Trump: no transgender citizens will be allowed in the military

Welp, evidently they can't stop a bullet like others can.

And I have no doubt that he has tweeted that because 1. It satisfies the knuckle dragging base 2. Worried about "medical while in the military. 3. This is a real sign that sessions gets fired soon and he wants a news cycle distraction.

I wonder how many people at the Pentagon knew he was going to tweet that this morning?

Sounds like nobody.

I fully expect to hear from people who have never served about who is fit to serve.

Turtleneck wrote:I wonder how many people at the Pentagon knew he was going to tweet that this morning?

"his generals" of course.

Susan Page‏Verified account @SusanPage 2m2 minutes ago
An estimated 6,000 transgender troops are now serving in the U.S. military.

Wow, I would have never guessed the number was that high.

Floyd Robertson wrote: Susan Page‏Verified account @SusanPage 2m2 minutes ago
An estimated 6,000 transgender troops are now serving in the U.S. military.

Wow, I would have never guessed the number was that high.

Yeah, I thought it was about 50. Either I'm naive (very possible) or that number is way exaggerated.

DWags wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote: Susan Page‏Verified account @SusanPage  2m2 minutes ago
An estimated 6,000 transgender troops are now serving in the U.S. military.

Wow, I would have never guessed the number was that high.

Yeah, I thought it was about 50.   Either I'm naive (very possible)  or that number is way exaggerated.

I wouldn't have even guessed there were that many in the general U.S. population.

6,000 would mean that 0.42% of transgender people in the us (6,000/1,400,000) serve in the military. There are also 1,400,000 total people in the military and an estimated 325,000,000 in the us... or 0.42%

So that number is assuming that transgendered people serve at the same rate as everyone else. It's not an estimate based on counting.

*all numbers based on the first result in google, I'm sure the same way that that person made their estimate.

There Are an Estimated 1,320–6,630 Transgender Service Members in the Active Component, but Not All Will Seek Gender Transition–Related Treatment.

It is difficult to estimate the number of transgender personnel in the military due to current policies and a lack of empirical data. Applying a range of prevalence estimates, combining data from multiple surveys, and adjusting for the male/female distribution in the military provided a midrange estimate of around 2,450 transgender personnel in the active component (out of a total number of approximately 1.3 million active-component service members) and 1,510 in the Selected Reserve.

Only a subset will seek gender transition–related treatment. Estimates derived from survey data and private health insurance claims data indicate that, each year, between 29 and 129 service members in the active component will seek transition-related care that could disrupt their ability to deploy.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1530.html

All I know is that a 30 year old Bruce Jenner would have been a hell of a soldier. Run jump throw. Shit, I'd take him in my army any day

Turtleneck wrote:

There Are an Estimated 1,320–6,630 Transgender Service Members in the Active Component, but Not All Will Seek Gender Transition–Related Treatment.

It is difficult to estimate the number of transgender personnel in the military due to current policies and a lack of empirical data. Applying a range of prevalence estimates, combining data from multiple surveys, and adjusting for the male/female distribution in the military provided a midrange estimate of around 2,450 transgender personnel in the active component (out of a total number of approximately 1.3 million active-component service members) and 1,510 in the Selected Reserve.

Only a subset will seek gender transition–related treatment. Estimates derived from survey data and private health insurance claims data indicate that, each year, between 29 and 129 service members in the active component will seek transition-related care that could disrupt their ability to deploy.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1530.html

You went and got a link of someone else's thoughts while I did the work myself.

Imagine waking up in the morning as the "leader" of the free world and your biggest priority is ridding the U.S. military of transgender people.

Hmmm.

While we argue about the merits of transgendered people in the military, try try try to keep in mind that they don't give a fuck and it has nothing to do with that.



-per axios reporter Jonathan swan

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:While we argue about the merits of transgendered people in the military, try try try to keep in mind that they don't give a fuck and it has nothing to do with that.

I just came here to post that, Travis. Apparently it is the Trump White House that thinks the Midwest is a bunch of hateful bigots.

Note to Travis: Stop following me around the Internet and stay off my Twitter.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:While we argue about the merits of transgendered people in the military, try try try to keep in mind that they don't give a fuck and it has nothing to do with that.

I just came here to post that, Travis. Apparently it is the Trump White House that thinks the Midwest is a bunch of hateful bigots.

They're not wrong

Christopher Hayes‏Verified account @chrislhayes 27m27 minutes ago
He's going to lean in to culture war the more threatened he feels and it will get far far uglier.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:While we argue about the merits of transgendered people in the military, try try try to keep in mind that they don't give a fuck and it has nothing to do with that.

I just came here to post that, Travis. Apparently it is the Trump White House that thinks the Midwest is a bunch of hateful bigots.

Note to Travis: Stop following me around the Internet and stay off my Twitter.

We might have mutual follows :) that makes me feel tingly inside :)

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I just came here to post that, Travis. Apparently it is the Trump White House that thinks the Midwest is a bunch of hateful bigots.

Note to Travis: Stop following me around the Internet and stay off my Twitter.

We might have mutual follows :) that makes me feel tingly inside :)

I saw it via a retweet. Same with the Christopher Hayes tweet.

It comes down to that old Bill Hicks routine, I forget the setup but it was in his gays in the military routine where he comes down to they should just let anyone in that is stupid enough to want to join the military.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

We might have mutual follows :) that makes me feel tingly inside :)

I saw it via a retweet. Same with the Christopher Hayes tweet.

Me too :)

Listen, we do not have mutual follows. Not one. Zero. It's never going to happen. We are never going to follow the same people on Twitter. Sorry.

Turtleneck wrote:Listen, we do not have mutual follows. Not one. Zero. It's never going to happen. We are never going to follow the same people on Twitter. Sorry.

I'll follow you both on Twitter.

steveschneider wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Listen, we do not have mutual follows. Not one. Zero. It's never going to happen. We are never going to follow the same people on Twitter. Sorry.

I'll follow you both on Twitter.

That's fine. I like you, Steve. Travis...well...yeah.

Adam Blickstein‏Verified account @AdamBlickstein 17m17 minutes ago
Trump announced transgender ban while his Defense Secretary was ON VACATION. Essentially confirms a political decision from WH, not DOD led

Turtleneck wrote:Adam Blickstein‏Verified account @AdamBlickstein 17m17 minutes ago
Trump announced transgender ban while his Defense Secretary was ON VACATION. Essentially confirms a political decision from WH, not DOD led

I don't necessarily agree with this. They're in constant communication if need be. No such thing as a real vacation.

Spencer Ackerman‏Verified account @attackerman 6m6 minutes ago
According to a knowledgeable congressional staffer, the Senate Armed Services Committee was taken by surprise by the trans service reversal.

DWags wrote:And I have no doubt that he has tweeted that because 1. It satisfies the knuckle dragging base 2. Worried about "medical while in the military. 3. This is a real sign that sessions gets fired soon and he wants a news cycle distraction.

LOL....so Trump reinstates the policy that was in effect for 7.5 of Obama's 8 years in office and it's for his knuckledragging base? what does that say about Obama's base?????

Ash Carter, the Defense secretary under Obama, ended the ban on transgender people serving openly in the military in 2016, but allowed for a year-long review process to allow the Pentagon to determine how it would accept new transgender recruits into the military.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:And I have no doubt that he has tweeted that because 1. It satisfies the knuckle dragging base 2.  Worried about "medical while in the military.  3.  This is a real sign that sessions gets fired soon and he wants a news cycle distraction.

LOL....so Trump reinstates the policy that was in effect for 7.5 of Obama's 8 years in office and it's for his knuckledragging base?   what does that say about Obama's base?????

Ash Carter, the Defense secretary under Obama, ended the ban on transgender people serving openly in the military in 2016, but allowed for a year-long review process to allow the Pentagon to determine how it would accept new transgender recruits into the military.

1. The previous decision to prohibit trans people from openly serving in the military was an agency driven process.
2. The decision to lift the ban in 2016 was also an agency driven process (with endorsement from the president.)
3. This is not an agency driven process. This is the president trying to make policy via Twitter.
4. In the same article you quoted but did not link (because it is from CNN), Mattis is quoted as saying "Since becoming the Secretary of Defense, I have emphasized that the Department of Defense must measure each policy decision against one critical standard: will the decision affect the readiness and lethality of the force?"
5. This is not a decision about the "readiness and lethality of the force," nor is does it result from an agency driven process that is most concerned about the effeciveness of the American military.
6. By the White House's own admission, this is about politics.

7. I think I smell something burning. Yup. You screwed up the meringue again.

I note no arguments that we've returned to the same policy that was in force for the vast majority of Obama's terms in office.

I guess his supporters here don't want to admit what big knuckledraggers they are since they weren't protesting this then.

Fucking hypocrites.

Turtleneck wrote:I fully expect to hear from people who have never served about who is fit to serve.

Pretty much.

LooseGoose wrote:I note no arguments that we've returned to the same policy that was in force for the vast majority of Obama's terms in office.

I guess his supporters here don't want to admit what big knuckledraggers they are since they weren't protesting this then.

Fucking hypocrites.  

Again, the problem is more about the process than policy. Trump is politicizing what should be agency driven decision-making. You are either conveniently working around that argument, or you are too stupid to understand.

Edit: I do not like the policy and disagree with it entirely, but think on such issues the president needs to follow the lead of the Pentagon rather than trying to unilaterally make decisions. When I say the "problem is more about the process than policy," that is not to say I do not have major issues with the policy. The policy is problematic on a number of grounds. However, my starting point for disagreement, before I even get to the policy itself, is that the president is not respecting the Pentagon on this matter and its leadership on this issue.

LooseGoose wrote:I note no arguments that we've returned to the same policy that was in force for the vast majority of Obama's terms in office.

I guess his supporters here don't want to admit what big knuckledraggers they are since they weren't protesting this then.

Fucking hypocrites.

Did Obama agree with the change? Was it changed? In 2008 was it even a topic? I'll be honest, while I knew about Transgender people and topics it really never crossed my mind till Bruce Jenner. When it did, I'd ask myself why shouldn't they serve? Since I can't come up with a reason, I was for the Obama change.

But Goose, when you say hypocrites, are you implying just because we didn't think about it or have an opinion about it before Jenner (BJ), that implies we agreed with the banning circa 2015?

Because that's really fucking stupid if you do believe that. And I mean fucking stupid

I'm pretty sure I was against Sandusky butt fucking kids before I knew or thought about it. So, I'd hope I'd be given the leeway of people believing that even if I didn't speak up before it happened, I was against it.

LooseGoose wrote:I note no arguments that we've returned to the same policy that was in force for the vast majority of Obama's terms in office.

I guess his supporters here don't want to admit what big knuckledraggers they are since they weren't protesting this then.

Fucking hypocrites.

Trump is a hateful human being.

Trangender poses much less of a problem than the sexual attacks on female military by male members of the military but President Trump is MIA on that issue.

No headlines to pander to his base with that issue.

GRR Spartan wrote:Trangender poses much less of a problem than the sexual attacks on female military by male members of the military but President Trump is MIA on that issue.

No headlines to pander to his base with that issue.

I doubt this is the guy that will take a lead on sexual assault...

Trump is bringing back the draft and trying to insure that his son's have valid excuses to not serve.