Times article re US military

[mcduffy]

Donald Trump to kick transgender troops out of US military

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

There are considerations though for a female person with a transgender identity to join the military, in that they will need to be treated as a female person and not a male person.

Female people are not just small male people, of course.

What does "wants to be treated as a man" mean in this context?

But it’s not just about the ‘trans man’ or the ‘transwoman’. It has to be about the unit in particular, and so extrapolated to military as a whole. With the possible exception of undercover agents operating behind enemy lines, the functioning of individuals as a unit is key to their efficiency. Hence ‘esprit de corps’.

If a women is working in a unit as a woman, as long as she can perform her allocated tasks to an acceptable level, she can be a complete member of the unit. If the other members have to wrench reality out of kilter and remember to pretend she is a man, that’s a distraction. The same applies to transwomen.

in WW2, women were active members of partisan fighting groups, particularly in the Balkans. If you look at photographs, they are dressed similarly to the men and are carrying some fairly scary guns, but they are still clearly women. There was some evidence that they often ceased to menstruate in these circumstances.

The military has to pay for their cross sex hormones and surgeries. It's why so many men take what are essentially support roles in the military. It's a deliberate pathway taken to get the government to pay for their transition.

And Trump and Vance have both been very clear about their intentions to end legal transition, end men in women's spaces and sports. And not only end childhood transition, but to potentially jail those who have pushed for it and destroyed kids' bodies.

If you're going to comment on it, maybe read a bit more than click bait.

MarketValveForks

If a trans person needs no medical accommodations then these medical arguments won't wash.
Surely you can see the potential problems with non-medical accommodations as well?

A woman who just wants to join the Army shouldn't be prevented just because she also feels she is the opposite sex, or at least not a woman. There's a footballer called Quinn who plays for Canada who made a big song and dance about being NB. In practice, they are just a female footballer, playing and training alongside other women footballers. No testosterone, obviously, as that would be a PED. They require special pronoun use, which probably wouldn't work in high stress situations in the Armed Forces but if you mean a situation like that (minus the pronoun requirements), it shouldn't be problematic for a female soldier who claims a special identity.

However third spaces, special pronouns, opposite sex unit...nah.

No I understood perfectly but my point is, there isn’t enough of those ‘undeployable’ roles for all of the transgender people in the forces

But he's decided to make this announcement about the military, why not make his first announcement about protecting women’s spaces?

Probably because the armed forces are employed by the government, which he will head.

Bringing in laws about women's spaces (now what do you define that as? toilets in government buildings, toilets in buildings of private firms?) will be complex, especially with the federal system of government. I would imagine that most of those laws are state level unlike the military.

I think the millions of dollars they are costing in ops and medication and the fact some are enlisting just to get it all done free is a bit of a worry to the American taxpayers

Isn't Nancy Mace sorting out the womens spaces

Why would he?
Can I just save you some time, and clarify that virtually nobody here thinks Trump is a women's rights champion or feminist ally or even gender critical. He is a sex realist, along with the vast majority of the Republican Party and of the population of Earth. That's it. That's all you need to understand that men are not, and can't become, women.

What he is doing regarding the military is in line with his they/them election ad.

If it's primarily about saving tax payers' money (which would also fit with the ad campaign about Harris doing this in Californian prisons), it would make sense to create an exemption where "gender affirming care" was excluded as a payable treatment. If the pushback is that they would except suicide rates to go up unless this was funded, it logically does point towards this being a mental health issue and can be managed as such within existing protocols.

Oh FFS!

That's what I was thinking about, but we'd probably need to know more about the numbers. That anyone who requires daily medication could be moved to posts that are not in combat but surrounding services, and making a third gender bathroom / changing room available for trans people. But this is more likely on US ground than on bases and operations abroad, due to space constraints, too.

And for example people who need insulin or glasses cannot be pilots (in the military at least), but they can work in other roles with aircrafts - in the tower or in planning or as mechanics. However, those roles are on different education / training routes.
A broad shift from specific roles to non-combat places could require additional retraining or studying.

Thinking more about this new announcement, I am of the opinion that people who join an employer under certain criteria and fulfill these criteria, should be given a chance to adapt to new rules when something changes, before they are dismissed. They joined in good faith and also have undergone training and education for military roles, which is expensive for the military to do. Their roles would need to be refilled by new recruits who first have to be trained again, another cost.
So either they align with the new rules or, if that is not possible, should have a chance at a new role within the military, also to use their experience which they have gained so far. That would cause retraining costs, as above, though and costs for their replacement in the combat roles.

The gain for the military would be to have fewer people who need extra medication in safety-critical roles, and more headspace because no more tripping over pronouns, and more safety and dignity especially for women.

A side aspect is the role for soldiers returning from combat who are permanently injured / have PTSD and will not be active combattants anymore, as they should be offered non-deployment jobs, too, if they want them. So as others pointed out, there might not be enough jobs overall for everyone.

However, nominated defense secretary Hegseth also wants to remove women from combat roles. So we have to be careful of whether this is a two-step process. As mentioned by PP, women have fought for decades and probably in historic times, too, only often their contribution was swept under the carpet. I believe women in combat and command roles are also very important because they might place more emphasis on protecting the civilian population with their decisions, seeing as often women make up the majority of that civilian population in war times.

@ConstructionTime I hate myself for saying this but there are certain front line combat roles that women should not be in purely and simply because we don't have the same physical abilities or endurance as males.
If you think about the Falklands war and the yomp (a March carrying all your kit) those marines had to cover 56 miles of rough terrain in harsh weather carrying about 20kg (their largest bergens way about 45kg)in 3 days and still be able to fight at the end of that. Most women won't be able to do that so if there's a woman in the squad it has to go slower and carry less gear to move as 1 group or leave her behind (huge no no), same with paratroopers, foot soldiers and the SAS or in the case of the US the seals. Having women I'm these sorts of roles reduces combat effectiveness.
Now when it comes to the navy and air force there's no such disadvantages in having a woman in any front line combat roles, women can do many front line combat roles (gunners, tank drivers etc) but not all.
Unfortunately women keep being told that we can do anything that men can and there's no difference between us but it's just not true. Women were getting stress fractures to their pelvis from trying to keep pace with the men in training before the requirements for women were reduced.
Basically if you want a fully combat effective military there's certain roles that need to be restricted to male only

@Hoardasurass
Ok, I understand that. Then I would amend my statement by saying that they should be in combat when reasonably possible - depending on the specific role.

Because decision-makers / higher ranking military should have women amongst them, but for that they need to have field experience, too.
(That does not mean that I see combat roles "only" as a step on the ladder).

I'm glad you said this.

Even though I don't have any knowledge of the military other than a basic layman's understanding, this is what was knocking around in the back of my mind.

I guess it helps to highlight that sensible decisions need to be taken using facts but overreach needs to be avoided. Whether that's about women or people with a transgender identity. Banning women or banning trans-identifying people on a blanket basis is overreach. A proportionate approach is what's needed - and bravery to make sure sensible rules on fitness to serve (and sex-based facilities) are followed.

The turn the discussion has taken has reminded me of two things I read - the first being a short paper about fitness of women in the US military. It turned out that the women who did best in the assault courses, cross-country running type fitness tests were the soldiers with good strength over weight ratios. Small and wiry.
But the women who could march for long distances, day after day, carrying their equipment were the tall, well built types - rower physiques - because their absolute strength was greater and the packs were a much smaller proportion of their overall weight, so less stress on their joints etc.
Which I found fascinating.

Second interesting thing was that among the nomadic steppe tribes of Classical and pre-classical times (generic name Scythians) women warriors were fairly commonplace - estimated at between 15 and 40% of the total. Crucially, they (Scythians) were mounted archers. The horse was a big equalising factor between men and women, but so was the bow they used. The Scythian bow was a technological marvel, being both extremely powerful and fairly small. They also used spears with smaller handles (grips?) and fought on foot with swords when they had to.

I have never been in favour of different fitness tests for male and female combat troops. If soldiers need to be able to carry Xkg for Xkm, then they need to be able to carry Xkg for Xkm. If the weight and distance can sensibly be reduced, it should be reduced for everybody. Combat personnel should be interchangeable as far as possible. Fewer women would pass the standard tests, but some would.

Yes why are they all so insane over there?? Why can’t they just let people do their jobs with reasonable rules and regs in place? I doubt this is even legal tbh, I assume a lawyer can argue it’s a constitutional right to join the military or something something.

@ConstructionTime I think you might be confusing NCOs and COs.
The commissioned officers (COs) ie captins, generals, admirals etc go to officers training at places like Sandhurst in the UK or West point in the US.
Non commissioned officers (NCOs) so warrant officers, Sargent major etc and below all start out as ordinary soldiers, sailor's or marines.
They are 2 completely different career paths. If you want more women in command then you need to get them into officers college not battle fields.

Who commands on said battlefields???
The COs

Yes @ToBeOrNotToBee through the NCOs. COs as a general rule don't do the real front line combat, they tend to be in the safer positions/field bases and relay their orders to/through the NCOs, it's a sensible system that protects the COs from the worst risks whilst allowing them to give orders in real time, an army without officer's quickly breaks down into a ineffective headless snake so to speak.
My point stands if we want more women as admirals, generals or field marshals we need them to go through officer's training.