Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Jihadin wrote:
I highly doubt the military will foot the bill to do a full transgender operation. Once you enlist your either Male or Female. So Transgender who are entering the Armed Services need to be fully aware of the Tape test
Manning was turned over to Federal for them to foot that bill.

That was before the upcoming policy. Once the policy takes effect, someone will make the claim it is necessary medical care and the congress critters will make sure it happens.

Which brings up an interesting point. If I'm right and DoD decides to/has to foot the bill, think that will cause an influx of transgenders who can't afford to transition on their own? How about footing the bill for dependents?

Its an elective surgery
You know as I do that the Military will not cover Elective Surgery

 Jihadin wrote:
Its an elective surgery
You know as I do that the Military will not cover Elective Surgery

They do LASIK now...

And I honestly have doubts about it being considered elective. Once you accept the need to transition as valid, it becomes a necessary operation. Who are you to deny some poor creature trapped in the wrong body a chance to Be Who They Really Are? Again, the congress critters are gonna make sure it happens. Maybe not the first year the new policy is in effect, but once some very vocal and newsworthy transgenders are denied their Right to fully transition and it becomes a Big Issue, it will happen.

The military will cover elective surgery. Breast enhancements because your small boobs cause you mental distress? Ok, that is doable.

This will be a thing.

 Soladrin wrote:
Last I heard there were around 700.000 trans people in the US.

So like Frazz said: An infinitesimal percentage.

The % in the military would be even smaller.

I couldn't care less. But I don't think the military should be paying for their elective surgery.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Last I heard there were around 700.000 trans people in the US.

So like Frazz said: An infinitesimal percentage.

The % in the military would be even smaller.

I couldn't care less. But I don't think the military should be paying for their elective surgery.

Every trans person I've met has served in the military.

LASIK surgery provides a distinct advantage to the military members though. It is always beneficial to have guys on guard duty with 20/20 vision instead of relying on glasses that break and scratch.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
LASIK surgery provides a distinct advantage to the military members though. It is always beneficial to have guys on guard duty with 20/20 vision instead of relying on glasses that break and scratch.

And it won't be an advantage to have the service member be in their 'correct' body?

Do we really want for some individual(s) to take advantage of the system?
LASIK is a different animal compare to gender reassignment

Edit

I see it going into ACA first

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
All two of them.

About time? Come on this is an infinitesimal portion of the US population. Until recently this was classified as a mental disorder (might still be-don't keep up).

I'm fine with it, but this was no great crime against humanity here as in the real world there statistically aren't many.

Because, as everybody knows, groups become less human when there aren't many of them.

Which has nothing to do with transgender people serving in the military or not.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
The military will cover elective surgery. Breast enhancements because your small boobs cause you mental distress? Ok, that is doable.

This will be a thing.

I'm not sweating it too much, simply because we'll probably have completely socialized healthcare before too long. The DoD might be the first to start paying for it, but the government is most likely going to be paying for all of it eventually, for the military and civilians both.

 djones520 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Last I heard there were around 700.000 trans people in the US.

So like Frazz said: An infinitesimal percentage.

The % in the military would be even smaller.

I couldn't care less. But I don't think the military should be paying for their elective surgery.

Every trans person I've met has served in the military.

I wonder why that is...

 djones520 wrote:
Every trans person I've met has served in the military.

Indeed, of the trans people I've known, the percentage that were in the military was quite high. I don't know why this would be, and obviously my experience is wholly anecdotal.

 djones520 wrote:
The military will cover elective surgery. Breast enhancements because your small boobs cause you mental distress? Ok, that is doable.

Isn't it more commonly done because military hospitals do them for free training, and because military doctors need x procedures for boards? And doesn't the person getting them have to foot the bill for the actual implants? So the military actually does this because they're getting a net benefit in the form of better trained and qualified doctors, right?

Obviously not covering the other cases, which would be reconstructive surgery.

Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Every trans person I've met has served in the military.

Indeed, of the trans people I've known, the percentage that were in the military was quite high. I don't know why this would be, and obviously my experience is wholly anecdotal.

Perhaps it has something to do with how your social circles are weighted overall. How many military folks have you guys met in general? None of the trans people I've met are in the military, nor are none of the gay people I know, nor any of the women. Obviously this isn't because those groups don't join the military, rather it's because my social circle doesn't include many military personnel in general. I've got one cousin in the army, a friend that was in the air force, and a tiny handful of bare acquaintances sprinkled across various branches and that's about it. The percentage of people I know overall in the military is quite low, so the number of people from any given category in the military will be low. If you've got an overall percentage of your social circles are quite high in military types, the number of folks from any one category that also happen to be in the military will also be high.

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
All two of them.

About time? Come on this is an infinitesimal portion of the US population. Until recently this was classified as a mental disorder (might still be-don't keep up).

I'm fine with it, but this was no great crime against humanity here as in the real world there statistically aren't many.

Because, as everybody knows, groups become less human when there aren't many of them.

In laugh at your insult and lack of reading comprehension.
No because its less of an actual issue. I'm amazingly less concerned about the rights of one armed blue haired bikers born in Kobe, Japan then I am women.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Last I heard there were around 700.000 trans people in the US.

So like Frazz said: An infinitesimal percentage.

The % in the military would be even smaller.

I couldn't care less. But I don't think the military should be paying for their elective surgery.

There you go.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Last I heard there were around 700.000 trans people in the US.

So like Frazz said: An infinitesimal percentage.

The % in the military would be even smaller.

I couldn't care less. But I don't think the military should be paying for their elective surgery.

Every trans person I've met has served in the military.

I wonder why that is...

If you're trying to draw some parallel of it being because I'm in the military, try again. One of them, I have met simply because I am in the military, the others were all coincidence.

 Frazzled wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
All two of them.

About time? Come on this is an infinitesimal portion of the US population. Until recently this was classified as a mental disorder (might still be-don't keep up).

I'm fine with it, but this was no great crime against humanity here as in the real world there statistically aren't many.

Because, as everybody knows, groups become less human when there aren't many of them.

In laugh at your insult and lack of reading comprehension.
No because its less of an actual issue. I'm amazingly less concerned about the rights of one armed blue haired bikers born in Kobe, Japan then I am women.

It was a backwards ban, it got lifted. I don't see why we needed a scoff at hotsauce saying 'about time', even if transgender people don't make up a huge percentage of the American population.

Its still a good thing, and it was still about time.

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
All two of them.

About time? Come on this is an infinitesimal portion of the US population. Until recently this was classified as a mental disorder (might still be-don't keep up).

I'm fine with it, but this was no great crime against humanity here as in the real world there statistically aren't many.

Because, as everybody knows, groups become less human when there aren't many of them.

In laugh at your insult and lack of reading comprehension.
No because its less of an actual issue. I'm amazingly less concerned about the rights of one armed blue haired bikers born in Kobe, Japan then I am women.

It was a backwards ban, it got lifted. I don't see why we needed a scoff at hotsauce saying 'about time', even if transgender people don't make up a huge percentage of the American population.

Its still a good thing, and it was still about time.

It would be "about time" if there were a major fight about it. What are we talking here .001% of the population?

Based on the population being 320 million, and the estimate of there being 700,000 trans* people in the US, it's about 0.2%

 CptJake wrote:
I had a guy claim to be gay to avoid going to Korea (in the 90s when Don't Ask Don't Tell had just started).

For him, ending his term of service and avoiding Korea was better than dealing with any 'stigma' attached. For what it is worth, to this day I do not think he was actually gay in this case.

"Oh yeah? Kiss him."

 Goliath wrote:
Based on the population being 320 million, and the estimate of there being 700,000 trans* people in the US, it's about 0.2%

Citation needed.

It's important where the number comes from. If it stems from personal questionaries, it's useless. Numbers that could actually be useful are numbers of people who changed their gender on their ID and / or have been officially diagnosed with a mental illness.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Based on the population being 320 million, and the estimate of there being 700,000 trans* people in the US, it's about 0.2%

Citation needed.

It's important where the number comes from. If it stems from personal questionaries, it's useless. Numbers that could actually be useful are numbers of people who changed their gender on their ID and / or have been officially diagnosed with a mental illness.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/upshot/the-search-for-the-best-estimate-of-the-transgender-population.html?_r=0

It's an estimate based on a Williams Institute study from 2011

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf

There we go:

http://www.census.gov/srd/carra/15_03_Likely_Transgender_Individuals_in_ARs_and_2010Census.pdf

So...135.376 people since 1936.

Talking about a non-issue being an absolutely non-issue.

Well, that survey is obviously a bit unreliable.

(From 2002 to 2013, the Social Security Administration required proof that genital surgery had been completed before people could change their sex in official records, but it no longer does.)

SRS is very expensive and rarely if ever covered by insurance, so essentially no one that could afford the surgery could go ahead with the sex change process, and hence wouldn't be counted in those numbers.

I don't think you can get more accurate than "a relatively small percentage of the population".

It's one of the few reliable points you can use. Numbers from surveys are trash, especially on the matter at hand, as they are far too unreliable and there's a huge leap of social desirability involved.

The map on page 36 is very interesting - or, rather, shows the problem at hand.

I mean, if we're really concerned with equality when it comes to military service, we should probably talk about the inequity involved with forced draft registration...

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's one of the few reliable points you can use. Numbers from surveys are trash, especially on the matter at hand, as they are far too unreliable and there's a huge leap of social desirability involved.

I just pointed out why the number is clearly and unambiguously unreliable, but you go ahead and reject that reality and substitute your own.

Ouze wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's one of the few reliable points you can use. Numbers from surveys are trash, especially on the matter at hand, as they are far too unreliable and there's a huge leap of social desirability involved.

I just pointed out why the number is clearly and unambiguously unreliable, but you go ahead and reject that reality and substitute your own.

It's not fully reliable, but it's the most reliable you can use.

A better number would involve doctors diagnozing others with a mental illness, but you likely don't have those numbers due to privacy reasons.

 cincydooley wrote:
I mean, if we're really concerned with equality when it comes to military service, we should probably talk about the inequity involved with forced draft registration...

Holy gak guys, mark it down. This is the day that me and Cincey agree on something that isnt media related.

There is no legitimate reason to exclude women from compulsory selective service registration in 2015.

Ouze wrote:
There is no legitimate reason to exclude women from compulsory selective service registration in 2015.

Agree.

Especially when, for men, it's linked to your ability to get a government student loan or employment.

Seems a pretty clear violation of the 14th to me...

Though to be fair, I think it should be removed completely. In the even that we actually NEED a draft for a worthwhile cause, history has shown us there will always be plenty of volunteers.