Retired military officers slam Trump's proposed transgender ban

[webfact]

Retired military officers slam Trump's proposed transgender ban

By Chris Kenning

 

Retired U.S. Marine General John Allen speaks during the final night of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S. July 28, 2016. REUTERS/Mike Segar/File Photo

 

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Fifty-six retired U.S. generals, admirals and other senior officers voiced opposition on Tuesday to President Donald Trump's announcement of a ban on transgender military service, saying it would be disruptive and degrade readiness.

 

Also on Tuesday, the U.S. Coast Guard commandant, Admiral Paul Zukunft, offered support for transgender members of his service.

 

The letter and comments were the latest push-back from retired or active military members after Trump said on Twitter he would ban transgender people from serving in the military "in any capacity", reviving a ban that had ended in 2016.

 

Trump's announcement appealed to some in his conservative political base, but it created vast uncertainty for active-duty and reserve transgender service members, who say they number in the thousands.

 

The retired officers said in their open letter that the ban "would cause significant disruptions" and deprive the military of talent or force members to live a lie.

 

The retired officers said the move would "degrade readiness" even more than the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy implemented in 1994 under President Bill Clinton that lifted a ban on gay people serving in the military but called for them to be circumspect about their sexuality.

 

"Patriotic transgender Americans who are serving - and who want to serve - must not be dismissed, deprived of medically necessary health care, or forced to compromise their integrity or hide their identity," the former officers wrote.

 

The ban would also force non-transgender members to choose between reporting comrades or disobeying policy, they said.

 

The letter was released by the Palm Center, a public policy think tank. Signatories included retired Marine General John Allen, who formerly led U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and retired Army Major General Antonio Taguba, who investigated abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

 

Zukunft said that he supported transgender members of the Coast Guard during an appearance on Tuesday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

 

He did not say what the Coast Guard, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, would do if the ban was implemented. He said the Coast Guard has contacted 13 service members who declared themselves to be transgender.

 

"We have made an investment in you, and you have made an investment in the Coast Guard," he said of the service members in response to a question. "And I will not break the faith."

 

(Reporting by Chris Kenning; Editing by Daniel Wallis and James Dalgleish)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-08-02

 

[darksidedog]

19 minutes ago, webfact said:

Trump's announcement appealed to some in his conservative political base,

He would be far better served focusing on the interests of the whole nation, rather than coming out with a very backward and basically dumb policy, that just keeps a bunch of homophobic retards happy. Absolutely no good reason whatsoever to introduce this policy, that I note is being criticised by the very people Donalds tweets told us he had discussed it with, which is now being shown to be yet another lie.

[tonray]

22 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

He would be far better served focusing on the interests of the whole nation, rather than coming out with a very backward and basically dumb policy, that just keeps a bunch of homophobic retards happy. Absolutely no good reason whatsoever to introduce this policy, that I note is being criticised by the very people Donalds tweets told us he had discussed it with, which is now being shown to be yet another lie.

"We got(s) to keep them coloreds, musl(u)ms, and homo-sekuals out of the army, so we can be ready to fight them coloreds, musl(u)ms, and homo-sekuals when we need to defent Amerika"

[captspectre]

these clown and yes some generals can be clowns (just look at mark clark and all the GI's he got killed in WW-2) seem to believe that some two thousand or so screwed up people who don't know or accept what they are will screw up the Armed Forces. I could go on but it is disgusting.

[chrisinth]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

"We have made an investment in you, and you have made an investment in the Coast Guard," he said of the service members in response to a question. "And I will not break the faith."

I like that..........................

 

That sort of attitude should be followed in the Armed Forces.

[Andaman Al]

Trump has never even thought about the fact that there could be around 6000 class actions brought against the Government. Saying it was OK for people to break out of the 'don't ask don't tell' policy' and now they have they are to be punished and risk losing their careers. 8 million a year (less than 3 months of tax payers money for private golfing for Trump) for gender related medical treatment could easily be 6-10 billion in class actions. You just keep on winning Donald.

[chrisinth]

Even assuming the one on the left was trans-gender, I doubt you would have conversations like that on the frontline distracting from the mission....................

 

[chrisinth]

And of course for every perceived threat there should be a countermeasure available, what is Trump's problem?

 

[mfd101]

 

3 hours ago, darksidedog said:

He would be far better served focusing on the interests of the whole nation, rather than coming out with a very backward and basically dumb policy, that just keeps a bunch of homophobic retards happy. Absolutely no good reason whatsoever to introduce this policy, that I note is being criticised by the very people Donalds tweets told us he had discussed it with, which is now being shown to be yet another lie.

As Keynes might have said: When I lose my mind, the facts change.

[Belzybob]

Why not let all the minorities into the military, add variously disabled, remove any age limits, minimum and maximum etc etc. I'm sure the un-retired Generals will love dealing with the logistics of all of that in the middle of their next campaign.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Fore Man said:

Here's an interesting statement purportedly made by US Congressman Trey Gowdy, which I cannot prove or disprove. But I think it's fairly germane to this discussion:

 

"Nobody has a "right" to serve in the Military. Nobody.

 

What makes people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer? Very far from it.

 

The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short.

 

Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers. Poor eyesight will disqualify you, as well as bad teeth. Malnourished? Drug addiction? Bad back? Criminal history? Low IQ? Anxiety? Phobias? Hearing damage? Six arms? Hear voices in your head? Self-identify as a Unicorn?

 

Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair? Can't run the required course in the required time? Can't do the required number of pushups?

 

Not really a "morning person" and refuse to get out of bed before noon?

All can be reasons for denial.

 

The Military has one job. War. Anything else is a distraction and a liability.
 

Did someone just scream "That isn't Fair"? War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful.

 

YOU change yourself to meet Military standards. Not the other way around.

I say again: You don't change the Military... you must change yourself.

The Military doesn't need to accommodate anyone with special issues. The Military needs to Win Wars.

 

If any of your personal issues are a liability that detract from readiness or lethality... Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors. Who's next in line?"

 

endeth the epistle...

 

Massively stupid comment from someone who clearly doesnt understand the difference between premise and conclusion.

[kamahele]

3 hours ago, captspectre said:

these clown and yes some generals can be clowns (just look at mark clark and all the GI's he got killed in WW-2) seem to believe that some two thousand or so screwed up people who don't know or accept what they are will screw up the Armed Forces. I could go on but it is disgusting.

The 11-15,000 transgender personnel serving in the military which you have defamed in your post have been deemed fit to serve by the US Military. Are you?

[ilostmypassword]

21 minutes ago, Belzybob said:

Why not let all the minorities into the military, add variously disabled, remove any age limits, minimum and maximum etc etc. I'm sure the un-retired Generals will love dealing with the logistics of all of that in the middle of their next campaign.

You seem massively incapable of understanding what is wrong with your assertion. So here it is: there is no proof that transgender people can't do their jobs capably. The Secretary of Defense commissioned a study the results of which are due in December to look at just that question. Trump, for no good reason, but likely for a couple of bad ones, issued his tweet anyway. Oddly enough, so fare he actually hasn't issued an official order to that effect. Why not?

[kamahele]

Trump's insane announcement accomplished two things for him.

1. Warmed the hearts of Mike Pence's evangelical crazies who support this administration

 

2. Took collusion with Russia off the front page for one day.

[iReason]

Just like the "big beautiful wall", the "ban" will never happen.

[Thakkar]

2 hours ago, Fore Man said:

Here's an interesting statement purportedly made by US Congressman Trey Gowdy, which I cannot prove or disprove. But I think it's fairly germane to this discussion:

 

"Nobody has a "right" to serve in the Military. Nobody.

Either you really are so clueless as to not know the difference, or, like Gawdy, pretending to not know the difference.

 

Minorities, including Trans people are not demanding the right to be in the military. They are demanding the right to *apply* to serve in the military. After they apply, they have to go through the same screening process for suitability, just like all applicants.

 

Any argument that follows from a false or dishonest premise is invalid and dishonest.

 

T

[Ron19]

Troll post removed

[iReason]

35 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

Either you really are so clueless as to not know the difference, or, like Gawdy, pretending to not know the difference.

 

Minorities, including Trans people are not demanding the right to be in the military. They are demanding the right to *apply* to serve in the military. After they apply, they have to go through the same screening process for suitability, just like all applicants.

 

Any argument that follows from a false or dishonest premise is invalid and dishonest.

 

T

 

*See post below yours.

[Thakkar]

15 minutes ago, iReason said:

 

*See post below yours.

What? The cute doggy? He's adorably mesmerizing. ☺️

 

Actually, I can imagine the response: "Hillary, grumble grumble gargle grasping at straws" And don't forget Whitewater from 35 years ago.

[iReason]

9 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

What? The cute doggy? He's adorably mesmerizing. ☺️

 

Actually, I can imagine the response: "Hillary, grumble grumble gargle grasping at straws" And don't forget Whitewater from 35 years ago.

No. It pertained to the one you already quoted. 

[Golgota]

6 hours ago, captspectre said:

these clown and yes some generals can be clowns (just look at mark clark and all the GI's he got killed in WW-2) seem to believe that some two thousand or so screwed up people who don't know or accept what they are will screw up the Armed Forces. I could go on but it is disgusting.

I dunno where or even if you went to the army, but last time I checked you didn't have to pull the trigger with your d!ck...

Some may argue that the screwed up people are the ones leaving their country to enjoy a life with a far younger wife in a thrid world country ruled by dictatorship

Edited August 2, 2017 by Golgota

[iReason]

6 hours ago, captspectre said:

these clown and yes some generals can be clowns (just look at mark clark and all the GI's he got killed in WW-2) seem to believe that some two thousand or so screwed up people who don't know or accept what they are will screw up the Armed Forces. I could go on but it is disgusting.

 

"these clown and yes some generals can be clowns... seem to believe that some two thousand or so screwed up people

who don't know or accept what they are will screw up the Armed Forces."

 

You appear to be a bit confused.

Are you sure you are on the right thread?

 

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Fifty-six retired U.S. generals, admirals and other senior officers voiced opposition on Tuesday to President Donald Trump's announcement of a ban on transgender military service, saying it would be disruptive and degrade readiness.

[Belzybob]

5 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

You seem massively incapable of understanding what is wrong with your assertion. So here it is: there is no proof that transgender people can't do their jobs capably. The Secretary of Defense commissioned a study the results of which are due in December to look at just that question. Trump, for no good reason, but likely for a couple of bad ones, issued his tweet anyway. Oddly enough, so fare he actually hasn't issued an official order to that effect. Why not?

You are massively pretentious in your post. I understand exactly. You have a counter view to mine, it is my opinion and therefore it is not 'wrong'. My point is exactly where do you draw the line? Whilst not pandering to political correctness, it is blatantly obvious that a person who is in or about to 'mutate' their gender may well be accompanied by a number of psychological issues. Just how much pandering to minorities, to the potential expense of the majority, is acceptable?

[ilostmypassword]

8 minutes ago, Belzybob said:

You are massively pretentious in your post. I understand exactly. You have a counter view to mine, it is my opinion and therefore it is not 'wrong'. My point is exactly where do you draw the line? Whilst not pandering to political correctness, it is blatantly obvious that a person who is in or about to 'mutate' their gender may well be accompanied by a number of psychological issues. Just how much pandering to minorities, to the potential expense of the majority, is acceptable?

No, you don't understand exactly. It's not about whether or not I agree with your evaluation of the suitability trans genders serving in the military. It's your assumption that it's a problem and lumping transgender together with people whose various physical or mental conditions means they can't do the job. The Department of Defense has a review in process to determine whether or not that's the case. Trump jumped the gun and lied about taking this action on the advice of his generals. 

And it's nonsense about pandering to minorities. Green-eyed people are a minority, too. Should the military exclude them?

Only if the condition is relevant. And that is what is yet to be determined.

 

 

[nasanews]

In deed nations still exists as their morals still maintained, but if their morals gone they are gone with wind.

Edited August 2, 2017 by nasanews

[Thakkar]

42 minutes ago, Belzybob said:

You are massively pretentious in your post. I understand exactly. You have a counter view to mine, it is my opinion and therefore it is not 'wrong'. My point is exactly where do you draw the line? Whilst not pandering to political correctness, it is blatantly obvious that a person who is in or about to 'mutate' their gender may well be accompanied by a number of psychological issues. Just how much pandering to minorities, to the potential expense of the majority, is acceptable?

 

The view that opinions can't be "wrong" is ludicrous.

opinions based on fallacies and prejudice are wrong, plain and simple. 

 

We are not talking about wine tasting.

The matter of whether Trans people are suitable to serve in the military can be and is being determined by objective criteria. 

 

And again, Trans people are not asking for the absolute right to joint the service. They are demanding the right to *apply* to joint the service and to be accepted/rejected on the same objective criteria as everyone else.

 

T

[ilostmypassword]

7 minutes ago, nasanews said:

In deed nations still exists as their morals still maintained, but if their morals gone they are gone with wind.

You should buy yourself a staff and a beard.

[nasanews]

26 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You should buy yourself a staff and a beard.

Thank God my mind is not driven by desires and lusts even though I fall in them sometimes but I always say nothing would be true unless it is true.

[iReason]

2 hours ago, nasanews said:

Thank God my mind is not driven by desires and lusts even though I fall in them sometimes but I always say nothing would be true unless it is true.

 

"Thank God my mind is not driven by desires and lusts even though I fall in them sometimes..."

 

Any transgenders involved?

[Johpa]

Fifty-six retired U.S. generals, admirals and other senior officers can't all be wrong. The US military took a lead in racial equality and a slightly slower lead in gender equality. Meanwhile Trump continues to make America increasingly irrelevant on the world stage. The generals, admirals and other senior officers need to come out and speak the truth, that Trump himself is the number one threat to our national security.