Former Green Beret Response to Kristen Beck (Transgender Former SEAL)

garthfreeman (56) · 7 years ago

I like this reply. Did you post it somewhere he would see it? Is he on Steemit?

To me, this seems like obvious propaganda. I'm not Trump supporter, but this seems like a manufactured story to get more people to hate him. I served, not in SpecOps, yet I can't imagine this would have gone down well in a standard artillery unit, either.

Seriously, we had enough problems with guys who everyone considered a little effeminate. I can't imagine what kind of crap would have happened to a tranny.

Another thing nobody really talks about is sex. When I was deployed overseas in areas there were females, we had no end to the trouble caused by men going into the female barracks and vice versa. It was constant. Now, where would you put these tranny's and what's the rules about sex? It's not a non-issue. The UCMJ has laws about that sort of thing, and what do you call it when someone has sex with a tranny? Is it only sodomy when he's pre-op? What about a she who has a penis? Can she have sex with a man?

These things have real impact on mission readiness. Mission readiness = less casualties. It's that simple IMO.

$0.54

blakemiles84 (67) · 7 years ago

this seems like a manufactured story to get more people to hate him.

Makes more sense than anything else... though I think President Trump did this to make the media dance like a puppet as usual.

I served, not in SpecOps, yet I can't imagine this would have gone down well in a standard artillery unit, either. Seriously, we had enough problems with guys who everyone considered a little effeminate. I can't imagine what kind of crap would have happened to a tranny.

TBH -- line units would be even worse, by my guess. Identification and exploitation of weaknesses/differences in others is the name of the game. I went through infantry basic and I know arty basic was probably similar. I knew guys who came from infantry and arty line units... the identification and exploitation process is an art form for those guys, especially since they have to mold privates fresh from basic to inculcate them into the unit culture.

The UCMJ has laws about that sort of thing, and what do you call it when someone has sex with a tranny? Is it only sodomy when he's pre-op? What about a she who has a penis? Can she have sex with a man?

Holy hell... I didn't even begin to consider that side of things.

$0.00

trumpman (72) · 7 years ago (edited)

"Makes more sense than anything else... though I think President Trump did this to make the media dance like a puppet as usual."

Just another day playing 4D underwater Backgammon:

$0.00

blakemiles84 (67) · 7 years ago

Hm. that looks like my favorite Norwegian antique phone restoration board!!

also, i agree :P

$0.00

daut44 (63) · 7 years ago (edited)

Who said anything about getting a sex change while serving? And is everyone in the military a SEAL?

The military is likely the largest employer of transgendered people in the country (estimated over 15k) as there are many different capacities people can choose to serve their country. Not to mention, studies show that allowing transgendered people to serve has little to no costs or effect on readiness.

Trump is doing this for political reasons: to try and secure votes in homophobic, midwest states. Not to cut costs.

edited because I came off like a total ass :)

$0.34

4 votes

blakemiles84 (67) · 7 years ago

I keep hearing this 15k number but it sounds WAY too conflated. Source?

I found this -- https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1530.html

There Are an Estimated 1,320–6,630 Transgender Service Members in the Active Component, but Not All Will Seek Gender Transition–Related Treatment

As far as the RAND study, I haven't read it completely, yet but consider this one of many experience-based challenges to that study... which was paid for by an administration that had the policy enacted before this study was even completed (report was commissioned in 2015).

Snippet from the report:

Similarly, when considering the impact on readiness, we found that using either
the prevalence-based approach or the utilization-based approach yielded an estimate of
less than 0.0015 percent of total labor-years likely to be affected by a change in policy.
This is much smaller than the current lost labor-years due to medical care in the Army
alone.
Even if transgender personnel serve in the military at twice the rate of their prevalence
in the general population and we use the upper-bound rates of health care utilization,
the total proportion of the force that is transgender and would seek treatment
would be less than 0.1 percent, with fewer than 130 AC surgical cases per year even
at the highest utilization rates. Given this, true usage rates from civilian case studies
imply only 30 treatments in the AC, suggesting that the total number of individuals
seeking treatment may be substantially smaller than 0.1 percent of the total force.
Thus, we estimate the impact on readiness to be negligible.

Summation: We should do this because there's really not that many of them so although there would be a detrimental impact, the number is so small no one will notice or care.

This is a very dumb reason to justify a situation that could have an impact on lives. This isn't like letting a demographic of people into a book club.

$0.18

daut44 (63) · 7 years ago (edited)

I've seen a few different stats linked, a UCLA Law School study claimed the number 15500, RAND study estimates ~4k, who knows what the real number is. But the actual number, however small it is, is besides the point.

Here is what I'm concerned about:

General Mattis, the secretary of defense, has been looking into this and said that it would require 6 more months of weighing the pros and cons, yet Trump went ahead and made this decision on twitter without notifying Mattis or the Joint Chiefs. Of course they made sure not to contradict him, but they will not change any policy until they receive a formal order.
The extra cost per transgendered military employee is roughly $1000. Given the RAND statistics, this is an extra $4M a year in costs, which is less than 15% of what the president has spent on personal trips to Mar-a-Lago in 7 months as president. This is a very small price to pay to avoid discriminating against the entire LGBTQ community as well as their cisgendered advocates.
This is the same argument that has been made every time a new group wants to join the military: "it is distracting and prevents us from readiness having to deal with ____ joining the military". You can insert a wide variety of groups into the _____ from the last couple hundred years.
The military is a huge sector with many varied jobs. Not everyone in the military is in special forces or a SEAL.
Transgendered people who are currently in the military have to worry about a dishonorable discharge that could prevent them from ever working for the government again.
There are possibly other solutions besides outright banning transgendered from the military, like out of pocket pay to lower the costs. I don't really know the legality of this approach, but it's worth mentioning.
It's worth hearing stories of ex and current military people who are transgendered about this. The daily show smartly decided to not just poke fun or say fuck you to trump and did a segment interviewing two transgendered officers last night: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/07/27/the_daily_show_interviews_transgender_veterans_about_trump_s_ban_video.html

All in all, this is a somewhat complicated issue, because in the end it does cost more ($1000 avg) to allow a transgendered person to join the army than a cisgendered person, but it's still discrimination, and the method by which it was announced could not have been more unprofessional or impulsive. If Mattis and other Generals had deliberated for 6 months and reluctantly came to a conclusion similar to Trump's it would be one thing, but they did not. This needs to be fleshed out and discussed, not made rashly for obvious political reasons.

$0.96

wakeupnd (68) · 7 years ago

Good post. Clearly having trans people, genderless, transdolphin or whatever the fuck they call themselves will complicate bathroom and sleeping arrangements along with fitness requirements. Ultimately a distraction and making the military a less effective fighting force.

Joining the military is a privilege and not a right that's why they have age and health restrictions not everyone can server because they want the best of the best to fight for our country.

$0.23

guiltyparties (70) · 7 years ago

I remember there was a transgendered soldier on one of the bases I've been stationed on. No one gave much of a shit about his/her gender, sat in the smoking area with the rest of us. What everyone did wonder about is if army money paid for the sex change while some of us couldn't get basic rehab. Not wondering in any malicious way against that individual, just where funding priorities lie.

$0.21

amberyooper (69) · 7 years ago

The military, and the V.A. does not pay for surgeries related to sex change. The V.A. does provide medical care for transgender veterans, but not sex change specific surgery.

$0.00

guiltyparties (70) · 7 years ago

Interesting, didn't know that.

$0.00

agro189 (39) · 7 years ago

Here's the problem with what you're saying. Those issues you bring up should be selected for through the fire that is the training. Trump made the decree that Trans are banned. Trains is an identity, not an action. If a person identifies as trans but never has the intention to undergo surgery, that person would still be banned. Also, nothing about this has any bearing on who has to pay for the surgery. Quite frankly I don't think that tax dollars should go to the procedure, I see it as an elective surgery/non essential surgery / the same way replacing a dead front tooth is considered by insurance to be elective - it sucks and you don't present yourself in the way you would like, but it's not going to directly cause you harm not to have it done.

$0.21

blakemiles84 (67) · 7 years ago

Those issues you bring up should be selected for through the fire that is the training.

Introducing additional extra-ordinary (in the specific definition of that phrase) complications to an already challenging situation is a waste of limited resources (time, manpower, energy). What would be the added benefit, aside from introducing a demographic that is <0.01% of the available population for the sake of introducing them?

Trains is an identity, not an action

Not according to the doctors who qualify/disqualify based on medical assessments. There are only two genders in the military and that is based on objective medical observation, genitalia, and chromosome make-up

If a person identifies as trans but never has the intention to undergo surgery, that person would still be banned.

If they don't say so during the enlistment process, how would it be known? Unless you're arguing for the "Male/Female" question as part of the enlistment process being eliminated? What would the medical assessments be based on? Choice, genitalia, chromosomes... or other?

Quite frankly I don't think that tax dollars should go to the procedure,

Agreed

I see it as an elective surgery/non essential surgery / the same way replacing a dead front tooth is considered by insurance to be elective

Actually, a dead front tooth could impair someones mission readiness, depending on the medical assessment

it sucks and you don't present yourself in the way you would like, but it's not going to directly cause you harm not to have it done.

Comparing a dead tooth to a serious medical procedure that removes genitals is a stretch, especially when one has long-lasting requirements to maintain care (based on my research)

$0.00

agro189 (39) · 7 years ago

A few quick points - by going into the substantice details regarding the how, you are going into way more detail than what the president gave in his statement. This is similar to the "Muslim Ban" Trump kept repeating that it was a Muslim ban, but in reality it was increased scrutiny from a handful of countries. But on the same day as the AG argues the finer points on this, Trump doubles down and declares that it is in fact a Muslim ban.

Obviously there are going to be ways to get around this for a particularly ardent individual but by his statement, Trump is prohibiting a class of people from an entire sector of government. to me, it is irrelevant that this is likely to be walked back in its application, the President of the United States issued a degree that Trans people are no longer permitted to serve in the military.

Even taking the polarizing aspects of this out of the equation, the fact clearly remains that a group who Trump Championed and used his support of as an attack on his opponent, the LGBT community, he has now betrayed that community with this action. There is no way around that.

To my point about a tooth, first, certainly didn't mean that in a military context, I meant that from an insurance perspective and how they differentiate between necessary and elective surgery. I can tell you from personal experience that correcting a dead miscolored tooth is not covered by dental insurance because it is deemed as elective. The reason I included this was to innoculate my characterization of a gender surgery as elective by grounding it in an objective reality of insurance policy, to demonstrate how high that bar can be.

$0.00

fitzgibbon (61) · 7 years ago (edited)

So good to see that some actually understand decent policy proposals and are not swept away by the emotions stemming from a one in a million story. Thanks for the support, it's nice.

$0.21

blakemiles84 (67) · 7 years ago

$0.00

cryptologyx (51) · 7 years ago

L O frig'n L ...good one!

Just try'n to figure out this curation gig thing so saw how the first three comments came down.

$0.11

gniksivart (67) · 7 years ago

By turning this into an issue is the very reason I think gives the military justification to do this. It prooves that this issue is something that will just be a distraction in the millitary.

$0.20

blakemiles84 (67) · 7 years ago

Very interesting... what came first, the distraction of the conflation of the issue? :)

$0.00

gniksivart (67) · 7 years ago

By allowing the issue to become a distraction is just hurting the whole

$0.00

blakemiles84 (67) · 7 years ago

depends on what dimension your chess game is. President Trump has an uncanny ability to be a number of moves ahead of his detractors. Time will tell.

I could easily make the argue for the wisdom in this...

$0.00

agro189 (39) · 7 years ago

It's only a distraction if you forget about the plethora of treasons he's committing

$0.00

cryptologyx (51) · 7 years ago (edited)

Hard to really tell the tyrants from the tea-leaf readers anymore.

You are bang on about the combat readiness being the only thing that matters. Through training all the way to getting back home in a sound state of mind and body. Or, sadly and much too underappreciated, with whatever they've got left of their former selves as humanly possible. ✌️

$0.11

blakemiles84 (67) · 7 years ago

Pretty solid summation. Thank you!

$0.00

cryptologyx (51) · 7 years ago (edited)

I should say that I'm not opposed to anyone serving in a capacity of logistics and support. Simply put, those who are in clear and present danger need to be able to work as a cohesive unit(s).

I believe the parents, siblings and loved ones of all who choose to serve would expect everything possible is being done to increase the odds of a safe return.

War is a racket, I trained as rad-op in the Canadian navy...only to demand release from my six year obligation within six months. I respectfully declined the offer of Royal Roads MC here on the island and was granted immediate honourable discharge as a non-conformist.

It was 1979...a brief time of relative calm although tensions were kept to allow continued growth of the military industrial complex. As it ever was and is.

This makes me a veteran by the book but I have never played myself as a true veteran of the military, even though I suffered the aftermath of my own decisions and ended up a homeless vagabond...more by choice than happenstance.

            ~may all hatred cease...let there be peace~

$0.00

grizgal (55) · 7 years ago

You Americans seem to get so upset about who does the doing instead of what they are actually capable of doing. I was similar when I joined up, but I got over it. In my view, if an individual can fulfil the requirements of the role, whatever that may be (and some roles are more physical and mentally demanding than others), they should be allowed to perform said role, regardless of sex, sexual orientation etc etc. We are living in the 21st Century for Christ sake!

$0.00

blakemiles84 (67) · 7 years ago

"You Americans..."

I almost stopped reading because your mind is obviously made up. Did you even read what I wrote?

Regardless of what century we live in, X and Y chromosomes still exist and still have an impact on objective medical standards.

$0.00

grizgal (55) · 7 years ago

I read the entire article and I agree X and Y make a difference. But if an individual from which ever group you or they choose to associate can meet the medical/ physical standards for any given role, let them do it.

I have spent 20 years in the military and all the stuff about 'Tranny teams' etc is just banter. I remember a front page newspaper article about a cross dresser years ago, that was framed and had pride of place in many a Mess!

At the end of the day, if you can do the job and can prove you can do the job, you are accepted. If you are a little different it may take a little longer and be a little harder but in my experience you are still accepted.

(and I apologise for the 'You Americans' comment. I have just read so many American articles stating why an individual is incapable of doing a job, rather than treating them as an individual and letting them pass or fail on their own merits!)

$0.20

blakemiles84 (67) · 7 years ago

Well, this is similar to the discussion of women in combat arms roles/SOF.

The problem with the "if you can do the job and can prove you can do the job, you are accepted" argument is that it never stays that way.

The US Army Airborne school was known as a difficult course before standards changed. You can tie the standards being changed directly to the introduction of women into the course, the consequential high-washout rate, and arguments by politicians and bureaucrats to create gender normative standards and/or lower the universal standards to increase the 'success' rates.

Now, this isn't me saying "women shouldn't be allowed to go to Airborne school", or even necessarily that women shouldn't be in combat arms or SOF.

I realize this is a 'slippery slope' argument, but its based on historical context and I see no reason it won't happen again.

This is a political problem being used as a 'combat readiness' problem, when in reality, its an attempt of a political solution to solve a problem that is purely political at the expense of combat readiness.

As far as the 'just banter' point, I agree it is just banter. However, it changes the dynamics of the culture and introduces unnecessary friction -- aka distractions -- into an extremely dynamic, demanding environment, particularly in combat arms and SOF roles.

$0.08

grizgal (55) · 7 years ago

I agree completely that it can be the start of a decrease in standards. I have seen exactly that in the past, but I feel that is a different argument (and one I think I would agree with you on). If a role requires a set standard of fitness, that should be the standard, otherwise you are endangering the individual as well as the rest of the team. If an individual can meet those standards, they should be accepted regardless. If an individual cannot meet the standards, they should not be accepted. In the UK we have had split standards for years, with men and women having separate physical targets to meet. I feel this is wrong. If job A requires a certain standard, that is what is required. It does not vary up or down dependent on sex etc.

I feel many of these 'issues' are blown out of all proportion to the issue at hand, because its great for the media to play on it. If the stated figure of 15k trans individuals in the US forces (approx. size of 1.5m) is anything to go by (don't kill me for incorrect figures), then that's only 1%. I suspect most people wouldn't even notice.

I used to be quite prejudiced 20 years or so ago but over the years I have been surprised and I would rather treat everyone as an individual and let them impress or disappoint me on their own merits than try and prejudge.

$0.00

blakemiles84 (67) · 7 years ago

I don't care what people do on their own time, as long as it doesn't harm others.

But free society != military. Standards are the glue of big organizations by which metrics and 'success' can be measured. Saying that transgenders aren't allowed to enlist/commission is by definition a standard. A line has to be drawn somewhere. This makes it simple from a leadership perspective.

Plus, I would be ripping my fucking hair out with all the new 'required training briefings' that undoubtedly came from this.

$0.00

grizgal (55) · 7 years ago

The military is supposed to reflect the society it is supposed to represent. I agree that standards are the glue etc but I don't agree that excluding a portion of society can be deemed to be a standard (or not one worthy of an organisation such as the US Armed Forces).

I completely agree on the briefings point, but that is just the military going overboard on a new policy etc (which they do on everything). There is not enough time in the day to actually attend every mandatory brief and read every mandatory manual!!

I used to think exactly like you and maybe I got old but I saw some stuff and changed my perspective and mellowed a little. I don't think we are going to agree on this but I respect your opinion! I do think it is something you'll have to accept in the next few years though, regardless of what Trump says.

$0.00

belerophon (56) · 7 years ago

I swear someone has been dripping LSD into the American water supply.

$0.00

cfh (44) · 7 years ago (edited)

You're free to choose your gender, the army is free to not choose you. This is the land of the free. Freedom! As a trans myself, I applause this law.

$0.00

mcsamm (71) · 7 years ago

hmmmm

$0.00

blessedman939 (64) · 7 years ago

What if the sex change had been done before joining the millitary?

$0.00

cryptologyx (51) · 7 years ago (edited)

One would think the "no tell" rule applies. Rarely can that rule stand up to the test of bonding during training. imo

$0.00

blakemiles84 (67) · 7 years ago

a) it would be discovered during the recruiting process OR
b) it would DEFINITELY be discovered during the physical
c) it would change the dynamics of all relationships and interactions with the individual during training

people are barred from enlistment permanently for certain psychological diagnoses and medication past the age of 12; asthma; ADHD meds; certain criminal convictions; etc. This doesn't even mention gender-specific disqualifiers and requirements.

lots of variables with that question, though it would certainly change the dynamics. Based on what I've read about the procedure of a male-to-female transition, there could be serious medical complications.

note: I spent time as a recruiter as well.

$0.00

amberyooper (69) · 7 years ago

What does the military do in the case of a person who has an XXY chromosome instead of XX or XY? The XXY configuration is well documented in the medical field. There are also other non-standard chromosome configurations that people are born with.
What would the military say to an intersex person who wanted to join? Most intersex people have incomplete genitalia, some intersex people have some genitalia from both sexes, they are born that way.

$0.22

blakemiles84 (67) · 7 years ago

tbqh I'd have to look at the enlistment regulations. They would likely need a medical waiver, meaning they are technically ineligible for enlistment without the waiver. I can't remember the specific reg for medical criteria, but I'm guessing it would be in there.

Bottom line, it would be known during the enlistment physical at a minimum. Those docs throw people out for all sorts of stupid reasons. I can't imagine this would fly.

$0.00

amberyooper (69) · 7 years ago

Yes, it would be pretty obvious at the enlistment physical in most cases.

$0.00

darkfacexdd (30) · 7 years ago

o.O Curioso.

$0.00