Trump’s policy on transgender service members

[JosephM]

What do you think?

[Burl]

Not a policy.  Just a tweet.  Barely worth mentioning.

[PaulS]

Imagine being one of those people that sees a tweet from your Presudent that you will no longer have your job!  Even worse, no follow up with policy or detail - people are just left in limbo.  Does the President mean it or is it just a cruel joke?  This would affect several thousand individuals.

What a disgusting way to treat people and a reckless abuse of power.  Seriously, what goes on inside the guy's head?  Do many Americans think this is quite an alright way to act as President?

Edited August 2, 2017 by PaulS

[tariki]

 Well, in his Tweet ( apparently his chosen organ for announcements and whatever occupies his mind at any particular moment of time ) Donald Trump questioned the economic viability of supporting those in the US military who were "transgender". Apparently about 15,000 people. The tweet ( of no consequence ) led to a few articles in the UK press about the various contributions of such people in the past, in both the USA and Great Britain. Worth looking up. 

Off topic, but mentioning "Great Britain", we now get a transcript of an interview given by Donald Trump to the Wall Street Journal - at least a mode of communication one step up from tweets. "Don't hear the word Britain any more.Nope". Which reminded me that over here we don't hear the words "President of the United States" anymore, just "Trump". In my opinion he has demeaned that high office and turned the Presidency into a cheap soap opera. Blame the "media". No, I don't think so. 

 

[JosephM]

Perhaps it is not yet officially policy Burl but it seems to me that the president is the commander and chief of the armed services and whether it is a tweet or not he has the power .  Perhaps it is worth mentioning...

Under former President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Ash Carter lifted the ban on transgender military service in June 2016, allowing current transgender troops to serve openly and beginning a yearlong process for the military branches to determine how they would incorporate new transgender people into active service. Trump can unilaterally re-instate that ban.

His tweet..... "After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow … Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military," Trump wrote in a string of three tweets Wednesday morning. "Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming … victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you."

Now i have no position on his view concerning his intentions because perhaps he and his generals know more about what makes a cohesive effective military more than i. I did serve 4 years way back in the 60's and can see where valid reasons might have been present then but i am interested on others take on it in the present.

[tariki]

2 hours ago, JosephM said:

 

Now i have no position on his view concerning his intentions because perhaps he and his generals know more about what makes a cohesive effective military more than i. 

Donald Trump’s proposed ban on transgender service members is facing opposition from more than 50 retired generals and admirals who are warning that the discriminatory policy would degrade military readiness and harm morale.

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”.

The statement – signed by 56 retired admirals and generals and released by the Palm Center, a San Francisco-based research institute – adds to the mounting pressure against Trump to back away from the policy, which has also faced resistance from US defense chiefs, LGBT rights groups and conservative politicians.

“This proposed ban, if implemented, would cause significant disruptions, deprive the military of mission-critical talent......"

 

The above, in heavy type, taken from an article in a UK Newspaper. I assume its report is true and not "fake news" (which seems to be the first accusation these days when anyone does nor wish to accept an unwanted fact........ ) Obviously,not having served myself, Mr Trump may well know more than I. Exactly what advice he receives from his current generals is again unknown to me. Given Mr Trumps appointment of a Climate Change sceptic, Scott Pruitt,  as head of the EPA (When 97% of scientists are NOT sceptical of climate change!) perhaps indicates the level of advice Mr Trump seeks, that maybe he is inclined to hear only what he wishes to hear? (Another clue to this latter attitude being that of Mr Trump's is surely the merry-go-round of sackings, appointments and re-appointments of his staff which we seem to hear about so often)

 

 

[romansh]

On ‎2017‎-‎08‎-‎01 at 11:57 AM, JosephM said:

What do you think?

Mixed feelings.

I don't have enough information to give a considered opinion. The delivery of the announcement was incompetent though.

Apparently the US military discriminates on IQ ... personnel must have an IQ of at least 85. So the military discriminates against about 16% of the population. Apparently it is written into legislation.

[JosephM]

4 hours ago, tariki said:

Donald Trump’s proposed ban on transgender service members is facing opposition from more than 50 retired generals and admirals who are warning that the discriminatory policy would degrade military readiness and harm morale.

 

Tariki,

I don't know whether that news is accurate or not either, (it sure may be) but what does seem strange is the retired generals and admirals for the most part had the ban in place during, at least for the largest part of their service since it was just lifted during the Obama administration. It would seem to me to carry more weight to hear from the current group of active generals and admirals that have had to deal with the issue and had experience both with and without the ban in place.

[tariki]

Joseph, thanks for clarification. So there were 15,000 transgender military (give or take a few) in the Forces prior to the "ban" being lifted - assuming they have not all joined up since. The ban was lifted and now, as a consequence, having "outed" themselves, may have possibly created a "problem" of which Donald Trump may or may not have been informed about by the current crop of generals. So there we are. As Romansh implied, too many "may haves". Tweets have consequences, as does being economical with the truth. 

As far as my own view, all discrimination is wrong. But so what? The President of the United States evidently does not agree. Travel bans, walls, whatever.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by tariki

[JosephM]

Tariki,

Yes, too many "may haves" at least for me to take a position at this time. Your statement " all discrimination is wrong " may need clarification as i don't see how discriminating who my children associate with is wrong. The military here definitely discriminates rejecting those they deem unfit for service whether with physical or mental disabilities. At one time they discriminated against gays because it caused internal problems with the ranks due to prejudices within. Of course, much of that has changed as education and a new generation came forth. So perhaps it was necessary at the time but is no longer a factor at the present? Perhaps the transgender thing will also take some time.?

[PaulS]

I still can't get past the fact that the President of the United States just 'Tweets' this out there, without any policy detail or legislation or even a guideline to follow it up.  That's the sort of thing I'd expect from a teenager with a Twitter account - all tweets and no accountability.  Is Trump deliberately just playing with people's lives to satisfy the Christian lobby or something, or does he actually have a plan with may contain just a hint of compassion for transgender people?  

[tariki]

4 hours ago, JosephM said:

Tariki,

Yes, too many "may haves" at least for me to take a position at this time. Your statement " all discrimination is wrong " may need clarification as i don't see how discriminating who my children associate with is wrong. The military here definitely discriminates rejecting those they deem unfit for service whether with physical or mental disabilities. At one time they discriminated against gays because it caused internal problems with the ranks due to prejudices within. Of course, much of that has changed as education and a new generation came forth. So perhaps it was necessary at the time but is no longer a factor at the present? Perhaps the transgender thing will also take some time.?

Some interesting reading in Bruce Springsteen's autobiography "Born to Run" about military "discrimination" and how it was used by those who were against becoming "cannon fodder" ( for Vietnam ) Some guys "starved themselves thin" while other "fed themselves fat", while some learnt tricks as far as demonstrating their mental inadequacies. The tricks worked at the "soft" draft centres like Newark and Jersey, while others found other centres less accommodating. 

Discrimination? Ok, I would not like a known drug dealer, or a known paedophile to come near my grandchildren. And I would like also to discriminate between my own discrimination and that of Donald Trump. 

[JosephM]

[Jack of Spades]

If this was proposed by some serious leader, it would be worth analyzing the pro's and con's of the decision from the military point of view. But, in this case, given the character and the track record of the current US president, the default assumptions should be that

1) The actual facts and the real world consequences on the matter have not been given any serious thought

2) The motive behind the announcement is something else than what it is claimed to be

3) The timing of the announcement is likely a product of entirely short-term political reasons and

4) At least something related to the announcement itself is either completely untrue or at the very least, presented in a hugely misleading fashion.

 

Those factors have been true for about everything done by pres. Trump so far, so until proven otherwise, those factors should be assumed to be true in this case as well. And due to this, I don't have much of a motivation to try to analyze the issue itself in terms of actual military realities, since the actual military realities are most likely irrelevant for the decision making process behind this. I would rather analyze this in terms of political image building, as an attempt to control the media attention or very simply as a yet another petty decision to reverse something Obama has done, rather than as a fact-based military decision, since those are more likely the actual reasons behind this announcement.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Jack of Spades