-classifies their gender on The System, and so The System ONLY then acknowledges them as per the gender they have transitioned to. Sadly, that's not a process which is yet universally in place
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Further, even should a soldier choose to transition during service, it may surprise you to know that we no longer move our forward units beyond the capability of resupply. Particularly during such incidents as Iraq and Afghanistan, it's remarkably stupid to extend your supply chain to the point that random insurgents can cut you off - and whatever else you choose to say about the leadership on the ground in those places, they aren't remarkably stupid. My roommate was supposed to be a cook in Iraq, but since Halliburton had managed to win a contract to do the cooking, he wound up first gunning, then driving, on supply convoys. They made runs to FOBs every day. Nobody would have gone a week without necessary medications unless they chose to do so, declining to get their refills from the unit medic (in which case they buy a General Discharge for being too stupid to serve). We've made a few advances since Vietnam, after all...
The comparison to insulin is interesting, and potentially apt - because while Type 1 diabetes can be considered a disqualifying factor during enlistment, development of either Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes does not automatically call for the servicemember's discharge. Instead, the discharge risk comes from the difficulty many diabetes patients experience in controlling their weight. You could buy a medical discharge for failure to maintain weight standards, but you won't be discharged just because you need insulin. After all, it's not like you won't see resupply for a week.
Further, veterans with diabetes receive all necessary care, from insulin to possible implanted pumps (recommended in certain cases - the TRICARE doc was talking about getting one for my daughter, until it was pointed out that as a low-functioning autistic she probably wouldn't have been able to manage the maintenance needed) to supportive surgery and prosthetics in the event of diabetic complications. Yet this same move Trump desires would deprive trans veterans, who served honorably in the wrong body, from receiving any care for their issues after an Honorable Discharge or retirement. (It would also give trans people still in service Less Than Honorable discharges, which makes post-service employment, and thus health care of any sort, problematic.)
You're also missing the point patrickngo made, that there are way more male vets in need of Viagra, than there are folks going through a transition. So of course one cost is going to be higher. No, there's not some rule which states that someone has to transition Right Away, but equally, I wouldn't want to be living with that kind of dysphoria, and can understand why a transgendered individual doesn't want to put up with it either. But if someone is transitioning or transitioned, they still need their hormones. Just like a diabetic still needs their insulin(or analogue treatment) And missing the point, that the 'cost' is not just dollars and cents, but also Blood and Lives, when someone doesn't receive the hormones (or medicine) they need, to function as needed. I don't know about you, but someone in a high-stress environment (such as on an active mission deployment), in dire need of insulin and with live ammunition, is not a scenario I wish to contemplate. The phrase "monkey with a hand-grenade" comes to mind
Just because someone wants to join the military and serve, that doesn't oblige the military to accept them. And as before, someone who can't deal with the notion that the military doesn't have to accept them on legitimate medical grounds, and that it isn't just some kind of mean bias, isn't of the right frame of mind to serve anyway.
*Extratextbecausereasons...
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
The reason I make the comparison to insulin, is due to the behavioural changes which occur. Having hypoglycaemia, I know only too well the way my behaviour changes if my balance drops for too long. Like I said, "monkey with a hand grenade", and that is the issue patrickngo was refering to with F2M transition. I know from what I've been told by such a person, how when they began taking T, their mental faculties changed. They said they became more analytical and logical, that they thought more clearly than they did before they started taking it. So applying that situation in reverse, and someone who is used to operating on T, is deprived it (because in war, tihs happens, and what may be thought of as guaranteed supply lines can become cut) there will be others relying on their capability, which is now reduced. It's simply not an acceptable proposition, IMO, to place the lives of everyone else, above that person's feelings.
I don't know the policy ins and outs of what The Donald is proposing, but I do understand the reason why some people (unfortunately for them) have to be denied service on medical grounds, because of potential operational impacts.
*Extratextbecausereasons...
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Believe me, I know full well that the military has no obligation to accept all applicants: I myself was disqualified from enlisting in the Navy because I'm on the autism spectrum, high-functioning but still noticeable. My own father, a twenty-year vet (five as a surface warfare officer, fifteen as an engineering duty officer) who is also probably on the spectrum (he has some of the same issues I do but was never formally diagnosed), said the Navy probably missed out on a very good EM, ET, or EM-nuke as a result.
Rather than making blanket rules, it's considerably smarter to actually get an analysis applicant by applicant. What can they bring to the service? What are their particular diagnoses and needs? What is their ability to cope without treatment (I was on prescription stimulants from about age 6 to 17, but for the last decade I haven't taken any pills except for seasonal allergies)? But that takes more brainpower apparently than going with the knee-jerk reaction.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
This also leads to 'traditional values' and 'standard procedure' in the place of individual evaluation. If one cannot measureably perform up to the standard which includes the ability to both command and subordinate simultaneously, then one should not be in the military. Period.
This has lead to disqualification based on traditional values as opposed to actual qualifications, but our current military does not need as many bodies as apply, and so DQ is easier to do than to re-evaluate those traditional values which currently limit the service opportunities of a very small segment of our society. This may be a lazy and anti-inclusive, but it has worked so far, and military guys go with what works.
I personally prefer the Starship Troopers style military in which objective standards for all people are set, and failure or unwillingness to meet those objectives is the only criterion for inclusion. Medical maintenance can be a disqualificating factor regardless why the person requires it, and anyone who can meet those standards can qualify on that basis regardless of the contents of their underwear.
Anyone who can't understand why they're not suited to serve (for whatever reason that may be) is doubly unfit to serve, for the fact that they also can't understand policy, without being butthurt about not betting a free-pass and participation award anymore, and take it as personal slight, rather than simply a "Thanks, but no thanks."
Like I said, I have friends (shocking, I know
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
1: Sure, go into the military if you choose.
2: I would suggest NOT doing so, since you'll be another disposable pawn in the ever lasting 'war on terror', which is nothing more than bombing the hell out of brown people, including children, for the sake of destroying a government who wanted to get away from the dollar/petro dollar, installing puppets leaders, establishing big banking cartels, and taking away resources and creating horrific mutations among the children, thanks to depleted uranium rounds (whomever thought that was a good idea, needs to have their you know what's shoved into a pencil sharpener) and pretty much making 2001-present (though I will probably count the 1990's the new Vietnam era. And all you will have to show for that, is probably a few less body parts, and possibly living on the streets when the government TRIBBLE you over and does not help you when you need it.
This pretty much can apply to the military as well as the NSA mentioned ---->
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
I just want to take these two points here and leave the rest of your dripping pathos uncommented:
The sole example being given is active duty meaning frontline combat with supply scarcity. The rule in place though bars people from serving in the military period. There are some people that won't tire listing all the "non-killy" positions in the military if the topic at hoof somehow sheds a negative light on this, yet when it comes to discriminating against individuals it's simply to protect them from running out of supplies in a combat zone.
Second point, yes the rate of attempted suicide amongst trans soldiers serving is very high. But why do you think this is? It can't possibly have anything to do with the repercussions of oneself being diagnosed as mentally ill (which transsexuality was characterized still in 2012 methinks), having to hide ones condition in fear of losing ones job or facing sexism in a military environment which is infested with backwards ideals and certain morals? Banning persons for this reason is the same nonsense as "killing terrorists" - it's activism that'll never lead anywhere as the underlying problem is never addressed.
Now, I have no squealing idea about the US military but I trust respectable scientific studies which were undertaken with cooperation of the DOD concluding, while acknowledging the psychological issues like suicide rates, that there is no medical reason for banning trans people from serving, especially considering that 18 other countries allow trans servicepeople in their lines without collapsing in itself.
But yes, we are really far off-topic and probably have killed the topic with it. If not we should truly return to the OPs topic though to circumvent moderation.
*doesthisworkcircumventing the forumposteatingbug?testest
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Heinlein, who also wrote Starship Troopers, said that first. I don't blame generals for being conservative in the face of social change, because social change isn't always for the better, and sacrificing military efficiency for the sake of political correctness could have catastrophic results.
I don't believe transgendered persons should be excluded because history is filled with examples of effective TRIBBLE soldiers, (it never hurt the Roman Legions, for example. However, anyone requiring medical maintenance of any kind, diabetes, immunosuppression therapy, dialysis, whatever, should be excluded because even in the support services such persons are dependant upon a supply chain which will certainly be attacked in the case of a war. Getting a dose of insulin to a specific soldier in that situation becomes a logistics problem the Quartermaster Corps doesn't need when simply getting food and ammo to the ToO is a challenge.
But then, I'm not a general with the fate of multiple nations and millions of lives resting on my epaulettes. In such circumstances change from what is known to work must always be seen first as a threat to efficiency until it is proven otherwise. I don't fault the military for being slow to adopt change.
Thinking about the bolded statement, that goes back in this thread to the thing starkaos said: basically that drones are making soldiers on foot obsolete.
No, they're not. And nothing ever will. As recent Masterverse stories by myself and patrickngo have discussed (and as discussed in this article about aforementioned General Mattis), defeating an insurgency isn't like defeating a country. Insurgencies are fueled by ideas and by popular anger: as long as they can keep people angrier at your guys than at their guys, they'll keep coming. You have to build relationships with the people on the ground and actively work to address their concerns, which you can't do from a Reaper drone 30,000 feet in the air. And yes, it means you're going to take casualties: it's a high-risk, high-reward scenario, which means it needs to be planned for in advance of deployment and not undertaken lightly. It also means actively working to maintain the moral high ground. One of your guys blows up a hospital (*cough* Kunduz *cough*)? Don't hide behind some "mistaken identity" story, investigate it in the open and send the f*cker to the Hague.
This is something that was, incidentally, known way back in Vietnam. The Marines were actually making some headway on defeating the Viet Cong with the "hearts and minds" strategy: building schools, building relationships with villagers and village elders, training them and providing weapons to defend themselves. It doesn't just look good for the cameras, it also makes the locals more willing to provide reliable intelligence. But the Army plain couldn't wrap its head around the idea that they had to do more than just kill the enemy. It's evidently an idea that American culture in general is really terrible at, maybe because spending resources to lift people up is an idea that reeks of socialism, gag, puke.
And speaking of "building schools", that's how you defeat the other half of what fuels an insurgency: with education. There's a reason for that old saw, "The pen is mightier than the sword": You can't kill an idea with a bomb, you can only kill it with a better idea. There's a great recent Nova episode on radicalization, and near the end they talk to a young man who was going down the path, but then he met an imam who did crazy things like point to a passage in the Qur'an that al-Qa'ida likes to use to justify itself, then goes, "Why do you start at verse 6? Why do you not start at verse 1?" Turns out that sura (book) of the Qur'an isn't an instruction, it's a historical text like the Books of Chronicles and Kings in the Old Testament: it describes a particular historical group of pagans who were to be destroyed, not for being pagans, but because they attacked the Muslims in violation of a secular treaty. (And factoring in, of course, that this was a time period before humanity as a whole had really grasped the idea that genocide is evil.)
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Just like how homosexuals were treated in the 50s? I haven't heard of any claim about homosexual men having that high of a suicide rate due to them being diagnosed as mentally ill or having to hide one's condition in fear of losing their job.
And back during the Roman Empire, they didn't have Gender Reassignment Surgery. So transgender Roman soldiers might be a little bit crazy, but they would fit right in with all the other crazies in the army and didn't require any cost to the army other than tolerating their wacky hijinks. So as long as any operations are done after their service to the army, then it shouldn't matter.
The Eaters of Light episode from the most recent Doctor Who season had homosexuals and heterosexuals as frowned upon in ancient Roman culture with bisexual being the dominant preference. Not sure how accurate that is, but it was interesting. Makes us wonder how much culture plays a role in who and what we like.
Only correct if you don't know how to keep allies. The entire rest of the world happily plays next fiddle to the US and China/Russia (well except NK obviously).
When those three keep each other occupied with pointless proxy wars and over compensationally large nuclear arsenals the rest of the world is more or less fine.
And no. As long as you have any other advantage (including economic or allies) over another power you can happily have the second best military.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
History is filled with second best militaries. We know them as conquered nations, and their borders sometimes remain on maps long after the indegenous people have ceased to exist. What we have now is the outlier, not the norm.