Armed Forces

by on

The military is not welcoming of other medical conditions that require ongoing treatment, but it seems an exception will be made for gender transition.


More on the woke front lines:

11 Comments for “Armed Forces”

  1. posted by Tom Jefferson on

    Point 1: Wait, you said (earlier) that the Biden policy was basically a kinder, gentler version of what Trump. Now its a radical departure?

    Point 2: pregnant women are not kicked out, even through that is a medical condition that requires 6 – 9 months of care and plenty of care once the child is born. HIV+ soldiers are (I think) not kicked out, but face restrictions. I see something similar happening with transsexuals or hermathidites who want have ‘corrective’ surgery while in service.

    • posted by Agee on

      Wait, you said (earlier) that the Biden policy was basically a kinder, gentler version of what Trump. Now its a radical departure?

      To be fair, Stephen shared two viewpoints about the trans order — transformative and not a big deal — and didn’t take sides.

      Beginning and undergoing the process of gender transition is not something you can do and still be ready to defend the country if called to do so. It’s now policy because the woke gods demand that it be so.

  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Beginning and undergoing the process of gender transition is not something you can do and still be ready to defend the country if called to do so.

    That is simply not true. The tooth to tail ratio in the US military is roughly 25/75, that is, 75% of military personnel are in support roles (maintenance, medical, supply, admin, intelligence, training, cooks, and so on). The tooth to tail ratio in today’s military is significantly less than it used to be (in WWII, Korea and Vietnam the ratio was roughly 10/90) because of heavy reliance on civilian contractors, but nonetheless, most military personnel could “be ready to defend the country” during almost all of the transition process.

    • posted by Jorge on

      Wouldn’t a more relevant rebuttal be describing the transition process?

      Or comparing to another mental illness (like, oh, I don’t know, dual PTSD and depression) that incapacitates for longer periods but the military tries to treat to completion?

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      “Wouldn’t a more relevant rebuttal be describing the transition process?”

      I assume that people commenting on the transition process understand the basics of the process. The process is typically lengthy (evaluation, counseling, pre-surgical hormone treatment, corrective surgery, post-surgical recovery, post-surgical hormone treatment).

      What I don’t assume is that people commenting on the military have ever served or understand the military. A lot of people unfamiliar with the military think only about the “tooth” and not the “tail”.

      The fact is that almost all MOS’s can be performed during the evaluation, counseling and pre-surgical hormone treatment phases of the transition process, and again during the post-surgical hormone treatment. That’s what I was pointing out to Agee and I think that I am right about that …

      “… comparing to another mental illness …”

      Gender transition is not comparable to incapacitating mental illness, because men and women in the transition process are not incapacitated during most of the transition process.

      • posted by Jorge on

        I assume that people commenting on the transition process understand the basics of the process.

        A year of therapy, a year of living as the other gender. A completely unknown period of time for surgery and hormone treatment and a completely unknown range of medical and side effects. The basics are not enough.

      • posted by Jorge on

        Gender transition is not comparable to incapacitating mental illness, because men and women in the transition process are not incapacitated during most of the transition process.

        That’s a dodge. If GID weren’t incapacitating, people wouldn’t need to undergo the transition process in the first place. They could just do nothing until they finish their military service.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Tom: “Gender transition is not comparable to incapacitating mental illness, because men and women in the transition process are not incapacitated during most of the transition process.”

      Jorge: “That’s a dodge. If GID weren’t incapacitating, people wouldn’t need to undergo the transition process in the first place. They could just do nothing until they finish their military service.”

      Nonsense.

      As I stated in an earlier comment: “The fact is that almost all MOS’s can be performed during the evaluation, counseling and pre-surgical hormone treatment phases of the transition process, and again during the post-surgical hormone treatment.” That’s a fact, not a dodge.

      Because you have not served in the military, let me be more specific, pointing you to a list of Army MOS classifications, the branch in which I served and with which I am most familiar. Personnel in transistion can almost certainly perform the duties attendant to most of the listed MOS categories. The process does not incapacitate a person from doing any of those jobs, except during the surgical and post-surgical recovery periods. That’s what I’m saying, and it is a fact. Personnel in transition are not, in any practical sense, “incapacitated” in those MOS classifications during most of the transition process.

      I’ll grant you and Agee that there are MOS categories that personnel in transition would not fit. My primary MOS (91CS in the Vietnam era, 18D today) would not be a good fit for personnel in transition, and I agree that many of the “tooth” MOS categories would be similarly problematic. But as I pointed out in my initial comment, the tooth to tail ratio in the military is roughly 25/75. I don’t see any reason why personnel in transition would be unable to perform the duties of almost all of the MOS categories in the “tail”.

      You are the one who has pulled a dodge, a word slide. I’ve been clearly talking about “incapacity” in the sense of “not being able to do the job”. I’ve been talking about it in terms as plain as a goat’s ass from my initial response to Agee and forward. You come along and use a different, amorphous meaning of the word “incapacitated”, and then suggest that the plain and clear, ordinary English meaning of what I wrote means something else.

      Absurd.

      You probably have much more contact with men and women in transition than I do, given your profession. I only know three — a high school classmate (now teacher) who transitioned from male to female, a truck driver who transitioned from female to male, and a welder who transition from male to female. None of them seem to have been unable to do their jobs during the transition. I don’t know why military personnel would be any different.

      You raised “incapacity” in the sense of mental illness, that the desire to undergo the transition process in and of itself is somehow “incapacitating”. You want to expand on that?

  3. posted by Tom Jefferson on

    To be fair…..

    Um no. Stephen only posts articles that he supports.

  4. posted by Tom Jefferson on

    You are fake news, my good sire! ?

Comments are closed.