Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Times article re US military

116 replies

mcduffy · 25/11/2024 06:35

Donald Trump to kick transgender troops out of US military

www.thetimes.com/article/1d5c0dd6-fb79-4e02-b542-171541881529?shareToken=ef33896de57008046bca3589b35f12e6

OP posts:
mcduffy · 25/11/2024 06:36

I've only skim read but this is an escalation from his last presidency.
Did an eyebrow raise at "effeminate leadership"

OP posts:
LizzieSiddal · 25/11/2024 07:38

I’d rather he was doing something like banning all males from women’s spaces including prisons, sports etc.
That would have a much bigger impact than sacking 15,000 trans people. It shows he’s not really bothered about women, he just wants a big headline and huge arguments amongst the general public.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 25/11/2024 07:46

Now you see THAT is transphobic!! There’s absolutely no reason to sack anyone purely for being transgender

vile man

TWETMIRF · 25/11/2024 07:54

Transpeople who are simultaneously so vulnerable that misgendering them leaves them in a puddle of tears and also strong enough to be in a war with access to guns.

MarketValveForks · 25/11/2024 07:57

Absolutely this is transphobic and vile.
Transwomen are men and transmen are women but those men and women have every right to live their lives without discrimination. Chucking them out of the armed forces is sickening.

NecessaryScene · 25/11/2024 07:57

Now you see THAT is transphobic!! There’s absolutely no reason to sack anyone purely for being transgender

Same as any religious belief. So I suspect that's not what's happening here. "Transgender" is too woolly a concept anyway.

I suspect if you look at the detail, it'll be the same as last time - no cross-sex hormones while on duty, and no, you can't shower with the opposite sex.

CaptainCarrotsBigSword · 25/11/2024 08:10

Kicking trans people out of their jobs only for being trans is obviously not ok. I do think there will be trans people who shouldn't be eligible for specific service roles due to their medical needs. That should be assessed in the exact same way as any other medical status. And absolutely any segregation should be by sex, not gender feels.

I agree that this is about headline grabbing.

highame · 25/11/2024 08:13

That headline seems a bit ott. In the US, it looks like full on culture war, however, I'd be tempted to see how this one plays out. No matter how many complaints, Trump did win everything, and he won in part on 'they/ them' so he appears to have the right to make these decisions.
I'd be interested to know what the impact has been on women in the military and whether being trans does affect being in the military. Biden had a very high ranking trans officer, so they had a great deal of influence. No idea whether all of this has had impact.

illinivich · 25/11/2024 08:28

I wonder if its to stop people identifying as trans and then causing problems because the demands for access to surgery, drugs and opposite sex spaces?

I'm guessing the 15,000 number is an estimate based on the total number of troops, rather than a known number.

illinivich · 25/11/2024 08:30

NecessaryScene · 25/11/2024 07:57

Now you see THAT is transphobic!! There’s absolutely no reason to sack anyone purely for being transgender

Same as any religious belief. So I suspect that's not what's happening here. "Transgender" is too woolly a concept anyway.

I suspect if you look at the detail, it'll be the same as last time - no cross-sex hormones while on duty, and no, you can't shower with the opposite sex.

Sorry, i totally missed your post and posted like i had a unique take!

Littlemissgobby · 25/11/2024 08:35

If you agree with this then you are 100% transphobic because 15,000 military will be removed at a time when Putin is looking to attack the west well that’s okay because we all know Donald Trump is Putin‘s lap dog

Simplegazette · 25/11/2024 08:35

Not sure this is an escalation, Trump tried to do this in his first presidency - I think he couldn't get it through and then Obama reversed everything that Trump had managed to do. Now Trump has more 'power' it'll probably happen.

The rationale I think largely relates to front line action - if you need drugs to function on the front line then the military is not lethal enough to perform effectively, also the military budget is not there to provide medication for ongoing conditions so you'll be medically discharged if you rely on drugs.

Littlemissgobby · 25/11/2024 08:36

Simplegazette · 25/11/2024 08:35

Not sure this is an escalation, Trump tried to do this in his first presidency - I think he couldn't get it through and then Obama reversed everything that Trump had managed to do. Now Trump has more 'power' it'll probably happen.

The rationale I think largely relates to front line action - if you need drugs to function on the front line then the military is not lethal enough to perform effectively, also the military budget is not there to provide medication for ongoing conditions so you'll be medically discharged if you rely on drugs.

Biden not Obama reversed it. He did pass it but Biden over turned there was a lot of court cases

Ereshkigalangcleg · 25/11/2024 08:36

Kicking trans people out of their jobs only for being trans is obviously not ok. I do think there will be trans people who shouldn't be eligible for specific service roles due to their medical needs. That should be assessed in the exact same way as any other medical status. And absolutely any segregation should be by sex, not gender feels.

I fully agree.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 25/11/2024 08:40

I suspect if you look at the detail, it'll be the same as last time - no cross-sex hormones while on duty, and no, you can't shower with the opposite sex.

An early peaking moment was when I read in about 2015 that some important army guy had said that women in the army wouldn't be allowed to shower with a towel on if there was an MTF there because it was "othering".

Hoardasurass · 25/11/2024 08:42

Ok a little bit of information for those of you who don't understand how the military works.
ANYONE who requires ongoing daily medication (ie long-term not a course of antibiotics etc) are normally automatically discharged on medical ground due to the fact that in a time of war access to any medication cannot be guaranteed. This rule applies across the world to every medical condition especially those that require lifesaving medication such as insulin or according to TRAs Cross sex hormones.
The fact that trans people have been exempt from this rule is a travesty, and a clear case of an unfair two tier system that unjustly favours trans people over the average military personnel who can't keep their job if they need statins daily.
Add to that the fact that cross sex hormones and the puberty blockers that are usually prescribed with them (to block the trans persons own natural hormones) lead to long-term physical health issues all of which individually would normally render someone aa medically unfit for service, and that's before we talk about the mental health side of the trans equation (all mental health conditions usually come with an automatic medical discharge).
So basically being trans should be something that requires a medical discharge and prevent someone from enlisting in exactly the same way that being deaf, blind, diabetic or any number of other conditions and disabilities.
This is not about discrimination against trans people it's about ensuring that the same rules are applied evenly and fairly to all military personnel.
That said I'm not entirely convinced that Trump is doing this for the right reasons but it is the correct course of action

AlisonDonut · 25/11/2024 08:42

As was said a gazillion times, the if the Democrats are so batshit on this, the pendulum WILL swing completely the other way. This is that pendulum.

NotBadConsidering · 25/11/2024 08:46

Littlemissgobby · 25/11/2024 08:35

If you agree with this then you are 100% transphobic because 15,000 military will be removed at a time when Putin is looking to attack the west well that’s okay because we all know Donald Trump is Putin‘s lap dog

Edited

Is it really transphobic because it will reduce the 3rd largest military by a tiny fraction?🙄

Of course not, it’s transphobic because it’s removing people because of their ideological belief of being transgender.

Personally I think there should be some restrictions in terms of their practice of being transgender, the same as other beliefs. It has to be reasonable but not too impactful. Paying thousands of dollars for someone to medically transition, the impact of someone going through medical transition on their unit, the impact of people being forced to comply to that belief, and the impact of males in female spaces in the military - an organisation with a horrendous sexual abuse record - all need to be considered.

NecessaryScene · 25/11/2024 08:47

As was said a gazillion times, the if the Democrats are so batshit on this, the pendulum WILL swing completely the other way. This is that pendulum.

Or it's just another click-baity headline like "transphobes trying to bar transgender people from sport". Haven't you seen enough of those to raise a slightly sceptical eyebrow about every alleged trans indignity?

Which usually boils down to "going back to being required to follow the same rules as everybody else".

User37482 · 25/11/2024 08:49

Hoardasurass · 25/11/2024 08:42

Ok a little bit of information for those of you who don't understand how the military works.
ANYONE who requires ongoing daily medication (ie long-term not a course of antibiotics etc) are normally automatically discharged on medical ground due to the fact that in a time of war access to any medication cannot be guaranteed. This rule applies across the world to every medical condition especially those that require lifesaving medication such as insulin or according to TRAs Cross sex hormones.
The fact that trans people have been exempt from this rule is a travesty, and a clear case of an unfair two tier system that unjustly favours trans people over the average military personnel who can't keep their job if they need statins daily.
Add to that the fact that cross sex hormones and the puberty blockers that are usually prescribed with them (to block the trans persons own natural hormones) lead to long-term physical health issues all of which individually would normally render someone aa medically unfit for service, and that's before we talk about the mental health side of the trans equation (all mental health conditions usually come with an automatic medical discharge).
So basically being trans should be something that requires a medical discharge and prevent someone from enlisting in exactly the same way that being deaf, blind, diabetic or any number of other conditions and disabilities.
This is not about discrimination against trans people it's about ensuring that the same rules are applied evenly and fairly to all military personnel.
That said I'm not entirely convinced that Trump is doing this for the right reasons but it is the correct course of action

I thought it may be something like this.

songaboutjam · 25/11/2024 08:51

While perhaps not the best move when the US military is in a recruiting crisis, being on medication is usually a disqualifier from serving. Last time I checked you can't even take ADHD medication so why should there be an exemption for cross-sex hormones?

songaboutjam · 25/11/2024 08:52

Sorry took too long to write my response and ended up cross posting!

Helleofabore · 25/11/2024 08:56

I think that this instance does have to be handled with care. There are numerous issues to consider about this. On the surface it may be easy to react to say that is an over reaction however in combat as has been mentioned the medication issue is one issue.

But there are numerous real and everyday scenarios where this would be a major concern to treat someone who states they are female as if they are female.

Either the military would have to state that everyone has to be treated as their sex or they have to have a blanket ban. I actually cannot see a workable middle ground. So, if a male person joined and accepted that they were treated as male for every purpose that counts (physical and medical considerations, accommodation, toilets and showers, etc) then maybe that will work.

For instance. How would this work in the Navy when already there is limited space on board? No third options are available.

But I don’t believe that it is workable for any person in the military to be forced to use ‘preferred’ pronouns etc either. That in and of itself leaves a huge scope for abuse towards anyone who slips up.

Would any person who had a transgender identity agree to those conditions? Even more importantly, would the military be allowed to have those conditions?

ToBeOrNotToBee · 25/11/2024 08:58

So there's 2 things going on here.
Since the US Military said it would fully fund transitioning, the amount of trans people in the services has drastically increased. People are actively applying for roles in the military purely to get access to drugs and surgery. It's incredibly expensive.
Also, there's a rule that to be operational ready you cannot be taking drugs on a daily basis as there's no guarantee that they will be able to get them to the frontline in an emergency situation. So anyone on hormone therapy isn't operational ready. Usually with someone when they're undergoing a treatment, they get a time limited certificate to not be deployable. When their treatment is over, back to operational readiness.
With trans people in the military, their drugs are for life. So technically none of them are, or will ever be, operational ready.
15,000 is a lot to have sweeping a broom around a hangar or sat twiddling their thumbs for not a lot in return.