• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Mach

Ahead of the pack.
Banned
Yes, I am from Norway. That does not mean I am not allowed to see, hear and watch what is going on elsewhere in the world or have an opinion of it
As I stated in my previous post, you are more than entitled to your opinion. I made that abundantly clear.
1. Potential medication problems(some are from what I've read, on hormones, some not) that will fuck up the individual if those hormones either run out or they are no longer supplied them.
The military supplies transgendered individuals the medications they need, as supplies other soldiers with medications for conditions they may have like diabetes or allergies. If you have military personnel stationed anywhere, you need to logistically supply with food and medical supplies. It is a minor matter to supply hormones and other medications through military personnel and logistical services.Military personnel abroad receive wide-vaccinations due local pathogens, sometimes regularly. Respectfully, I do not see you mentioned that ceasing those vaccinations will "fuck up" these individuals and there are far more of these individuals than transgendered individuals.
2. Suicide/attempted suicide rates.
3. Mental/psychological health problems.

I have noticed that transgender individuals are often erroneously cited to be exceptionally susceptible to problems such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts. This is countered by the prevalence of these same issues in the LGB community and it is notable that many countries do not excluded their service. By creating a more accepting environment, the distress that transgender personnel feel in the military may be mitigated if they may serve openly with full support and by all accounts this happening, despite current circumstances.

http://lgbtpov.frontiersla.com/2012...should-care-about-trans-bias-in-the-military/
5. Potential logistics problems if a war breaks out, as in not able to get hormones if it happens.
The United States military has the most resilient and sophisticated logistical network in the world, hands down. It is why we have bases located all over the world, so we can have better force projection and defensive coverage. In Afghanistan and Iraq, there were transgendered military personnel receiving treatment and medications. If we are in a conflict where transgendered individual cannot receive their medications, then it is virtually definite that medical supplies in general are not being shipped and our logistical network has been shattered.
6. I want only the best, brightest, strongest and most qualified. That goes for any military, regardless of nation. I don't want potential risk factors in a military whose demographic aren't exactly looking too bright on the mental/psychological health front.
Transgender individuals have go through the same training and re-qualifications as everybody else in the United States military. We keep our standards high, just we do for women serving in the military as well. There are plenty of transgender military personnel, including specialists, who will be hard to replace because they fulfilled niche roles. This is why certain specialists are being given exemptions in case the current stay on the ban is lifted.
It's for practical reasons, not from a moral/ethical perspective.
All the rebuttals I have issued above are on practical grounds.

However, perhaps you would the advice on individuals who have actually run a military.

On August 1, 2017, the Palm Center released a letter signed by 56 retired generals and admirals, opposing the proposed ban on transgender military service members. The letter stated that if implemented, the ban "would cause significant disruptions, deprive the military of mission-critical talent and compromise the integrity of transgender troops who would be forced to live a lie, as well as non-transgender peers who would be forced to choose between reporting their comrades or disobeying policy".

www.theguardian.com: Top military officials call on Trump to reverse transgender ban

These are top tier commanders my nation's military. I believe they know this matter better than you or me. You should take note.
Though if I am not "allowed" to have an opinion of what is going on outside of my nation's borders that same line of reasoning should apply to you, as well.
I have said you are more than welcome to have an opinion on matters outside your country. However, you have a responsibility to be well educated on what you are discussing regarding that country. In the political compass thread, you made several glaring errors about voter registration in the United States than anyone who is an American citizen would know are automatically false. I am not attacking you, but when you make erroneous statements that negatively affect groups of people, particularly people who may be users on this forum, it causes unnecessary discord and debate. By researching a topic before we comment on it, we can avoid this.
Executive orders that are still in place from Obama despite all the fear-mongering about Trump and Congress. The only thing that have been changed on that front is barring transgenders(although I do understand their vigilance, love for their country and a genuine will to serve) from entering the military.
I would note that barring transgender individuals from military service is a major change, especially for transgendered service members. I would also argue that those executive orders from Obama could very well be repealed in short order if Trump finds himself in need of evangelical political support, which was the real reason passed the transgender military ban.
You're free to say people should vote for Z because X reason(s). Though saying people must vote for Z because X reason(s) is a tad too much, IMO.
Read my language. I was not issuing commands, just stating the best course of action.

Thank you for reading this and I hope we can continue this dialogue.
 
Last edited:

Yakamaru

Cyberpunk musta Susi
The relevant question is, are they a risk because empirical data and previous experience both suggest the risks outweigh the rewards, or are they a risk because they "feel" risky?
I'd never go out and say "because they feel risky". Feelings isn't exactly something I take into consideration when it comes to things that have empirical data and previous experience to suggest that the risks outweigh the rewards.

The problems that trans people have, both internal and external, is something we're going to have to solve over time. Them to take actions that improve their health over time, and for us to show emotional and friendly support. Because ultimately I'd argue we all want the same thing: For people to be healthy, both physically and mentally.

But some people may be right down the line. First it was blacks, then women, then gays, and now trans people. It could be nothing but a scare. But until we have clear-cut evidence and empirical evidence, we will be split on a plethora of different subjects across the board.

I intend to be intellectually honest(or try my best to. I am ultimately human like everyone else), but even I can be a stubborn fuckwit at times. And like everyone else, In most cases I won't magically change my opinion overnight, though it has happened a few times before, so I won't deny the chances of it happening in the future.

@Mach I have to properly apologize for coming off as.. Hostile. I am way too used to shouting matches on these forums as they've practically screwed me over in some ways in how I interact with those I disagree with. It is not appropriate behaviour to show, especially not if my intention is to try and lead by example. You don't deserve any of this as you've done nothing but be friendly on your part. Quite frankly I'm surprised you've not snapped yet at me. I appreciate it, I truly do. It's a breath of fresh air on the forum, and I appreciate your presence here.

I look forward to working with you from this point on, and not against you.
 

Troj

Your Friendly Neighborhood Dino Therapist
I have noticed that transgender individuals are often erroneously cited to be exceptionally susceptible to problems such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts. This is countered by the prevalence of these same issues in the LGB community and it is notable that many countries do not excluded their service. By creating a more accepting environment, the distress that transgender personnel feel in the military may be mitigated if they may serve openly with full support and by all accounts this happening, despite current circumstances.

The research on gay people has previously found that when you control for family rejection, for example, their rates of mental illness, substance abuse, and suicide are comparable to that of the general population.

My overall impression that whether a person feels like they "belong" and have a soft place to fall has a powerful influence on their mental and physical health.

Trans people still face widespread stigma and barriers, so it wouldn't surprise me that they show higher rates of mental illness, suicide, substance abuse, and general distress.

We're doing trans people a gross injustice if we implicitly assume they're just "broken" or "crazy" without carefully testing every nook and cranny of that assumption first. Just rolling with that assumption communicates that we don't care about them having equal rights and respect, because it's easier to just let them tread water.

Ethical issues aside, pragmatically, trans people actually comprise a sizable chunk of the armed forces, especially compared to other minority populations. We're already beggars, so we can't afford to be choosers. www.thetaskforce.org: New study finds transgender people twice as likely to serve in military - National LGBTQ Task Force

Important: by my rough count, 18 countries currently allow trans people to serve in the military. Transgender people and military service - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Yakamaru

Cyberpunk musta Susi
Though I would like to question the way you phrased yourself:
I had suspected it before when you were unfamiliar with the voter registration process in the United States, but you are not a citizen of the United States, with all due respect. You apparently live in Norway. Being blunt, you are entitled have many opinions about the United States on variety of issues, but you do not get a say on how we run our military or who joins our military. Transgendered individuals have been serving with distinction in our armed forces for years, without any logistical difficulties. Trump merely banned from entering the military to amass support from his evangelical congressional allies and voters, nothing more.
It's been boldened it out. I take it you meant "You are entitled to have many opinions about the United States on a variety of issues"? I think this was what confused me to begin with, to be honest. Sorry about that.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf
Being trans often comes with mental health issues, and have shown to have about 8-10 times higher rates of suicide/attempted suicide/suicidal thoughts. I am against it on this basis, for one, stemming from external to internal issues that needs solving.

Another is a reason posted in the Guardian article you posted here:
"The top military officials said in a letter published Tuesday that transgender military members “must not be dismissed, deprived of medically necessary health care, or forced to compromise their integrity or hide their identity”. It comes less than a week after the president announced on Twitter that the government would not “accept or allow … transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the US military”.

"Medically necessary health care"? And these people are in the military? Any competent military officer knows that the reliance on medicine is a possible liability in terms of their military personnel, and could potentially be used against them. A basic tactic in warfare is to hit the enemy's logistics/supply line. Transgenders on this front is more susceptible due to their need for medicine that any non-trans don't need. And during war, supplies can easily run dry, no matter how good a supply line a nation may have. Soldiers are at times expected to be out in the field for months, sometimes even almost a year. Can trans people reliably be out that long, possibly without the medicine they need? Only time will tell.

IMO I want military personnel to have as few as possible potential liabilities as humanly possible. That includes everything from mental to physical aspects such as medicine. And yes, I hold any military in extremely high regard, which is why I am against it on those two grounds as the primary ones. However, my own country allow trans people in the military, and I have no option but to respectfully disagree on that front, and show them the respect they deserve regardless, trans or not.

Though on another note: How many trans people do we actually have in our military? Combined? 50? 100? 1000? I've not come across any numbers on that front, unfortunately.

Ethical issues aside, pragmatically, trans people actually comprise a sizable chunk of the armed forces, especially compared to other minority populations. We're already beggars, so we can't afford to be choosers. www.thetaskforce.org: New study finds transgender people twice as likely to serve in military - National LGBTQ Task Force
If we are to do all Queer people, the amount increases decently due to gay and bi people as opposed to only trans people. Hell, I have two bisexual friends who are in the military. Actually no, scratch that. Make that 3. Forgot for a moment a friend of mine I haven't talked to in years and is currently serving in our own last time we spoke. I wonder how he's doing, actually..

My overall impression that whether a person feels like they "belong" and have a soft place to fall has a powerful influence on their mental and physical health.

Trans people still face widespread stigma and barriers, so it wouldn't surprise me that they show higher rates of mental illness, suicide, substance abuse, and general distress.

We're doing trans people a gross injustice if we implicitly assume they're just "broken" or "crazy" without carefully testing every nook and cranny of that assumption first. Just rolling with that assumption communicates that we don't care about them having equal rights and respect, because it's easier to just let them tread water.
You know.. For some reason I keep finding your posts more and more likeable every time I read them. Stop being so damn likeable, god damn it. :D

But yes, widespread barriers and stigma are barriers and stigmas we as a species have to overcome, just like we have overcome other barriers when it comes to blacks, women and gays. There is always something new to overcome, it just so happens that trans issues/problems and the stigmas/barriers surrounding them are those that we have today.
 
Sees 20 day old debate thread is now 13 pages long and still going strong....
On the subject of Trans membership in the Military by numbers www.bbc.com: Reality Check: 15,000 trans people in US military
The data for Transgender Suicide in military service lacks solid data for time during service, and our only data on the topic comes from analysis of Veterans after having served, in which case the rate is 20 times hire than the average veteran. However, that data is unhelpful in that analysis because it includes almost exclusively Veterans who served prior to policies allowing for Trans folk to outwardly express their identity, forcing them to serve as the gender matching their biological sex for their service.

The conclusions are thus that Trans folk are not only over-represented in the military prior to policies allowing for open identification(despite being minuscule in the population, and therefore minuscule in proportion of the service), but that being closeted during service exacerbates the minority stress related mental health issues to an absurd extreme. What we do not have ample data to confirm is how Transgender Troops perform in the field compared to regular soldiers, but when they permeate to the special forces as rarely as should be expected based on their impressively small portion of that military, I'd say that tips my observations towards a lack of issue.

Open service of Trans individuals is unfortunately a new thing, though evidence suggesting the degree of closeted service members indicates no effect on field performance under the worst possible conditions.

www.rand.org: The Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly

You can serve in the armed forces if you require glasses, which are very much so necessary health care to perform your duty as a soldier.

My experience in protesting alongside trans folk is that most try to keep a fair time period of pills on hand during protests in case of arrest. This hasn't served them as well as it should have because the local pigs like to deny people arrested medication, and that goes well and beyond just the trans folk. We've had some people unrelated to activism die recently due to being denied necessary medications, which only endears the local activist scene ever more to our local police. But I'm risking going off on a tangential list of grievances more than a few pages long. Trans folk understand how to prepare for such disadvantageous scenarios, and muscle through when even those backups fail them. That is despite being treated objectively worse in those institutions, but again, I'm avoiding that tangent.
 

Mach

Ahead of the pack.
Banned
I have to properly apologize for coming off as.. Hostile. I am way too used to shouting matches on these forums as they've practically screwed me over in some ways in how I interact with those I disagree with. It is not appropriate behaviour to show, especially not if my intention is to try and lead by example. You don't deserve any of this as you've done nothing but be friendly on your part. Quite frankly I'm surprised you've not snapped yet at me. I appreciate it, I truly do. It's a breath of fresh air on the forum, and I appreciate your presence here.
Apology accepted. I try to be as diplomatic and respectful as possible, particularly your case since you are one of the first people I met here. I mean to ask if you were alright on your profile page last night, but I could see it and I did not want to clutter this thread with personal communications. However, I would stress that properly researching the topics you argue and citing verifiable evidence would go would greatly help matters. When you are confident in your arguments, there is no need for hostility or acrimony.
Being trans often comes with mental health issues, and have shown to have about 8-10 times higher rates of suicide/attempted suicide/suicidal thoughts. I am against it on this basis, for one, stemming from external to internal issues that needs solving.
As Troj and I stated, creating a more accepting environment for trans service members would bring those numbers down substantially. In fact, the Department of Defense currently has several program meant to change the culture surrounding transgendered individuals in the military, similar to how the Department had programs to help gay service members assimilate into the services after the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was struck down. Another detail you may have overlooked is that there is psychological screening before you enter any branch of the United States Armed Forces. The tests and background checks they run actively screen against suicidal tendencies.

You also cited a report to prove that transgender are more susceptible to mental illness and suicidal tendencies. I noticed this quote in the executive summary:
Based on prior research and the findings of this report, we find that mental health factors and experiences of harassment, discrimination, violence and rejection may interact to produce a marked vulnerability to suicidal behavior in transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. More research on suicidal behavior among transgender and gender non-conforming people is needed.
So perhaps creating a more accepting environment for transgender service members is path forward here. Additionally, the study you cited made no mention of how prone transgender individuals in the military are to suicide and mental illnesses. This information would be helpful.

Also, I glanced at the Wikipedia link Troj helpfully provided and noted this quote:
Whilst militaries often cite the high medical cost of transgender people, they fail to reconcile this argument with current standards with other service members. For example, militaries often allow hormone treatments for an array of reasons and conditions, besides gender dysphoria; a common hormone treatment being contraceptive. Furthermore, the often cited risks of cross hormone treatment are rare,[16] and not likely to cause any significant issues to the military. Whilst the cost of gender reassignment surgery is high,[9] it is suggested that fewer than 2% of transgender members per year will choose to undergo gender reassignment surgery.[17]
I believe this addresses many of your concerns with empirical evidence.
 
Last edited:

Troj

Your Friendly Neighborhood Dino Therapist
What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

I can completely accept the argument that field personnel need to be in peak condition, and that reliance on a medication or a medical device makes a soldier vulnerable.

But, not everybody in the military serves on the battlefield. People who rely on medication or medical devices can absolutely serve in some other capacity, and can make a meaningful contribution.

Additionally, we need to be extremely skeptical of any insinuation or argument that trans people represent a unique or particular risk or headache in this regard. We need to tune out the know-nothings who are going to share their stupid ass-pull opinions about hormones n'shit makin' people cray-cray or whatever.
 

Yakamaru

Cyberpunk musta Susi
As Troj and I stated, creating a more accepting environment for trans service members would bring those numbers down substantially. In fact, the Department of Defense currently has several program meant to change the culture surrounding transgendered individuals in the military, similar to how the Department had programs to help gay service members assimilate into the services after the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was struck down. Another detail you may have overlooked is that there is psychological screening before you enter any branch of the United States Armed Forces. The tests and background checks they run actively screen against suicidal tendencies.

You also cited a report to prove that transgender are more susceptible to mental illness and suicidal tendencies. I noticed this quote in the executive summary:

So perhaps creating a more accepting environment for transgender service members is path forward here. Additionally, the study you cited made no mention of how prone transgender individuals in the military are to suicide and mental illnesses. This information would be helpful.

Also, I glanced at the Wikipedia link Troj helpfully provided and noted this quote:

I believe this addresses many your concerns with empirical evidence.
I believe I stand corrected on the issue.

Though keep in mind that acceptance is not something one can force, even in the military. People may seem accepting on the surface, but on the inside they may be resentful, arrogant, ignorant, skeptical and/or intolerant, so we have to tread carefully so as to not make any bad steps. Acceptance takes time, patience and understanding. Ignorance, skepticism and intolerance is not cured overnight. The best cure for a lot of the uncertainty going on is to give it time. Lots of time.

Apology accepted. I try to be as diplomatic and respectful as possible, particularly your case since you are one of the first people I met here. I mean to ask if you were alright on your profile page last night, but I could see it and I did not want to clutter this thread with personal communications. However, I would stress that properly researching the topics you argue and citing verifiable evidence would go would greatly help matters. When you are confident in your arguments, there is no need for hostility or acrimony.
Indeed.

What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

I can completely accept the argument that field personnel need to be in peak condition, and that reliance on a medication or a medical device makes a soldier vulnerable.

But, not everybody in the military serves on the battlefield. People who rely on medication or medical devices can absolutely serve in some other capacity, and can make a meaningful contribution.

Additionally, we need to be extremely skeptical of any insinuation or argument that trans people represent a unique or particular risk or headache in this regard. We need to tune out the know-nothings who are going to share their stupid ass-pull opinions about hormones n'shit makin' people cray-cray or whatever.
Indeed. You don't have to be on the front line.

Though to be fair, they are a largely unknown factor, one that will need lots of research before we can call anything certain. Can't really blame people for wanting to be cautious.
 

Troj

Your Friendly Neighborhood Dino Therapist
You can't blame people for wanting to be cautious, but you can certainly call them out when their caution is rooted in bigotry, bias, or a basic misunderstanding of the relevant issues at hand.

"What's the best way to go about X, in light of the facts and the major considerations?" is a fair, smart, good-faith question.

"How can we keep THOSE PEOPLE from causing problems?" or "Are THOSE PEOPLE going to be A PROBLEM?" are questions which inherently reek of bias (if not bigotry).

Too many people just inherently assume that trans people are "a problem," and operate from that assumption. They are inherently hostile to the idea of trans people serving in the military--and often elsewhere and otherwise, too--so they don't even want to ask HOW that might theoretically work, or how you'd troubleshoot problems or risks.

The core problem is that people often play identity or tribal politics without realizing it. As a result, members of "the majority" often see minorities as not-quite-human, in the sense that their needs, feelings, and desires are treated as secondary, peripheral, trivial, or negotiable. So, it genuinely bothers me how often people have basically treated current, aspiring, and hypothetical LGBTQ military personnel as if they were just silly trolls who were being a nuisance for no "good" reason.

Pragmatically, if we want to have a truly top-notch fighting force, we can't afford to miss diamonds in the rough because of our own biases or false assumptions, or because we didn't channel the right person into the right niche.
 

Roose Hurro

Lovable Curmudgeon
Banned
What is madmad?

hillary-clinton-angry.jpg
 

Simo

Professional Watermelon Farmer
All I can say is no wonder he has to pay hookers and trophy wives to screw him. Geez, that guy is about the ugliest, most hideous creature I have ever had the horror of beholding, both inside and out, a true abomination of body, spirit, and mind. (if any)
 

Ovidia Dragoness

Udder Derg
Banned
Well I can see this is just as much of a shitshow as ever. Since it seems we are at the transgender in military debate, they should be able to join and serve. They don't have a ton of problems and they understand their duties. They are throwing every transgendered person out the window even if they've already transitioned. It is based on bigotry. Why don't we ban women as well because they are more frail than men and bring with them a ton more problems than men? Rape in the military would go down and we wouldn't have to worry about feminine hygiene. All the same excuses say for why transgenders shouldn't serve in the military can be made for other things and it's completely bigoted. Let those who want to serve, serve. As long as they have good mental health and are of reasonable strength, they should be allowed.
 
Top