Trans in the military?

@humongous ok to be fair,that comment came before yours,so I apologize,it was uncalled for k?

@Cease That's a false argument. Say someone gets rejected from the Navy because they have flat feet. The Navy is under no obligation to correct the flat feet. The Air Force is under no obligation to correct 20/30 vision so someone can become a pilot. The Army is under no obligation to give an 18 year old who lost their leg in a car accident a prosthetic leg so that they can serve in the infantry.

The military is under no obligation to correct a deficiency or reason for being excluded from service. And there has never been a time when that was true. So no, the military is not beholden to provide services and treatments that would allow someone to serve. What you are asking for is special treatment for transgendereds, special treatment that will consume the bulk of their four year contract. Meaning the military pays and gets nearly nothing out of it.

And all of this is still ignoring the problems of not being deployable even after the reassignment surgeries because of ongoing treatments, the psychological issues that persist, and seem to get worse, among transgendereds even after reassignment surgery, and the ethics of having the government dole out what is essentially genetic engineering.

@Sicarium Well, there's no obligation if you're rejected. If they accept you, they've made an allowance that they have they have the option to accommodate. (But I guess answers the question whether you think they should be accepted in the first place or discharged if they are transgendered, I think?)

Sorry, I meant beholden and obligated in the fact that they already do legally provide some benefits and services if needed and nothing illegal keeping them from doing so. Not a perfect synonym or wording on my part. But they have the option to accommodate. Special Treatment: I don't think there's any type of system or institution that doesn't have allowances, exceptions, accommodations or "special treatment". Though the military have and should have some of the strictest standards, they certainly without pardons either. I don't see the problem if the benefit of having extra, able soldiers and servers out weighs the price of some accommodation. Women are not without accommodation, and they make up, what, 10-15 percent of the military, a number of extra hands that wouldn't be their otherwise. It's not just about plain inclusiveness but exclusion of a capable server.

You say that as if they'd completely useless in doing their duty and have to take some long time out for every dose. And it's not a deadly if they're in a situation where medication might not be available. For the surgery, they do not all want or seek reassignment surgery. But the surgery by itself is not "cure" and an optional part of transitioning. (It's not genetic engineering.)

@Cease The military doesn't have the option to accommodate transgendereds. If the military chooses not too, the left freaks out and activist judges overstep their authority and force them to accommodate. If transgendereds are rejected, people scream transphobia. People do treat it as if the military has an obligation to take these people in and then to pay for the treatments, because they treat the military as an extension of the social welfare state. No other groups is given that expectation. So yes, it is special treatment. And that is not the military's job.

And yes, while they're transitioning and while they're receiving their post-transition treatments, they are not deployable. You're talking 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 years of being unavailable, out of a four year contract that doesn't include training time. I'm sorry, but the argument of simply having capable bodies around falls completely flat. And you're pretending that the military has a recruitment problem, they can't find enough people without transgendereds. That is not true.

There should be no obligation for the military to treat people. What is happening is transgendereds go in, they go through basic and advance training, decide they want to transition, get taxpayers to pay for it while they sit on the sidelines and ride out the rest of their contract on disability. That is not right. There is no way to spin it.

And again, that's only one aspect of the argument.

As for women, check out how many women in the Navy get pregnant while on a cruise and don't finish out the cruise. The numbers might surprise you.

"Mutilation" in the sense that you are cutting and altering part of the body in which case, "surgery" would be considered mutilation. The words aren't interchangeable context to the subject.

It probably makes one less likely to commit suicide if transgendered.

@Cease Statistically it does seem to indicate that people who have mutilated themselves through sex reassignment surgery are more likely to commit suicide than those that do not mutilate themselves.

[quote]mutilation that will likely lead to suicide[/quote]

I haven't seen any studies that have eliminated enough factors (socialital, economic, employment, state of interpersonal relationships, follow up therapy, previous underlying conditions, etc) out of the equation out right states that reassignment surgery itself leads to suicide.

And the surgery by itself probably wouldn't curb or cure the already higher among the general population suicide rates. Because of all the other factors being coming up short and it's only part of the transition. Not to mention if they even wanted surgery. They do not all need it to relieve their dysmorphia.

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout Maybe several tour's

@humongous I'm not trans. The military isn't my thing, and I don't think they'd accept me even if I wanted to.