What bait? That it is about appeasement to racists? That the numbers are obviously lowballed, if even you look at wikipedia, that states that the most recent estimates are ""with midrange figures of 2,450 in active duty and 1,510 in reserves." Or the other bait that it is about race, religion, or sexual orientation, when, I am quoting a human rights org, ""Being transgender does not imply any specific sexual orientation. Therefore, transgender people may identify as straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc."
Or is it about the bait on the trans issue? That it is immediately framed as a matter of bigots, even when the main type of arguments against transgender inclusion is primarily about financing medical costs.
For a majority of transgender persons, simply living a stable life requires extensive medical treatment and clinical assistance. ^72 Necessary care normally includes “ongoing psychotherapy and counseling sessions, periodic hormone treatment, long-term electrolysis sessions, periodic outpatient body-countering procedures, and other medically necessary procedures to effectuate and maintain the transition from one sex to another.” ^73 Required hormone therapy may range from infrequent to weekly or even daily depending on one’s physical composition. ^74 Hormone treatments further regulate a range of physiological functions, including one’s “mood, eating, and sleeping.” ^75 Without such therapeutic intervention, transgender personnel can suffer extensive psychological trauma that not only interferes with their well-being, but also the well-being of co-workers or people in close physical proximity. ^76
Of significance to military service, especially in deployed areas or field training settings, hormone treatments can, and frequently do, result in significant complications. For example, estrogen therapy has resulted in the increased risk of thromboembolic disease, myocardial infarction, breast cancer, abnormal liver function, and fertility problems. ^77 Testosterone therapy likewise results in the increased risk of strokes and heart attacks, abnormal liver function, renal disease, endometrial cancer, and osteoporosis. ^78
Costs of accommodating the unique needs of transgender servicemembers under a repealed DADT would be monumental, especially considering the price tag accompanying gender reassignment surgery. The costs of hormone therapy, simply in preparation for the operation, can range from $300 to $2,400 per year, ^79 while surgery on just the genitals costs approximately $15,000. ^80 More extensive work on the genitalia, face, and chest may exceed $50,000, solely for those procedures, ^81 exclusive of the psychotherapy required to acclimate to the demands of this tremendous transition. These costs also do not contemplate corrective surgery, which is often required for procedures of this sensitive nature, especially the construction of a prosthetic penis in a female-to-male conversion and treatment for urinary tract infections.^82
As people who are backing this policy, are talking about how it is not about the right to fight for the country, but whether or not is cost effective to train a soldier who comes with X medical bills, particularly if they need to fight in active deployment, where the timeline of medical transitio...
What bait? That it is about appeasement to racists? That the numbers are obviously lowballed, if even you look at wikipedia, that states that the most recent estimates are ""with midrange figures of 2,450 in active duty and 1,510 in reserves." Or the other bait that it is about race, religion, or sexual orientation, when, I am quoting a human rights org, ""Being transgender does not imply any specific sexual orientation. Therefore, transgender people may identify as straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc."
Or is it about the bait on the trans issue? That it is immediately framed as a matter of bigots, even when the main type of arguments against transgender inclusion is primarily about financing medical costs.
For a majority of transgender persons, simply living a stable life requires extensive medical treatment and clinical assistance. ^72 Necessary care normally includes “ongoing psychotherapy and counseling sessions, periodic hormone treatment, long-term electrolysis sessions, periodic outpatient body-countering procedures, and other medically necessary procedures to effectuate and maintain the transition from one sex to another.” ^73 Required hormone therapy may range from infrequent to weekly or even daily depending on one’s physical composition. ^74 Hormone treatments further regulate a range of physiological functions, including one’s “mood, eating, and sleeping.” ^75 Without such therapeutic intervention, transgender personnel can suffer extensive psychological trauma that not only interferes with their well-being, but also the well-being of co-workers or people in close physical proximity. ^76
Of significance to military service, especially in deployed areas or field training settings, hormone treatments can, and frequently do, result in significant complications. For example, estrogen therapy has resulted in the increased risk of thromboembolic disease, myocardial infarction, breast cancer, abnormal liver function, and fertility problems. ^77 Testosterone therapy likewise results in the increased risk of strokes and heart attacks, abnormal liver function, renal disease, endometrial cancer, and osteoporosis. ^78
Costs of accommodating the unique needs of transgender servicemembers under a repealed DADT would be monumental, especially considering the price tag accompanying gender reassignment surgery. The costs of hormone therapy, simply in preparation for the operation, can range from $300 to $2,400 per year, ^79 while surgery on just the genitals costs approximately $15,000. ^80 More extensive work on the genitalia, face, and chest may exceed $50,000, solely for those procedures, ^81 exclusive of the psychotherapy required to acclimate to the demands of this tremendous transition. These costs also do not contemplate corrective surgery, which is often required for procedures of this sensitive nature, especially the construction of a prosthetic penis in a female-to-male conversion and treatment for urinary tract infections.^82
As people who are backing this policy, are talking about how it is not about the right to fight for the country, but whether or not is cost effective to train a soldier who comes with X medical bills, particularly if they need to fight in active deployment, where the timeline of medical transitioning interfers with their contracts, and duties. It says a lot that "a military first, hormone treatment to assist with Chelsea Manning's gender conformity has been approved and added to her treatment plan at Fort Leavenworth prison, along with other provisions such as cosmetics and female undergarments to help her express her gender identity." was in 2015.
Yes, a good chunk of this is in reference to costs, and procedures from when it was written in 2010, but from cursory glances, it is not far off. And it was written with regards to the US' Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. But it also happened to be the most recent US document about transgender issues within their armed forces, with the most detailed rationale for the decision. If you want to argue against it, at least be able to frame it properly.
The problem is everyone is talking about this from different angles. The costs to train, maintain, outfit, and deploy soldiers to act as a fighting unit, it is one thing. If it is about trying to mitigate depression, and suicide in active service members, and an acceptance of a certain percentage of transgender individuals would be serving no matter what, it is another. If it is about the general costs, and availability of the medical procedures in the States, outside of the armed forces, it is a third. If it is about distractions from unit cohesion, and combat effectiveness, it is another.
EDIT: And that's without mentioning, that it is already being speculated that this is more "Trump psychology" for recruitment.
So you're telling me the US military can cut another 41 million dollars of rampant spending, not unlike frivolous camo, or superfluous training unrelated to warfare? That your best comparison is to point to other rampant spending in the military? When was the last time you spent time on a base, and seen first hand just what reduced, or moved budgets look like? And you are asking the military to eat up 220 million potential medical costs because? (edit, sorry, I used estimate of potential costs using numbers I already quoted, "showed that the direct medical costs (surgery and hormones) could be nearly $1 billion dollars over 10 years. Meanwhile, the lost time due to service members not being deployable or taking special leave could drive the total cost to anywhere from $1.9 billion to $3.7 billion over 10 years." but that's from the hill )
And you're telling me that it is best to allow a pre-existing condition, that whose best treatment is extensive surgery alongside therapy to reduce anxiety, and depression (which already come with their own costs towards troops) for active service?
Nothing I have read has convinced me this is a bad policy. And that is part of the reason why I spend any time on this site, to come across those specific arguments.
Offhand, I’d say the reason you’re unconvinced is because you’ve started from faulty prior assumptions. Trump’s decision is based on his ignorance and bigotry. So long as you’re beating a dead horse, you’re just not going to ride it out of there. There’ll always be heartfelt, ludicrously wrong reasons given for opposing the integration of the U.S. military, dog-whistle language like ‘unit cohesion,’ but it’s as true that the military is strongest when it represents the society it serves. For Trump, and for his water carriers, society has never included certain people. My modest suggestion is not to let his mistake be yours, even if it means examining why you’ll blithely ignore the fact of the bigotry that trans people have always until now endured. These are people, us, not costs, and not Them.
Yeah, because if there's anything Trump's about it's fiscal prudence. The Know-Nothing bigotry's just for appearance' sake.
it is sad, though, to see you try to rationalize Republican red meat like this on the basis of sheer ignorance that there's, my stars and whiskers, ever been any kind of bullying or mistreatment of trans people.
Predicating it on the basis of Trump's famous thrift, that's rich.
What bait? That it is about appeasement to racists? That the numbers are obviously lowballed, if even you look at wikipedia, that states that the most recent estimates are ""with midrange figures of 2,450 in active duty and 1,510 in reserves." Or the other bait that it is about race, religion, or sexual orientation, when, I am quoting a human rights org, ""Being transgender does not imply any specific sexual orientation. Therefore, transgender people may identify as straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc."
Or is it about the bait on the trans issue? That it is immediately framed as a matter of bigots, even when the main type of arguments against transgender inclusion is primarily about financing medical costs.
From STRAIGHT TALK: THE IMPLICATIONS OF REPEALING “DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL” AND THE RATIONALE FOR PRESERVING ASPECTS OF THE CURRENT POLICY, starts on pg. 207.
As people who are backing this policy, are talking about how it is not about the right to fight for the country, but whether or not is cost effective to train a soldier who comes with X medical bills, particularly if they need to fight in active deployment, where the timeline of medical transitio...
Read Full[This comment was removed]
Yeah, because if there's anything Trump's about it's fiscal prudence. The Know-Nothing bigotry's just for appearance' sake.
it is sad, though, to see you try to rationalize Republican red meat like this on the basis of sheer ignorance that there's, my stars and whiskers, ever been any kind of bullying or mistreatment of trans people.
Predicating it on the basis of Trump's famous thrift, that's rich.