Trump: No Transgenders In The Military!

[Charles]

It was a summary of how I saw their statement on why they changed the DSM 5.



That they changed the diagnosis to facilitate the comfort of the afflicted? Their own words. That removing the pathology designation strictly for the patient's comfort is non-scientific? Does that really need supporting evidence? Does that not speak for itself?

If they changed the diagnosis to facilitate the comfort of the afflicted then that does not in and of itself show that there is a need for the diagnosis and that the action is non-scientific. It would still have to be the case that science should prove the need for it. So it does not really speak for itself.

[Bill the Cat]

If they changed the diagnosis to facilitate the comfort of the afflicted then that does not in and of itself show that there is a need for the diagnosis and that the action is non-scientific.

Yes it is. Comfort is not a scientific reason to declassify something as a pathology.

It would still have to be the case that science should prove the need for it. So it does not really speak for itself.

Yes it does. Thinking you are something that you aren't simply is not normal behavior in any way. Realizing it is a pathology isn't hard. Making the sufferer more comfortable isn't changing the reality that they are delusional. They AREN'T the opposite sex. They will never BE the opposite sex. Repeatedly claiming they are/want to be the opposite sex is delusional. Mutilating their bodies and taking hormones to trick their bodies into growing breasts/facial hair is delusional! We should not seek to make them comfortable in their delusion. We should look for actual treatments that will help them realize what they actually are, not what they want to be.

[Charles]

Yes it is. Comfort is not a scientific reason to declassify something as a pathology.



Yes it does. Thinking you are something that you aren't simply is not normal behavior in any way. Realizing it is a pathology isn't hard. Making the sufferer more comfortable isn't changing the reality that they are delusional. They AREN'T the opposite sex. They will never BE the opposite sex. Repeatedly claiming they are/want to be the opposite sex is delusional. Mutilating their bodies and taking hormones to trick their bodies into growing breasts/facial hair is delusional! We should not seek to make them comfortable in their delusion. We should look for actual treatments that will help them realize what they actually are, not what they want to be.

1) But if science does not contradict it, it is a very good idea to remove it. You would still need science to prove the need of it.

2) You said "We should look for actual treatments that will help them realize what they actually are, not what they want to be." This is where I feel quite a lot more comfortable actually trusting these persons' descriptions of how they experience reality than your ideas about how other people should live and deal with conflicts they may experience. You are so focused on the body. I wonder why.

[Bill the Cat]

1) But if science does not contradict it, it is a very good idea to remove it. You would still need science to prove the need of it.

Source: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/292991-overview

Delusional disorder is an illness characterized by at least 1 month of delusions but no other psychotic symptoms according to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). [1] Delusions are false beliefs based on incorrect inference about external reality that persist despite the evidence to the contrary and these beliefs are not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture. Delusions can be characterized as persecutory (i.e., belief one is going to be harmed by an individual, organization or group), referential (i.e., belief gestures, comments, or environmental cues are directed at oneself), grandiose (i.e., belief that the individual has exceptional abilities, wealth, or fame), erotomanic (i.e., an individual’s false belief that another individual is in love with them), nihilistic (i.e., conviction that a major catastrophe will occur), or somatic (i.e., beliefs focused on bodily function or sensation).

© Copyright Original Source

The science is there.

2) You said "We should look for actual treatments that will help them realize what they actually are, not what they want to be." This is where I feel quite a lot more comfortable actually trusting these persons' descriptions of how they experience reality than your ideas about how other people should live and deal with conflicts they may experience. You are so focused on the body. I wonder why.

Because I can't staple bark to my head and paint my fingernails green and claim I should be a Dutch Elm tree.

[Psychic Missile]

You must not pay much attention because you keep handwaving away things like increased likelihood of serious mental health issues or ability to treat their condition out on the field.

I've addressed those points. For the former, that's a generalization based on a characteristic someone was born with and doesn't treat people as individuals. Also, following your logic, I could point to this study and say that women shouldn't be in the military because they are more prone to serious mental health issues. For the latter, I just don't see how gender dysphoria is different from any other condition.

Yes and I already listed out the issues. Problems personally, none, issues that come up with their condition in a military environment, plenty. The military isn't for everyone. Such as those with increased mental health issues or those with conditions that require more than average medical treatment. I would rather avoid having to pick up a mother, from the airport, so she can go and get the body of her son or daughter. Would you like to do that instead?

So your issues are things you imagine might happen in spite of the fact that we have had a whole year of open service and our country's history of undisclosed service of transpeople without apparent incident. Why imagine? Why not let the data speak for itself? People have had all sorts of reservations about allowing certain groups from joining, but the data has shown that those groups (black people, women, gay people) don't cause issues.

As of now, no it doesn't, but ED treatments didn't used to take up that much either. You do understand the point, right? Could someone in 1995 have predicted that treating old men with ED would cost as it does today? You can't accurately judge the cost of something 20 years later based on current trends.

If it becomes a problem at some point in the future, fine, reconsider policy, but for now ED meds aren't an issue, so trans meds are 5 times less of an issue.

For starters there's zero evidence to support the 'born that way' assertion about any sort of view of human sexuality. Second reality doesn't change because your feelings are hurt. The reality is that transsexual people are more prone to depression, suicide, and other mental health issues vs the general population. Finally, you have proved my point for me because if you can't stand people thinking things or saying 'hurtful' things about you how would you survive a high stressed career field where mistakes can kill your friends? If you can't stand people questioning your life decisions than the military isn't for you.

There have been many observed neurological differences between groups of cis and trans people. All I'm advocating a meritocracy, where people prove themselves capable based on their individual character. Isn't that what the military should be all about? You're judging people based on what you think might be true. Should everyone judge you based on generalized differences? Should I stereotype you based on generalities about women, Christians, and the military?

I like how the mind of a far liberal always jumps straight to racism, but I care about what reality says and not feelings. Do the stats show that those men who grow up in fatherless homes have an increased risk for crime or not completing high school? I like how you blame consertives for racism and flat ignore that others have argued for decades that the problems plaguing the black community are problems like increased fatherless homes that often lead to a lifetime of trouble. Now let's get on track here? Are transsexuals at an increased risk of mental health issues? Yes or no? Care to answer the question or do you want to keep calling people racist and proving my points for me?

Yes they are. Does that disqualify them? Men are more prone to rape, murder, steal. I guess men shouldn't be allowed in the military. Women are more prone to depression and PTSD. I guess women shouldn't be allowed in the military. Nobody gets to join because every group can be negatively generalized based on statistics.

Beyond one being caused by military service and the other isn't?

The origin doesn't matter. What matters is that you want people with a certain problem treated differently than people with another problem for no good reason. The military has people trained in medicine who can evaluate whether a problem is worth separation/discharge. Why do you think they're incapable of doing their job?

[Tassman]

It was a summary of how I saw their statement on why they changed the DSM 5.

It was a summary based upon bigoted personal ideology to avoid normalising LGBT folk. Much better to make out that they're all ill and sinfully deviant, right Bill?

That they changed the diagnosis to facilitate the comfort of the afflicted? Their own words. That removing the pathology designation strictly for the patient's comfort is non-scientific? Does that really need supporting evidence? Does that not speak for itself?

They removed the clinical diagnosis because several decades of research and clinical experience led all mainstream medical and mental health organisations to conclude it wasn't a pathological condition.

[lilpixieofterror]

I've addressed those points. For the former, that's a generalization based on a characteristic someone was born with and doesn't treat people as individuals. Also, following your logic, I could point to this study and say that women shouldn't be in the military because they are more prone to serious mental health issues. For the latter, I just don't see how gender dysphoria is different from any other condition.

And yet every industry uses trends based on your demographics because it's cheaper and much faster. Do you have any idea how much time and money it would cost to do individual psychological profiles? It's far cheaper and much faster to go off from demographics than it is to go into test for everyone. Funny thing is I already explained that to you and you seemed to flat ignore that answer. Second, you're not following my logic very well at all because women still have much lower risk of serious psychological issues vs transsexuals. Yet you keep ignoring that little fact, why?

So your issues are things you imagine might happen in spite of the fact that we have had a whole year of open service and our country's history of undisclosed service of transpeople without apparent incident. Why imagine?

An entire year is sure a lot of time to know this and you know there's never been any problems because you haven't heard of any? If you haven't noticed yet, the military isn't very open when it comes to discussing issues or problems within the ranks. Again something you would know if you had ever served.

Why not let the data speak for itself?

What data? An argument from silence from a place well known to hide issues and pretend all is well? You're going to have to do better then that.

People have had all sorts of reservations about allowing certain groups from joining, but the data has shown that those groups (black people, women, gay people) don't cause issues.

Already dealt with. Full desegregation took decades with all these groups you mention. Try again.

If it becomes a problem at some point in the future, fine, reconsider policy, but for now ED meds aren't an issue, so trans meds are 5 times less of an issue.

ED treatment is mostly given to old, retired men long ago separated from the military, so the situations are not even in the same ballpark.

There have been many observed neurological differences between groups of cis and trans people. All I'm advocating a meritocracy, where people prove themselves capable based on their individual character. Isn't that what the military should be all about?

No, the military is about fighting wars and winning them. It isn't a social justice warriors playground to play with. Mistakes cost lives in a military environment and the last thing thing that is need is a person that has issues.

You're judging people based on what you think might be true. Should everyone judge you based on generalized differences? Should I stereotype you based on generalities about women, Christians, and the military?

More brow beating because you can't refute the data, huh? This isn't about liking or disliking someone as it's about making sure that only the most capable candidates within the services. We don't need people breaking down at a critical moment and being a liability to themselves and others. And there is no time and not enough money to build psychological profiles for everyone wishing to join. How much do you think it would cost to build 50k or more psychological profiles? It's much faster and cheaper to simply go based on demographic trends. This isn't about icky people, but about the fact I'd rather not have to pick up a mother from the airport, so they can pick up their son or daughter, for their funeral.

Yes they are. Does that disqualify them? Men are more prone to rape, murder, steal. I guess men shouldn't be allowed in the military. Women are more prone to depression and PTSD. I guess women shouldn't be allowed in the military. Nobody gets to join because every group can be negatively generalized based on statistics.

Let's just let everyone in and screw standards. Please stop being stupid. We both know few men are rapist and few women suffer from depression, but it's not hard to see trans people have far higher cases of serious psychological issues vs the general population. As I have found, somewhere around 40% of transsexuals surveyed had signs of clinical depression. Do 40% of women have clinical depression? Are 40% of men rapist? See the issue yet? We're not talking a few percentages points, but around 2/5. Pretty big risk factor, isn't it?

The origin doesn't matter. What matters is that you want people with a certain problem treated differently than people with another problem for no good reason. The military has people trained in medicine who can evaluate whether a problem is worth separation/discharge. Why do you think they're incapable of doing their job?

Yeah the Origin does matter because service connected disability is indeed the government's job. Likewise how is that fair to everyone else? People can't help many conditions that bar them from service, so why the special treatment for your preferred group? Yet again, the military isn't a social justice warrior playground. It's there to defend the US from all enemies, foreign and domestic and if your dream is to join, but you can't due to a condition you have, well that sucks for you. Lots can't join either because life isn't always fair.

[Bill the Cat]

It was a summary based upon bigoted personal ideology to avoid normalising LGBT folk.

Well, they aren't normal, so...

Much better to make out that they're all ill and sinfully deviant, right Bill?

We are all sinners. Unlike most of them, I admit it.

They removed the clinical diagnosis because several decades of research and clinical experience led all mainstream medical and mental health organisations to conclude it wasn't a pathological condition.

False. I already cited why from the APA's own web site. It was so that they would feel more comfortable in their condition.

[Starlight]

Trump's transgender ban looks like it's going to cost a massive amount of money to implement:

“Fully implementing President Trump’s ban would cost $960 million in pursuit of saving $8.4 million per year.”

Those costs arise from the fact that healthcare for transgender soldiers (drugs and surgeries) is costing around $8.4 million per year, which is relatively tiny in the grand scheme of the Pentagon's healthcare budget for soldiers as previously discussed. While discharging the thousands of transgender soldiers currently in the military would mean that new soldiers need to be trained up to replace them and fill their positions, a process that is not particularly cheap, and overall would cost almost a billion dollars. As discussed in that article, that high cost does not include the high costs that will be associated with defending against the pending discrimination lawsuits that have been filed over Trump's decision.

So overall Trump's transgender ban is going to result in a substantial financial loss for the taxpayer and military, whereas Trump touted it as a money-saving measure.

[Bill the Cat]

Trump's transgender ban looks like it's going to cost a massive amount of money to implement:

“Fully implementing President Trump’s ban would cost $960 million in pursuit of saving $8.4 million per year.”

Those costs arise from the fact that healthcare for transgender soldiers (drugs and surgeries) is costing around $8.4 million per year, which is relatively tiny in the grand scheme of the Pentagon's healthcare budget for soldiers as previously discussed. While discharging the thousands of transgender soldiers currently in the military would mean that new soldiers need to be trained up to replace them and fill their positions, a process that is not particularly cheap, and overall would cost almost a billion dollars. As discussed in that article, that high cost does not include the high costs that will be associated with defending against the pending discrimination lawsuits that have been filed over Trump's decision.

So overall Trump's transgender ban is going to result in a substantial financial loss for the taxpayer and military, whereas Trump touted it as a money-saving measure.

What a hoot!! The military recruits people all the time! They replace all kinds of people. God, you idiots just won't stop with your overblown context-devoid stats...

[Terraceth]

Trump's transgender ban looks like it's going to cost a massive amount of money to implement:

“Fully implementing President Trump’s ban would cost $960 million in pursuit of saving $8.4 million per year.”

Those costs arise from the fact that healthcare for transgender soldiers (drugs and surgeries) is costing around $8.4 million per year, which is relatively tiny in the grand scheme of the Pentagon's healthcare budget for soldiers as previously discussed. While discharging the thousands of transgender soldiers currently in the military would mean that new soldiers need to be trained up to replace them and fill their positions, a process that is not particularly cheap, and overall would cost almost a billion dollars. As discussed in that article, that high cost does not include the high costs that will be associated with defending against the pending discrimination lawsuits that have been filed over Trump's decision.

So overall Trump's transgender ban is going to result in a substantial financial loss for the taxpayer and military, whereas Trump touted it as a money-saving measure.

"It is a reasonable assumption that military would have to recruit and train thousands of people just to replace those who would be forcibly discharged under a ban, therefore the total price must include the costs of adequately training their replacements."

In what way is this a reasonable assumption? It claims that it would have to replace those with new recruits, but the military already brings in new recruits. The assumption seems to be that the military would have to get more on top of those, but as my understanding is the military is actually in need of more recruits than it gets (I remember there being controversies a while ago about how some recruiters would resort to illegitimate tactics to get people recruited because they were desperate to fill their quotas, indicating the military can't just recruit extra people on a whim because of a lack of people applying), so that doesn't make sense. I suppose someone could argue that the dismissal would leave the army short-staffed, but that's a completely different argument, and let's be honest, if anything the US military could stand to have its budget cut and membership reduced. Might result in fewer ill-advised wars.

"He predicted that there will be law suits, expensive lawsuits. In fact LGBT legal groups have already initiated a lawsuit seeking to enjoin enforcement of the ban. The National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders on behalf of five anonymous transgender service members identified as “Jane Doe.” Filed a 15-page complaint last Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia"

This one makes more sense. Indeed, it seems it would make more sense as a policy change to bar future transgender people from serving in the military rather than removing those already in it, as it would lead to fewer legal difficulties, for example no one could make an estoppel claim.

[Tassman]

What a hoot!! The military recruits people all the time! They replace all kinds of people. God, you idiots just won't stop with your overblown context-devoid stats...

The “hoot” is that the whole issue arose not from the military, but from a Trump tweet pandering to bigots like you. In short, it was yet another desperate attempt to retain his ever dwindling support among his core voters, namely the stupid part of America.

[Sparko]

Trump's transgender ban looks like it's going to cost a massive amount of money to implement:

“Fully implementing President Trump’s ban would cost $960 million in pursuit of saving $8.4 million per year.”

Those costs arise from the fact that healthcare for transgender soldiers (drugs and surgeries) is costing around $8.4 million per year, which is relatively tiny in the grand scheme of the Pentagon's healthcare budget for soldiers as previously discussed. While discharging the thousands of transgender soldiers currently in the military would mean that new soldiers need to be trained up to replace them and fill their positions, a process that is not particularly cheap, and overall would cost almost a billion dollars. As discussed in that article, that high cost does not include the high costs that will be associated with defending against the pending discrimination lawsuits that have been filed over Trump's decision.

So overall Trump's transgender ban is going to result in a substantial financial loss for the taxpayer and military, whereas Trump touted it as a money-saving measure.

uh what?

Because there are that many transgenders in the military that they would have to have a special hiring frenzy?

[Roy]

uh what?

Because there are that many transgenders in the military that they would have to have a special hiring frenzy?

More than 12,000 apparently - and 12,000 replacements costing $75,000 each is $900,000,000.

The arithmetic is correct.

12,000 people is 0.1% of the total US armed forces, which is a lot lower than the estimated 0.5% of US adults. Probably not too far off.

$75,000 for training each replacement is harder to justify, since training costs vary so much depending on role. One NBC article gives the cost of recruiting and training a marine at $44,000, and an engineer office at $340,000. So it's the right order of magnitude for cost.

The armed forces annual recruitment/training budget seems to be about $16,000,000,000, so this would require an additional 5% on that budget for next year - this is a little high for replacing an extra 0.1% of the armed forces (~3.4% instead of ~3.3% annual turnover, assuming a 30-year average career), but not excessively so.

This passes the basic sanity checks. It would cost about that much to recruit and train replacements.

And even if the cost was less, it certainly wouldn't be the 99% less that it would need to be to break even with the quoted cost saving, let alone reduce costs.

[Sparko]

More than 12,000 apparently - and 12,000 replacements costing $75,000 each is $900,000,000.

The arithmetic is correct.

12,000 people is 0.1% of the total US armed forces, which is a lot lower than the estimated 0.5% of US adults. Probably not too far off.

$75,000 for training each replacement is harder to justify, since training costs vary so much depending on role. One NBC article gives the cost of recruiting and training a marine at $44,000, and an engineer office at $340,000. So it's the right order of magnitude for cost.

The armed forces annual recruitment/training budget seems to be about $16,000,000,000, so this would require an additional 5% on that budget for next year - this is a little high for replacing an extra 0.1% of the armed forces (~3.4% instead of ~3.3% annual turnover, assuming a 30-year average career), but not excessively so.

This passes the basic sanity checks. It would cost about that much to recruit and train replacements.

And even if the cost was less, it certainly wouldn't be the 99% less that it would need to be to break even with the quoted cost saving, let alone reduce costs.

yeah I question that number. But even if it is true, you are talking about 12K out of what? 1.2 Million military? The average year's recruitment is over 180,000. It is not like they have to replace these people. Some maybe, but it would just be like any company, someone lower down moves up and takes their place. a promotion. it happens all the time. People join the military and people leave the military.