Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Trump announces transgender people cannot serve in US military Watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Don't really see why everyone is up in arms over this - surely virtually all transsexuals are far-left and anti-military in the first place?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dot.Cotton)
    Don't really see why everyone is up in arms over this - surely virtually all transsexuals are far-left and anti-military in the first place?
    Ofc our resident troll would pipe up almost immediately.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dot.Cotton)
    Don't really see why everyone is up in arms over this - surely virtually all transsexuals are far-left and anti-military in the first place?
    Political orientation is irrelevant. As for their anti-military stance, this thread is about those who, you know, serve in the military. I imagine they're quite happy with it.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dot.Cotton)
    Don't really see why everyone is up in arms over this - surely virtually all transsexuals are far-left and anti-military in the first place?
    What utter nonsense. Someone's gender identity does not come with the baggage of a political leaning. Don't be ridiculous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can't say I agree with the President that they shouldn't be able to serve at all, in fact that's a pretty absurd position to take. But I do have a lot of sympathy for the argument, which is made by many senior military officials, that transgender people should not serve on the front-line. Indeed, I think you can make a similar argument against women serving on the front-line. Ultimately the military has to be fully effective in battle and not a poster child for political correctness, it is a valid argument that transgender people and women on the front-line could hamper fighting capability.

    But transgender people should be able to serve in the military in other capacities and stopping them from doing so would be hard to justify.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    To be fair when hearing the reason why it actually makes sense.
    • Reporter Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Londonsfinest)
    To be fair when hearing the reason why it actually makes sense.
    As explained in the previous page, it really doesn't. The cost is a minuscule percentage of the military's budget, on the scale of potential money saving measures this isn't even on the radar. This is just Trump pandering to the most socially conservative Americans to consolidate his support among them as he haemorrhages support everywhere else.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    Exactly. I can't do what I want to do, so I"ll do a dog-whistle gesture to make it look like I'm strong and in control.
    And make an awful lot of lawyers very happy.

    It is estimated there are 7,000 relevant lawsuits people serving in the US military.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrDystopia)
    Political orientation is irrelevant. As for their anti-military stance, this thread is about those who, you know, serve in the military. I imagine they're quite happy with it.
    (Original post by Paracosm)
    What utter nonsense. Someone's gender identity does not come with the baggage of a political leaning. Don't be ridiculous.
    PRSOM.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Cant see why people would be surprised. Its a distraction and just a political move. he can sacrifice and stamp on a few transgenders which will appeal to his supports and annoy his opponents plus he gets to dismantle another bit of Obama policy. The cost issue seems a little disingenuous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yet he still lets muslims serve... wtf is that about. He is so homophobic its unreal.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pancakes<3)
    If transgender people are costing the military an extortionate amount of money then perhaps this is the best option until such a time when the military can afford it.
    That's a ******** excuse.For one thing how many transgender people are in the military exactly? It's hardly thousands.Probably not even hundreds.It can't possibly cost that much.And for another the us military has more money spent on it than any other advanced nation.Triple the amount spent by the next nation in the list.The military can afford it this is just trump being small minded and petty pandering to the right wing republicans.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    Exactly. I can't do what I want to do, so I"ll do a dog-whistle gesture to make it look like I'm strong and in control.
    Well you know what they say.

    If you can hear the dog whistle, you're the dog.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dot.Cotton)
    Don't really see why everyone is up in arms over this - surely virtually all transsexuals are far-left and anti-military in the first place?
    WTH, it seems you are generalising and placing a large group of people into one bucket!
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see how being transgender makes one less capable to serve in the military. I don't really understand this 'cost' argument, it doesn't really add up.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chelseadagg3r)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40729996

    Please take the time to check out the community guidelines. Rule breaking posts will be dealt with as appropriate
    So agree or don't say anything people might not like because it doesn't embrace transgender? Anyone who feels the need to quote community guidelines at people has already made their mind up on their reaction to the debate.

    As for the point being made, the interesting argument was 'the distraction and cost of mandatory PC training'. This may be more relevant than the medical costs - if transgender people were to be in the army as any other soldier is that's fine. Anyone has a right to be a soldier. But does the administration have a point in saying soldiers don't have time to learn their pronouns and what they may and may not say - it's making the job unnecessarily difficult.

    I don't agree with his decision at all, as the simple way to solve it is that you don't need the referenced PC training and just let them crack on as soldiers like any other person who joins. In today's culture his point - whilst a scapegoat - is sadly relevant, and he's using it as a smokescreen to justify what amounts to petty revenge on Obama for all the directives he can't halt and a way to appeal to his core voter base.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    So agree or don't say anything people might not like because it doesn't embrace transgender? Anyone who feels the need to quote community guidelines at people has already made their mind up on their reaction to the debate.

    As for the point being made, the interesting argument was 'the distraction and cost of mandatory PC training'. This may be more relevant than the medical costs - if transgender people were to be in the army as any other soldier is that's fine. Anyone has a right to be a soldier. But does the administration have a point in saying soldiers don't have time to learn their pronouns and what they may and may not say - it's making the job unnecessarily difficult.

    I don't agree with his decision at all, as the simple way to solve it is that you don't need the referenced PC training and just let them crack on as soldiers like any other person who joins. In today's culture his point - whilst a scapegoat - is sadly relevant, and he's using it as a smokescreen to justify what amounts to petty revenge on Obama for all the directives he can't halt and a way to appeal to his core voter base.
    No, I added it in because I've seen first hand a large number of times the direction threads like this can go into and I'd rather not sit up through the night (again) reporting all of the incredibly offensive and targeting messages that any even mildly controversial story can attract. After seeing the kind of comments posted elsewhere, I just threw it in.

    I do agree with your last point though about it being petty and more of a dig to Obama. He seems to be doing more to reverse what Obama did to make his people happy than implementing his own ideas
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chelseadagg3r)
    No, I added it in because I've seen first hand a large number of times the direction threads like this can go into and I'd rather not sit up through the night (again) reporting all of the incredibly offensive and targeting messages that any even mildly controversial story can attract. After seeing the kind of comments posted elsewhere, I just threw it in.

    I do agree with your last point though about it being petty and more of a dig to Obama. He seems to be doing more to reverse what Obama did to make his people happy than implementing his own ideas
    Perhaps I misread. I still maintain the best way to deal with stupid opinions is to let people air them so they can be taken to task rather than bury them with 'community guidelines'. It just fuels the fire as people go 'see censorship' instead of seeing the utter stupidity they wouldn't have agreed with anyway.

    That's been his MO recently, ruin anything Obama did. I still think it was because Obama snubbed him once - he strikes me as that kind of person
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    Well you know what they say.

    If you can hear the dog whistle, you're the dog.
    Or the whistle isn't very subtle...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    Perhaps I misread. I still maintain the best way to deal with stupid opinions is to let people air them so they can be taken to task rather than bury them with 'community guidelines'. It just fuels the fire as people go 'see censorship' instead of seeing the utter stupidity they wouldn't have agreed with anyway.

    That's been his MO recently, ruin anything Obama did. I still think it was because Obama snubbed him once - he strikes me as that kind of person
    This doesn't work in the echo chamber of modern social media.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 3, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.