Trans people still banned from serving in U.S. military

Page 3 of 4 [ 62 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

21 Feb 2014, 2:03 pm

As a source, here's where the U.S. military deems homosexuality a mental disorder, rendering a person unfit for service, as recently as 2006, long after the APA removed it from the DSM-II in 1972:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0621-06.htm

The military is conservative when it comes to these issues, to say the least.

_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin

TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

21 Feb 2014, 2:28 pm

beneficii wrote:

It's really just kind of backwards and incompetent as a whole. If you've ever read/seen the Rolling Stone documentary on the invasion of Iraq, the biggest danger the troops they followed faced were their pants-on-head moron superiors ordering them to do the dumbest things possible.

AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 76,662
Location: Portland, Oregon

21 Feb 2014, 3:01 pm

Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Israel, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Thailand also allow transgendered people to serve openly in their armed forces.

_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!

Murihiku
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,948
Location: Queensland

22 Feb 2014, 3:45 am

^^ Don't forget New Zealand: they actually managed to top the list (full rankings). Mind you, the NZ armed forces stick to peacekeeping and defence – make of that what you will.

I'm kinda surprised that Australia managed to rank higher than Canada, though. Not by much, but Canada is usually more progressive than Australia is in just about everything.

_________________
It is easy to go down into Hell;
Night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide;
But to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air –
There's the rub, the task.

– Virgil, The Aeneid (Book VI)

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

22 Feb 2014, 12:42 pm

Gender dysphoria is still in the DSM. If you need hormones, SRS, counseling, etc then it is a mental illness which isn't to stigmatize it or mental illnesses but just a statement of fact. I don't buy the argument that it would mess up cohesion in the military but I think there are significant medical grounds for denying entry into the Armed Forces.

babybird
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 96,102
Location: UK

22 Feb 2014, 1:37 pm

I couldn't get in the TA, but I'm not transgender.

_________________
we have existence

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

22 Feb 2014, 2:27 pm

Jacoby wrote:

Again, the medical and psychiatric consensus is moving away from the idea that gender dysphoria makes one unfit. As well, there are many people who secretly suffered gender dysphoria and served in the Armed Forces and did quite well. This is very common among young trans woman who buy into the claptrap that they can cure their gender dysphoria by becoming a man.

Also, the fact that other NATO militaries permit entry by those with or with a history of gender dysphoria with little to no problem suggests that any such claim is overblown.

And, again, I have to correct you: Not all people with gender dysphoria need counseling. (This is the second time I've mentioned this. The first time I did, I provided evidence. If you wish to see the evidence, then please go back through the thread to find it. Otherwise, you are spreading misinformation.) Those who do not need counseling would at most require psychological evaluation for surgery/hormones. A post-operative transsexual woman with no comorbidities, in terms of medical needs, is not all that different from a woman on birth control, for example, and women on birth control medications are not disqualified for entrance on that basis.

_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

22 Feb 2014, 2:33 pm

thomas81 wrote:

its my understanding, or at least opinion that autism, aspergers, homosexuality, gender dysphoria, adhd etc are forms of neurological conditions, but they aren't 'illnesses' since they do not necessarilly have malignant effects on either the individual or society.

Paedophilia on the other hand could be argued to be an illness since it makes the sufferer dangerous to children.

It's controversial and not really the main point. I never get why people are so obsessed about how a particular condition is classified and ignore everything else the medical literature says about the condition, like its effects on the ability to work, recommended course of treatment, prognosis, etc.

It's like in Fields v. Smith (2011), where trans inmates in Wisconsin prisons were on hormones which were immediately dropped when the state enacted the Inmate Sex Change Prevention Act. The state kept arguing that because GID/gender dysphoria is listed in the DSM, hormones and surgery would never be appropriate treatments and only counseling and psychotropic drugs (like antipsychotics, which are expensive even as generics!) would be permitted, based nothing other than the state's assumption. This was completely contrary to the medical and psychiatric literature on the subject and the opinions of many of the prisons' own dang doctors (who testified against the state in that case)! They got so obsessed with GID/gender dysphoria's classification that they ignored everything else the doctors had to say about it!

Thankfully, in that case, the courts saw right through that and struck down the Act, ruling that it was unconstitutional on its face (i.e. in every conceivable circumstance in which it may be applied).

_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin

The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

22 Feb 2014, 2:49 pm

Fnord wrote:

Besides, noting the last times that the U.K. or Canada won a war all by themselves would seem to indicate that their militaries aren't all that formidable to begin with.

US military victories without the assistance of another army since WWII:
The Puerto Rican revolts of 1950
The 1980s conflicts with Libya

UK military victories without the assistance of another army since WWII:
Falklands War (1982)

Well that's embarrassing.

Fnord wrote:

Magneto wrote:

I don't know why people are so indignant that they don't get to be part of a criminal gang's enforcement wing...

I don't know why U.K. citizens criticize the country that stepped in 70-odd years ago and kept them from having to learn to goose-step and speak German.

You're welcome.

You seem to be confusing the UK with France... and the USA with Russia.

The UK held Hitler off on their own (with the help of the Channel). The Russians defeated the Nazis. The Western Front sped things up, but Russia would have won regardless.

Perhaps the USA saved France from Stalin, but I have my doubts that he could have crossed the Channel. I'm no historian, but then that's all hugely speculative.

What the USA certainly did do was provide an enormous boost to the European economy after the war. This particularly benefited Britain and Germany. Whilst many people are extremely grateful for this, it does not provide you with an infinity of freedom from criticism. I don't know about you, but my opinions are not for sale.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

22 Feb 2014, 4:27 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

The UK held Hitler off on their own (with the help of the Channel). The Russians defeated the Nazis. The Western Front sped things up, but Russia would have won regardless.

Held them off but just barely. How would the UK have gone about the invasion of the European mainland by itself? Leaving Jerry just across the channel (it aint that wide) it would only be a matter of time before they pull off a successful invasion. US involvement in the ETO provided an additional front to draw the heat off of the eastern front.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Cornflake
Administrator

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 73,680
Location: Over there

22 Feb 2014, 4:38 pm

Raptor wrote:

Held them off but just barely.

But they were held off, nevertheless.

Quote:

it would only be a matter of time before they pull off a successful invasion.

But they didn't, so your speculation is moot - and off topic, along with the other "Rah, Rah, USA!!" chest-thumping noises here.

_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,286
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Feb 2014, 4:46 pm

Stannis wrote:

chris5000 wrote:

the military does not take the mentally ill

Riiiiiiight.

Is this individual diagnosed with a mental illness....or is this supposed to reflect the 'mentally ill people are dangerous psychopaths stereotype. Plenty of non-mentally ill people do terrible things...so why the assumption this is an example of mental illness?

_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.

sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

22 Feb 2014, 6:07 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

Is this individual diagnosed with a mental illness....or is this supposed to reflect the 'mentally ill people are dangerous psychopaths stereotype.

In the venn diagram world of mental illness, the "dangerous psychopaths" bubble would fit wholly inside the "mentally ill people" bubble. Not all mentally ill people are dangerous psychopaths, but all dangerous psychopaths are mentally ill.

But, to be on-topic: membership in the military requires that the individual can be deployed in remote areas with very little supplies and be self-sufficient. If a trans person requires regular hormones, then that in and of itself is a disqualification - as there is no guarantee that routine stocks of those hormones will always be available to a soldier. It's not any different from any other medical disqualification based on the need for regular medication.

_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.

Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,558
Location: Aux Arcs

23 Feb 2014, 12:13 am

These soldiers look happy to be in each other's company. "You scrub my back and I'll scrub yours,"or something like that.

_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi

ehymw
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2013
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 531

23 Feb 2014, 1:02 am

Stannis wrote:

ehymw wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

Gender dysphoria is a mental illness and probably shouldn't be allowed into the US military. They don't let people with AS or and a host of other mental and physical problems into the military as well. They want you sound of mind and body to serve.

Autism no,

Aspergers....well I'm fairly sure at least a couple of generals had it.

PS Bradley Manning is a great example of a person who's sexual identify was a symptom of serious mental illness.

Are you sure? I heard his crisis of conscience came about when he witnessed the army murdering secular protesters on the false grounds that they were jihadists.

crisis of conscience?

Check the wikipedia page on his background.

He's insane.

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

23 Feb 2014, 1:51 am

sliqua-jcooter wrote:

But, to be on-topic: membership in the military requires that the individual can be deployed in remote areas with very little supplies and be self-sufficient. If a trans person requires regular hormones, then that in and of itself is a disqualification - as there is no guarantee that routine stocks of those hormones will always be available to a soldier. It's not any different from any other medical disqualification based on the need for regular medication.

You're not telling the whole story. For example, the medications taken by post-op transsexual women are not really all that different from women on birth control (and in fact some evidence suggests that they are safer, carrying less risk of blood clots).

This article also busts the "can't deploy with medication" myth:

Quote:

We now allow those with amputated limbs to continue to serve in the military. We now allow soldiers and sailors to deploy in the military services to take their required medications with them.

http://lgbtweekly.com/2013/06/06/no-tra ... r-novicki/

Also, there are military contractors who are openly trans and have little to no problem out in the field, as this article shows.

_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin

Page 3 of 4 [ 62 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Similar Topics
Postapocalypse and people with ASD in General Autism Discussion	06 Aug 2026, 3:30 pm Double Retired
Are there a lot of crazy people in this world? in Random Discussion	21 Jul 2026, 7:31 am pcgoblin
Autistic people, would you prefer to have no developmental o in In-Depth Adult Life Discussion	07 Aug 2026, 7:34 am Pinky_Kitty
What would you do if you made people feel bad but didnt care in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions	06 Aug 2026, 8:40 pm nick007

Trans people still banned from serving in U.S. military Post Reply New Topic

Trans people still banned from serving in U.S. military