I'm not trying to crap on the issue at hand but my only experience first hand with it is the individual at work. To respond to your second point, if the Air Force had known that they wanted to get this procedure done before they joined they most likely wouldn't have been accepted. The Defence Force generally will only accept people who are 100% fit without any outstanding injuries or medical procedures to be carried out. As for the last point, there are side affects to the massive amount of hormone therapy and other things that they are going through, I'm not saying that they won't be mentally healthy in the future but just like I wouldn't have someone who is on anti-depressants in my field of work I'd rather not there be someone who is on a massive amount of drugs with possible side affects working with explosives near me either.
You're telling me that a company that provides medical insurance to their employees would prefer to not hire people who are going to undergo expensive medial procedures? I'm shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED. Depending on the age group, 10-15% of the population is on antidepressants. About half the population is on a prescription of some kind, all of which have "possible side affects." And you're throwing the word "massive" in there like it's supposed to support your point, but it doesn't. Either a course of medication has side effects or it doesn't, the relative dosage is irrelevant. Do you know this person is on anti-depressants? Do you know the prescription status of everyone in the military? What about the mental illness history of everyone? Give me a depressed person who's on medication and/or in the active care of a psychologist any day over the depressed person who is trying to "tough it out." Sorry (not sorry), but this is a bunch of crap. If the person in question makes bad decisions, acts irrationally, or is otherwise dangerous, you should report it. Other than that, it's just fear mongering to say that a person with a gender disorder is any more dangerous than any of the other billion people have some variety of mental or physical condition.
If you're discovered to have hidden stuff when enlisting in Australia you get fucked over pretty hard. Also if you go to see the psych and get put on certain medications you get taken off the tools depending on what job role you are in. We had someone last year who got taken off tools due to various things having to do with their mental health so to tell me it's bullshit is wrong. Yes there are people who hide their illnesses and work on the tools but if they get caught out then they get taken off the tools.
I tend to side with Bundy over what he's saying. Any interview I've read or heard with someone who has gender identity issues always includes the words "Depressed, confused, suicidal." That is not someone I want handling explosives anywhere in my zip code.
Same here. I'm all about giving people the benefit of the doubt, and letting them work out their personal shit, but when you're dealing with something like explosives, or if you're a pilot, or some other job where your mental health is a core piece of you doing your job safely and well, then any hint of something wrong, even the slightest perception of something being "off", then sorry , but you're scratched off the roster.
Kinda hesitant to throw my hat into the fire, but fuck it: I suffer from PTSD (flare ups are impossible to predict), depression and anxiety (anxiety happens with regularity, depression less so) are a major component of that. I stopped drinking alocohol and that really helps. I did all the "right" things -- years of therapy, medication etc. I know what I can and cannot handle. I grew up with guns and all the fun "tools" well before any of this PTSD crap hit. I've been in many medical crisis scenarios and because of the PTSD I actually can now remain very calm, take my emotion out of it which allows me to make the right decision when everyone else is freaking. However, unless I explain this to them, before hand, or they have first-hand experience around me, 99% of everyone is going to be HIGHLY uncomfortable with me if I were, say, around guns or explosives, a pilot, in the military, etc. The unknown, what-if factor is fucking HUGE simply because mental health issues can range anywhere from "I gotta take something and then I'm fine" to permanent hospitalization/as-seen-on-tv levels. Bottom line, how people perceive me in those situations dictates what is appropriate, not how I can actually function. Perception is reality. One person may drive perfectly fine at .08, while another may be shithoused; doesn't matter, both need to be off the road for the safety of everyone else, just in case.
I understand what you guys are saying - and I agree that we should be trying to avoid putting people in situations where they are likely to cause harm. However, about a third of the population has some variety of mental illness. A large number of these are undiagnosed. Some suffer from extreme forms, some from mild forms. Mild OCD can result in a person having quirks of behavior that range from amusing to annoying. Extreme OCD can result in people having behaviors that put themselves and others in dangerous situations, since they literally can't function without placating their compulsions. Most mental illnesses are like this. There are mild forms that are essentially harmless. There are moderate forms that are controllable or even "curable." There are extreme forms that are very dangerous. There are people who are dangerous without a diagnosable mental condition. Just labeling the problem isn't sufficient to identify a person as being unstable or unworthy of trust, and certainly not more unstable than the people you've given access to these explosives who have no diagnosis. Lack of diagnosis doesn't equate to lack of a problem. I'm sure the screening process catches some, but a third of the population is a lot, and it's statistically impossible for them to effectively catch everyone. At the end of the day, I believe you need to act based on behavior. If a person is dangerous or acts unstable, they should be reported. If there's a therapeutic or medication history that indicates the person has an uncontrolled problem, they shouldn't be admitted. But just like saying "this person is OCD" doesn't tell you if they like their pens in height order, or if they will walk into traffic to follow the painted line, a label is not a diagnosis.
One of my best friends is trans. He's a great guy, he has felt he's been a boy since he was 4. He plays on my volleyball team, hangs out with my family... He's like a brother to me, my kids call him "Uncle Steve". Totally awesome guy, and a brave motherfucker: He's back in small town Rhode Island, coaching middle school and high school kids, all of whom know he used to have a different name and gender. He now does some speaking engagements and is working on a kids' book about being inclusive of everyone called "Who Can Play?" Here's his story. http://www.outsports.com/2013/11/12...phen-alexander-profile-glocester-rhode-island