Most people would lose their shit if we even attempted to solve problems based on the concept of "what is affecting us, as a society, the most".
But it isn't regular society, its the military. Is the military really supposed to upend their SOPs and redesign facilities, including medical treatment procedures for what statistically amounts to almost no one? The same rules don't and shouldn't apply.
Can you link to their position on this? I'm just seeing things where they are referring people to the white house.
I'm not disagreeing with you... quite the opposite. If someone in the military can't handle a bathroom break without coming unglued because there's no bathroom for their gender, then how the hell are they expected to perform in a time of war? The military, of all places, should be immune to that kind of shit. I'm a subscriber to the non-coddling training curriculum:
I would also assert our military has more fundamental issues with the current gender divide, racism, and even discrimination based on heritage. Trans soldiers? Feels a bit low on the list of priorities, and I can get behind removing this ridiculous burden from an already over-loaded VA.
Well, based on census data found here, it's actually closer to 15,000 people. The DoD is the largest single employer of trans people in the country.
No, I got that. What I'm seeing is that the Pentagon didn't make a formal decision/recommendation on this and Trump declared it without them. From what I'm seeing, this isn't about military readiness, but about redneck politics. There was a big study done on this issue and the data doesn't seem to support the conclusions being made. Impact of Transgender Personnel on Readiness and Health Care Costs in the U.S. Military Likely to Be Small Relevant tweet thread from one of the researchers.
I'm gonna go ahead and assume there was no formal study or discussion done with "The Generals" before Trump made this decision. This smacks of politicking of the kind Bannon/Miller would employ. The news cycle right now is dominated by healthcare (which even his base is coming to realize means they'd be getting fucked) and the Sessions drama (where there's no liberal enemy to rally against), so this really feels like red meat for red necks.
This is probably the closest to why Trump did it. Man this man is a master media manipulator. Adheres him closer to his base, gets his opposition in a frenzy, moves the topic off the disaster that is the GoPs healthcare debacle. If he wasn't so spastic in everything, he really could be said to be playing 4d chess.
I'm starting to think that some government employee finally got around to reading The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Trump is as close to Zaphod Beeblebrox as they come. Every toddler meltdown tweetstorm quite neatly gets everyone's attention away from any and all unpopular legislation currently being debated/drafted/voted on.
I saw the study and it was interesting, but for all intents and purposes, comparisons of other militaries to the US military is completely meaningless when their militaries dont actually matter. The western world is essentially subsidized by the US military and since serving is not a right, they should be able to create any policy they see fit, even if it only makes the soldiers feel better because they might be prejudiced. Its not right, but hey, its the way it is. Plenty of demographics are not allowed to serve. I'm not losing sleep over whether trannies can go kill brown folk. And maybe it is Donald Retard paying lip service to his mouth-breathing base. But again, does anyone actually give it a shit, or is it just another excuse to grand-stand about something with zero stakes because its him?
There's a lot to respond to in this. But at the most basic level, you just had the commander in chief set a far ranging military policy without thinking it through and in doing so he undercut the Pentagon. This was all just to score political points for some kind. This wasn't about what is best for the military or the country, this is about what is best for Donald Trump. And arguing that something discriminatory is zero stakes just because it doesn't affect a large number of people is silly. There aren't that many Muslims in the military ("Just 3,939 troops currently list their faith as Islam, according to Pentagon data. They make up just 0.3 percent of the military"), so would it be okay to ban Muslims from serving? I somehow doubt you think so. You're not really seeing why this is a big deal because you don't have much empathy for people who are transgender.
"Serving in the military isn't a right so why should I care if black people cant serve?" "Serving in the military isn't a right so why should I care if gay people can't serve?"
It's not a big deal because it's a matter of numbers. Statistically, they are less than a rounding error. And again we're conflating rights with serving in the military, which is absolutely not one. And our society is bending over backwards to be inclusive of trannies, which is great and I'm all for that. I'm saying we should not expect the military to be held to the same standard as the civilian world. It has nothing to do with empathy. Who exactly are you quoting? And I think blacks and gays might take issue with comparing their struggle with transgendered people.
I didn't take it to mean it was OK to ban them because of the numbers, I took it to mean "don't change everything to accommodate them because of the numbers"... such as different/new bathrooms, etc.
I don't know why we are taking this transgender thing, which is admittedly, a gross and detestable thing to say as anything more than a distraction. He says shit like this to change the news headlines from something about to come out.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think trans people want to use different or new bathrooms. They want to use the bathroom of the gender with which they identify. They aren't wanting a third bathroom. The outcry over bathrooms is about people who don't want to use the bathroom with a trans person.
Politics is confusing. I called my councilman to try to sure him up on the menthol thing, tell him I support him and his work on menthol, and then he redirected me to have me answer if I support a complete tobacco 21+, and I said no because its unfeasible given the current climate, and he he said no we have the votes, several times. Once he told me that, I said yes, in the long term I would be in favor of 21+. I also told him I look forward to supporting him at the next city council meeting and I hope to see him there. Then I told my new colleagues about the convo, and they were concerned about how the convo got turned and that he didn't say he would be there or know what day the next hearing is. Politicians, as everyone knows, are greasy fuckers. I may have just got owned. If I hear later he's not in favor of this current legislation but 21+ that means I may have just weakened my sides advocacy work. 21+ would require a whole new round of legislation etc, and things would remain as they are for sometime. But then again he told me they have the votes to do it now. But we all know politicians would never lie. I'm in the weeds. I'd drink a beer but its too early for that.
Pretty clear evidence that the transgender ban was pure politics, seeing as the Joint Chiefs don't appear to have any clue wtf Trump is talking about, and intend on doing nothing until they get further clarification: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/27/trump-transgender-military-ban-no-modification-241029