Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 78

Thread: Meet the Fort Meade trans women fighting the military’s ban

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    131
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SeaLawyer View Post
    https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-..._source=clavis

    "She also said she is suffering physical problems related with inadequate follow-up care to gender-reassignment surgery."

    Another reason trans-genders shouldn't be allowed to serve... Will He/She/It try to claim VA disability for this now? If He/She/It were still on active duty, the time spent in medical could be exhaustive on the troops having to pick up the slack.
    You know, if he/she had only been a SEAL, he/she would be bravely, valiantly performing missions that most of us hate mongering, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, deplorable Christian conservative, Rush-loving trans-phobes couldn't even fathom!

  2. #32
    Senior Member meatbringer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    murica
    Posts
    251
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS View Post
    I will check out your article, but let's get one thing clear concerning "...people like you"? You have no idea who/what I believe or support outside of the trans or CCAF discussion. I've worked with gays/lesbians (in AGSs, flying sqs, EMSs, MXSs, AMXSs, MXGs, etc) long before and after DADT, have a few gay/lesbian friends that I've known for many years, and even know of one gay person who thinks trans people should be gay/lesbian, not trans. Imagine that? How dare THOSE people!

    Perhaps YOU should do a little research on your own to LEARN that there are people like me who have varied opinions depending on the subject. The world isn't as black and white as Fox people vs MSNBC people....or perhaps "People like you" refuse to believe that.
    Sorry you were so offended. I merely meant people who are uninformed in the matter, uncomfortable by transgender, automatically label them as "pretending" or mentally unstable, and people who refuse to educate themselves regarding the subject. You have admitted to all of these multiple times now. I never brought up anything else you mentioned.

  3. #33
    Senior Member meatbringer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    murica
    Posts
    251
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SeaLawyer View Post
    https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-..._source=clavis

    "She also said she is suffering physical problems related with inadequate follow-up care to gender-reassignment surgery."

    Another reason trans-genders shouldn't be allowed to serve... Will He/She/It try to claim VA disability for this now? If He/She/It were still on active duty, the time spent in medical could be exhaustive on the troops having to pick up the slack.
    If it were any other kind of surgery would you have a problem with it? What does the type of surgery matter if the issue lies with inadequate care or follow ups? I know of about 100 fat rednecks who claim disability because they never took care of themselves throughout their career due to eating garbage, not exercising, excessive drinking or smoking, and just shitty practices in general. So now they have bad knees, bad backs, breathing issues, you name it... Are you seriously worried about one transgender person who might run into issues and someone having to pick up the slack? Meanwhile, we're sitting at about 60% deployable rate at one of our units due to health related waivers, failed PT tests, sleep apnea, etc.

    But yeah, let's worry about the .0001% transgender troops who may have some issues. lol Christ.....

  4. #34
    Senior Member SeaLawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Here, There, and Everywhere
    Posts
    140
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meatbringer View Post
    If it were any other kind of surgery would you have a problem with it? What does the type of surgery matter if the issue lies with inadequate care or follow ups? I know of about 100 fat rednecks who claim disability because they never took care of themselves throughout their career due to eating garbage, not exercising, excessive drinking or smoking, and just shitty practices in general. So now they have bad knees, bad backs, breathing issues, you name it... Are you seriously worried about one transgender person who might run into issues and someone having to pick up the slack? Meanwhile, we're sitting at about 60% deployable rate at one of our units due to health related waivers, failed PT tests, sleep apnea, etc.

    But yeah, let's worry about the .0001% transgender troops who may have some issues. lol Christ.....
    OK, MeatFlinger, let's take a step back and revisit your scientific/genetically-born hypothesis. If what you're saying is true, then it's a pre-existing condition--like my ADHD scenario I mentioned.

    Personally, I could care less what gender they choose as long as they can perform the job and not falter in the line of duty.

    Setting your VA Rednecks aside, it's a gamed system and we know it. IMO this just opens the doors to a new wave of issues not just for the military but for the VA as well. In short, the military just isn't a place for people suffering from a gender-identity crisis. It's a distraction to all the others serving whether it's a distraction to the LGBT or not.

  5. #35
    Senior Member meatbringer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    murica
    Posts
    251
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SeaLawyer View Post
    OK, MeatFlinger, let's take a step back and revisit your scientific/genetically-born hypothesis. If what you're saying is true, then it's a pre-existing condition--like my ADHD scenario I mentioned.

    Personally, I could care less what gender they choose as long as they can perform the job and not falter in the line of duty.

    Setting your VA Rednecks aside, it's a gamed system and we know it. IMO this just opens the doors to a new wave of issues not just for the military but for the VA as well. In short, the military just isn't a place for people suffering from a gender-identity crisis. It's a distraction to all the others serving whether it's a distraction to the LGBT or not.
    "Meatfinger..." Classic. So what transgender people can't perform their duties? So far, as has been mentioned by myself and others on this forum, they can perform their jobs just as much as anyone else serving. Don't even take my word for it, just listen to each branch's leadership and advisors. Seriously, listen to the leadership throughout the entire military who have repeatedly voiced how there is no issue.

    "...isn't a place for people suffering a gender-identity crisis." Why not? Does it interfere with their ability to serve? If so, then treat them like anyone else who can't perform their duties due to a condition, like with ADHD or anything else. However, as has been proven in our country and dozens of others on the planet, many transgender can serve just as well as you or I. What distraction is it causing? Please explain the distraction it's causing.

    The bottom line is this: They have served with no notable issues in our military and have for years in other militaries around the world. Also, our own leadership and advisors agree that they serve without causing a "distraction" or hindering the mission.

    If your only concern with them serving is the off chance that one of the fraction of a percent of transgender serving will take advantage or game the system, then you may want to shift your concern to something that is actually a problem in the military. That's your concern? Out of the hundreds of thousands who take advantage now, your concern is that a fraction of a percent of the force might scam some disability?
    Last edited by meatbringer; 05-10-2019 at 01:55 PM.

  6. #36
    Senior Member SeaLawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Here, There, and Everywhere
    Posts
    140
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meatbringer View Post

    "...isn't a place for people suffering a gender-identity crisis." Why not? Does it interfere with their ability to serve? If so, then treat them like anyone else who can't perform their duties due to a condition, like with ADHD or anything else.
    It has to be "controlled". Clearly, it's not controlled if they are still having issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by meatbringer View Post
    The bottom line is this: They have served with no notable issues in our military and have for years in other militaries around the world. Also, our own leadership and advisors agree that they serve without causing a "distraction" or hindering the mission.
    Wrong!!!:
    https://www.justsecurity.org/62128/u...ry-litigation/

    Show me that ALL LGBTs have served with no notable issues and I'll show you proof there are some that haven't. Likewise, I'll introduce you to a couple of leaders/advisors that have encountered some that served with "distraction".

    Quote Originally Posted by meatbringer View Post
    If your only concern with them serving is the off chance that one of the fraction of a percent of transgender serving will take advantage or game the system, then you may want to shift your concern to something that is actually a problem in the military. That's your concern? Out of the hundreds of thousands who take advantage now, your concern is that a fraction of a percent of the force might scam some disability?
    I'd like to see the data you are using--and not impromptu spewing--that supports your claim: "It's only a fraction." Clearly you must have some readily available stats to say that; otherwise, you are just spitting out ambiguities.

    You're killing me "Arby" (Oh, and BTW... WE have the meats... not you)!

    Do you call a transgender sir or ma'am? It's one or the other. I--on the other hand--am a lesbian trapped in a man's body. Can you help me solve that one scientifically???

  7. #37
    Senior Member meatbringer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    murica
    Posts
    251
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SeaLawyer View Post
    It has to be "controlled". Clearly, it's not controlled if they are still having issues.



    Wrong!!!:
    https://www.justsecurity.org/62128/u...ry-litigation/

    Show me that ALL LGBTs have served with no notable issues and I'll show you proof there are some that haven't. Likewise, I'll introduce you to a couple of leaders/advisors that have encountered some that served with "distraction".



    I'd like to see the data you are using--and not impromptu spewing--that supports your claim: "It's only a fraction." Clearly you must have some readily available stats to say that; otherwise, you are just spitting out ambiguities.

    You're killing me "Arby" (Oh, and BTW... WE have the meats... not you)!

    Do you call a transgender sir or ma'am? It's one or the other. I--on the other hand--am a lesbian trapped in a man's body. Can you help me solve that one scientifically???
    Lame and ridiculous Arby jokes and jokes of being a lesbian trapped in a man's body. Gee, I'm so glad you are being mature and taking this seriously.

    So your defense is that not all LGBTs serve without issues? Cool, how about the thousands of straight males who present problems and distractions?

    And yes, a fraction, due to the fact that only a fraction of a percent of the force is comprised of transgender folks. Of that minuscule portion of the force, there aren't that many problems. In fact, of the 6 billion of the budget reserved for military healthcare, a whopping .04 percent is actually used toward treating some transgender folks. This small percent of the budget will mostly go toward those who take hormone therapy, and only 2% of the transgender military population will actually request or undergo gender reassignment surgery. Heck, as pointed out by Mjolnir, the costs for Viagra for vets exceeds what we pay for trans. I don't see you complaining about that, though.

    You can look up anything that I have just mentioned easily. Additionally, you can also look up how inclusion has been supported by Sec Defs, AF Sec, the Palm Center letter written and signed by 57 retired generals, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, old Sec Def Ashton Carter, Chiefs of the Army, Navy, and AF, incoming Commandant of the Coast Guard, studies from RAND, the Palm Center, data from the Pentagon, and the list goes on and on..... Also, you can look up the dozens of countries around the world who have allowed trans to serve since 1974. No big deal.

    Everything I have mentioned in this post is a verifiable fact. Keep making Arby jokes and shit, though. You are really smart.

  8. #38
    Senior Member SeaLawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Here, There, and Everywhere
    Posts
    140
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meatbringer View Post
    And yes, a fraction, due to the fact that only a fraction of a percent of the force is comprised of transgender folks. Of that minuscule portion of the force, there aren't that many problems. In fact, of the 6 billion of the budget reserved for military healthcare, a whopping .04 percent is actually used toward treating some transgender folks. This small percent of the budget will mostly go toward those who take hormone therapy, and only 2% of the transgender military population will actually request or undergo gender reassignment surgery.
    Quote Originally Posted by meatbringer View Post
    Heck, as pointed out by Mjolnir, the costs for Viagra for vets exceeds what we pay for trans. I don't see you complaining about that, though.
    Your old lady isn't complaining either... Viagara or no Viagara; although, she's a two-bagger over the head, I prefer the Viagara to help her out.

    Quote Originally Posted by meatbringer View Post
    You can look up anything that I have just mentioned easily.
    As you can, mine!

    Quote Originally Posted by meatbringer View Post
    Additionally, you can also look up how inclusion has been supported by Sec Defs, AF Sec, the Palm Center letter written and signed by 57 retired generals, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, old Sec Def Ashton Carter, Chiefs of the Army, Navy, and AF, incoming Commandant of the Coast Guard, studies from RAND, the Palm Center, data from the Pentagon, and the list goes on and on..... Also, you can look up the dozens of countries around the world who have allowed trans to serve since 1974. No big deal.
    Third world country militaries? Your shit is weaker than wet toilet paper!

    Quote Originally Posted by meatbringer View Post
    Everything I have mentioned in this post is a verifiable fact. Keep making Arby jokes and shit, though. You are really smart.
    With a name like MeatBringer, you must be trying to self-satisfy your limited relevance! You try so hard to persuade us on your point of view but won't flex in our direction as we have given you some credit.

    Have a great Navy day MeatFlinger!

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    131
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meatbringer View Post
    Meanwhile, we're sitting at about 60% deployable rate at one of our units due to health related waivers, failed PT tests, sleep apnea, etc.
    Oh cool....SORTS data. Umm....and what unit are you in? Are you the MXG Superintendent? Better yet, the MXG/CD or CC?

  10. #40
    Senior Member SeaLawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Here, There, and Everywhere
    Posts
    140
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS View Post
    Oh cool....SORTS data. Umm....and what unit are you in? Are you the MXG Superintendent? Better yet, the MXG/CD or CC?
    No data at all FLAPS. Just generic spewing as usual. MeatFlinger can't post factual data so--until then--I just consider it an opinion. Typical left-wing crying.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •