5 Comments for “Transgender Military Policy Is Missed Opportunity All Round”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The administration’s policy is overly broad. … But the Obama administration’s policy was likewise overly broad. … Neither side was supporting a sane and fair policy.
What are you doing to change the administration’s policy? The policy is separating servicemen and servicewomen with years and years of exemplary service from the Armed Forces, kicking them to the curb. Are you and other conservative homosexuals working to bring a “sane and fair” policy into being, and right the wrong being imposed on men and women who put their lives on the line for you, or are you not?
posted by Jason on
Tom writes, "The policy is separating servicemen and servicewomen with years and years of exemplary service from the Armed Forces, kicking them to the curb."
No, you’re wrong on the facts. Those currently serving may continue to do so. The new policy only applies to new recruits. This is very clear.
Which was a reversal, and said reversal was not due to conservative action, but liberal action. C’mon dude, this was just last year. Do you expect folks to have forgotten that wasn’t the admin’s position of choice already?
posted by Jorge on
The Trump administration policy was overly broad, the Obama administration was overly broad, may I point out that the Bush administration policy was overly broad, too?
You want to join the military to “be a man”? No problem! Have fun experiencing reparative therapy without anyone above you or next to you even noticing.
I am told such circumstances can have very harmful, even lethal consequences.
Either the military is the place to receive gender therapy, or it is not and one must go elsewhere or self-treat. I am appalled by the shocking cruelty of telling people who are destined to be transgender/gender dysphoric that they might be transgender/gender dysphoric, and that may disqualify them from military service down the road. But I would place the responsibility for life’s cruelties in their proper place. I would have the military notify its recruits that it has its eyes open to what they may be signing up for, by any means necessary or possible.
posted by Jorge on
I’m going to go one further.
I don’t think the courts have any business telling the White House how to run the military, except as written in the Constitution and the acts of Congress. All this “evolving” “dignity-driven” interpretation the Supreme Court has been doing the past 60-odd years is perhaps inconvenient on social issues. On matters relating to how we conduct our national defense, if the chief executive and the laws signed by or overrun through the chief executive say it ain’t broke, don’t **** with it!
5 Comments for “Transgender Military Policy Is Missed Opportunity All Round”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The administration’s policy is overly broad. … But the Obama administration’s policy was likewise overly broad. … Neither side was supporting a sane and fair policy.
What are you doing to change the administration’s policy? The policy is separating servicemen and servicewomen with years and years of exemplary service from the Armed Forces, kicking them to the curb. Are you and other conservative homosexuals working to bring a “sane and fair” policy into being, and right the wrong being imposed on men and women who put their lives on the line for you, or are you not?
posted by Jason on
Tom writes, "The policy is separating servicemen and servicewomen with years and years of exemplary service from the Armed Forces, kicking them to the curb."
No, you’re wrong on the facts. Those currently serving may continue to do so. The new policy only applies to new recruits. This is very clear.
Trump Allows Current Transgender Troops but Bans Future Recruits
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-allows-current-transgender-troops-but-bans-future-recruits-1521855712
posted by JohnInCA on
Which was a reversal, and said reversal was not due to conservative action, but liberal action. C’mon dude, this was just last year. Do you expect folks to have forgotten that wasn’t the admin’s position of choice already?
posted by Jorge on
The Trump administration policy was overly broad, the Obama administration was overly broad, may I point out that the Bush administration policy was overly broad, too?
You want to join the military to “be a man”? No problem! Have fun experiencing reparative therapy without anyone above you or next to you even noticing.
I am told such circumstances can have very harmful, even lethal consequences.
Either the military is the place to receive gender therapy, or it is not and one must go elsewhere or self-treat. I am appalled by the shocking cruelty of telling people who are destined to be transgender/gender dysphoric that they might be transgender/gender dysphoric, and that may disqualify them from military service down the road. But I would place the responsibility for life’s cruelties in their proper place. I would have the military notify its recruits that it has its eyes open to what they may be signing up for, by any means necessary or possible.
posted by Jorge on
I’m going to go one further.
I don’t think the courts have any business telling the White House how to run the military, except as written in the Constitution and the acts of Congress. All this “evolving” “dignity-driven” interpretation the Supreme Court has been doing the past 60-odd years is perhaps inconvenient on social issues. On matters relating to how we conduct our national defense, if the chief executive and the laws signed by or overrun through the chief executive say it ain’t broke, don’t **** with it!