This Article in USA Today
…was supposed to shoot straight at the old heart strings, in the “how can anyone QUESTION her willingness to serve?!?!/ Donald Trump is MEAN and SUCKS!!!!!” vein.
But when you READ it – and the very careful phrasing the few military members who serve with her used when interviewed – it quite specifically makes the VERY PRACTICAL POINTS we’ve brought up repeatedly. Trans are FRAGILE. Far more fragile than flat footed folks, who are not allowed in to begin with. They are non-deployable (read that as: WORTHLESS TO THEIR UNIT) for YEARS. LITERALLY.
Transgender US soldier felt ‘fired’ by Trump’s tweet
The subject line read: “Announcing a personal change.”
The U.S. Army soldier took a deep breath before hitting the button that sent the email to more than 200 fellow troops.
“All considered, I am, and have been, traversing what is essentially a personal matter, but is something I must address publicly,” the email stated. “I am transgender.”
The April 13 email officially ended the secret that burned inside Capt. Jennifer Sims, who was known as Jonathan Sims. But the feeling of relief swiftly turned to unease last week after President Donald Trump tweeted that transgender troops were no longer welcome.
“I read the tweet while I was at work and you know it was devastating because I still have work to do and here I am reading basically what sounds like the president of the United States — who is the commander in chief, he is the ultimate boss of the military — telling me and anybody else that is transgender that we are fired,” Sims said.
Okay. I understand being upset, but let’s take a look at what your gender dysphoria is costing your UNIT…
…Sims has been on hormone therapy by her military doctor since November.
If she interrupts the treatment, her body will revert to being male.
“It would be very difficult to have to go through that,” said Sims, who is based at Hohenfels, a U.S. Army garrison in the German state of Bavaria…
Okay. So “since November” means she’s been taking the drugs for 10 months. So far, lost to her unit for TEN MONTHS. How’s the unit handling that and what’s next?
…Shorter had a lot of questions “being naturally curious and wanting to be a good friend because we didn’t really have a personal relationship. He’s, excuse me, she’s — see I still slip up sometimes — a single captain. I’m married with two daughters. Our lives are different.”
Shorter, 32, of Alanson, Michigan, describes himself as conservative. He said he struggles with his beliefs about what’s appropriate. An assistant operations officer for the battalion, Shorter is concerned about how Sims cannot deploy while undergoing medical procedures.
But Shorter, speaking on his own behalf and not that of the Army, said he would be “incredibly disappointed” if Sims, the best signal officer he has seen, were kicked out.
After Trump’s tweet, a few soldiers, including Shorter, asked Sims how she was doing. She didn’t know what to say.
Her pills will run out in three months. Doctors recommend 12 months of hormone therapy before surgery. The cost of her surgery can run close to $50,000, which Sims was expecting the military would help cover….
So she has to have a full year – UNDEPLOYABLE – on hormone treatments before she can have the surgery, which renders her, again, UNDEPLOYABLE darn near another year, on average, thanks to recuperative time and tons of counseling requirements. No pregnant woman EVER cost the service that. I’m sick of the argument.
Just WHERE does “the GOOD of the service” come into this again?
It DOESN’T. NONE of this is “GOOD” for the service OR, most importantly, the service MEMBERS who have to pick up the slack/take the overseas dets/get shot at/blown up more than they should have to because #feelingz allow their fellow servicemembers #SpecialStatus. The military is shorthanded enough as it is. And here THIS unit might well be losing the “best signal officer” they’ve seen.
What GOOD is she to the Army? How does she make it better? The Army is NOT required to be “good” to her. YOU have to bring something to the table besides a sunny disposition.
Then the practical matters of deploying. What happens in the hills of Afghanistan when the hormone pills didn’t arrive in the last shipment? What happens when the trans males, who still (because they were BORN with it) have their female bone structure, start to break down on humps? Testosterone doesn’t give you man-bones, nor change your pelvis.
Let’s not ignore the lifelong hormonal treatments the government picks up FOREVER (the fact that male to female trans get to keep their prostate, so there’s that to worry about, too), or that the VA is on the hook for any medical expenses incurred related to the surgery FOREVER, because it occurred during the service member’s period of service. A trans is basically a rated disability upon discharge from the service, with lifetime privilege.
No pregnant woman EVER cost the service that. And I’m sorry. When we’re looking at stripping one Basic Allowance for Housing payment away from married active duty couples because MONEY…we sure as Hell don’t have the bling for this.
Nope. The article makes the argument FOR the ban so much better than it makes the argument against it.
Military Thingies, Morality, Nanny State | tree hugging sister | 
August 8, 2017 5:07 pm
Subscribe
Something is seriously wrong when your military becomes a social service agency and the social service agencies become militarised.
You’re not kidding.
Heck, we had problems with the profiles in my units … … and they were mostly temporary.
A year? Jeebus. Pathetic.
Trump did what was necessary. And they’ll hate him for stopping the gravy train.
Outstanding observation, aelfheld.
I’ve been agnostic on this so far because A) I am not military and B) there are always exceptional individuals. I think objective standards would likely weed out anyone unfit for service, and if that happens to include every transitioning individual, well, so be it. But, given that a good many military people are giving excellent reasons to make this a blanket ban, I am growing convinced.