The era of decadence
When one thinks of the month of June what comes to mind?
To me it begins with summer's mildest and most tolerable month. Many people plan weddings in June. Others get into gardening. Somehow the month has been politicized with a date that few people even know about and the dedication of the entire month to what has become a gay celebration.
There is a parade held in the once great city of New York (now a sad shell of itself) commemorating an even that took place in 1969 which became known as the Stonewall Uprising. What was it about you ask? Let me explain it. The NYPD was enforcing laws on the books at the time involving cross dressing & solicitation of homosexual sex which was illegal in the city of New York at the time. They entered the Stonewall Inn which was a grimy gay bar in Greenwich Village. The bar also had no liquor license on top of everything else.
In the early morning hours of Saturday, June 28, 1969, nine policemen entered the Stonewall Inn, arrested the employees for selling alcohol without a license. This would normally be a simple operation, but suddenly a mob of about 400 people, obviously upset about the police actions, had congregated outside the bar. With police and patrons still in the bar, the angry mob set fire to it. The police called for reinforcements while holding off on firing at the rioters. Police reinforcements arrived in time to extinguish the flames, and they eventually dispersed the crowd. Four police officers were injured.
This event has been celebrated each year with a gay pride parade in NYC. Today PBS featured an episode of the American Experience , entitled "The Stonewall Uprising. " It is told from the gay perspective, with people who were at the bar that night being interviewed. For those interested:
My main takeaway was when one of those interviewed said: "We had nowhere to express ourselves." That individual went onto talk about gays climbing into parked meat trailers in the middle of the night to have sex. Hundreds would be jammed into a stinking trailer engaging in sex. I wondered to myself, what if heterosexuals did that? Wouldn't society condemn it? Didn't they have apartments for that?
In 2019, shortly before the 50th anniversary of the riots, New York City’s police commissioner, James P. O’Neill, issued an apology on behalf of the police department saying, “The actions taken by the NYPD were wrong—plain and simple.”
Does the NYPD decide what laws it will enforce?
It all seems morally confusing.
I'll leave it up to our readers to decide.
Tags
Who is online
90 visitors
I hope New Yorkers enjoyed the parade.
Give it a rest for once.
This one is for our readers.
Why do you care if someone is gay? If God is fine with whatever Donald Trump is, HE surely is fine with gays.
Show me where I objected to someone being gay.
Some could think calling them decadent might signal objection.
I didn't call them decadent. I called our society decadent.
What moral authority do you offer to validate our society as decadent. . . more to the point: What does "gay celebration" of a month dedicated to PRIDE (in their existence) have to do with that moral authority?
What's so special about being gay that there needs a day or week or month to "celebrate" it?
Remember when Melania Trump wasn't the First Lady but a model?
Special? Being oppressed, suppressed, and subjected to repression versus being left alone to have freedom, liberty, and abundance in a country that SWEARS THROUGH ITS 'TEETH' that it is a fair land for all its citizens. . . means one has to be VISIBLE and a symbolic month of recognition shines light into the dark 'hole' where some want the oppressed, suppressed, and those subjected to repression to remain. That is, it is hard to keep down people who refuse to hide in the shadows, and are not ashamed of 'being.'
As a heterosexual (I presume much when I imply you are such a one, but you can clarify if you wish or not) you don't need a month to celebrate or recognize your way of life. . . everyday in this country is a form of celebration of the heterosexual class.
[✘]
Just because you 'dip in' with insincerity does not make it fit for sharing. As to the tactic of pooling questions back to back ("be specific") and yes, it is an insincere tactic made famous by some conservatives, I might suggest you get offline and get politically-wise.
This article itself is an outgrowth of past oppression.
That said, just for shits and giggles (since have no faith that it will mean anything at all to some conservatives): The Trump Administration is using a DOD policy to remove transgendered servicemembers out of the military. And example of suppression and repression.
Do you SUPPORT the Trump Administration policy on removal?
What makes you think 'our readers' care for your jottings?
If the military deems them a detriment to unit readiness and ability to perform, then yes i do. PERIOD.
FFS, this idiocy again. Read the EO and the cited regulations. It lays it all out. I've explained all this to you before.
Your claim of "suppression and repression" is mere fiction.
They could just remove the policy (it's easier to do) and you know the Trump Administration has removed many policies already this term. So now we know, you are AGAINST transgendered people serving their country EQUALLY and you support transgender suppression and repression. Next, can you share with us what your worldview is on homosexuals serving in the military-for or against?
See 2.1.15. (DoD had a policy of no homosexuals in the military that it abused potential and active servicemembers with until it could not sustain the LIE about blackmail any longer. Time to cut the BS. and be honest. Stop lying and obfuscating, real people are being hurt. Time to show what makes us human. . . and not 'robots' for a change. But, as usual I digress (when you enter with your tired, 'trusted,' talking points).
If the military deems them a detriment to unit readiness and ability to perform, then yes i do. PERIOD.
This may the most ignorant comment i have read here and it's only purpose is to gaslight.
I see you are moving the goalposts (again).
Let me know when you are ready to do that.
No lying on my part. I quoted the regulation in my link 2 months ago. And 2 months ago you tried the same failed pathetic bullshit.
The idea that one implies the other is absolute nonsense.
Somehow I doubt that's going to stop you.
I have no BS time for this. Bye.
Get back to me only when you are interested in a genuine discussion. I have no interest in spending time 'doing' BS and insincere writings. Our time here is simply too valuable for games of smoke and mirrors.
Your standard response when you know you don't have a valid point.
If failure to allow someone to serve in the military constituted "suppression and repression", then we'll have to say that mean ol' evil Trump is "suppressing and repressing" tall people. He's also "suppressing and repressing" short people.
And fat people.
And diabetics.
And autistic people.
And people with bad eyesight.
And ACL surgery survivors.
And prosthetic users.
Crohn's disease patients.
People with psoriasis or eczema.
Epileptics
Asthmatics.
Cancer survivors.
Kidney stone sufferers.
And anybody who needs an EpiPen.
Good grief... it's almost like they expect these people who fight wars to be in excellent physical condition.
The "suppression and repression" is off the chart! It's the end of democracy as we know it!
Being non-binary is not against the law, not a disease nor a physical disability...
Neither is being 6'9".
Transgendered people disproved Trump's BS. They were serving FINE until he came back into office and reinstituted a policy which pushes these servicemembers out! In fact, DoDI 6130.03-V1, March 30, 2018 - operative year listed 2018 is during the Trump first presidency. Speak to that if you have something different. Furthermore, we know that service requirements are arbitrary. That is, they can be modified and have been done so.
Additionally, the problems you list are general circumstance problems and do not dictate that an entire CLASS of service-members be denied ability to service. Speak to that if you can.
Otherwise, it is just smoke and mirrors and confirmation bias (on your part) to quote Trump's policies as denying trans-people to be out - whether they are ill or not ill. When everybody has seen how Trump (and MAGAites) can reverse, dismiss, and remove policies "at will" when it suits Trump.
No more BS!
The fact you continually refuse to acknowledge is that millions of people are excluded from service due to physical or mental conditions. Millions.
But in your batshit ideology, it's only unfair when it happens to trans people. I guess the short people don't matter.
Missing completely the fact that Obama and Biden "reversed, dismissed and removed policies at will when it suited them".
So I'm curious, CB... why did Obama and Biden reverse policies on trans people but not tall people? Clearly they hate tall people and want to "repress" them. That must be it.
A president looked at the transgendered and gave a waiver for them as a class to serve. . . individuals could be removed according to their circumstances.
You will have to do the research on the professional considerations and rationales for doing so. I feel confident they are 'out there' - for those who wish to engage them. The fact is that Biden did it and with the assistance and approval of his military counterparts.
I won't venture to answer the tall question, except to state the obvious: their height can cause "havoc" in military structures and facilities as they are simply very TALL. (But you know that and are just being obstinate. Transgendered people (as a class) are not (too) TALL as a class.
In fact, on occasion throughout our history, servicemembers 6.8 inches (really?) were allowed to serve their country.
Trump seeks to dismiss a class of servicemembers as a class using a flimsy military policy he started and persist in holding.
But, it is clear, you have no empathy or other provisional consideration for transgendered people, thus exposing a bias against them. While, as it suits, conservative matters, solutions and rationales can be found sufficient to the case.
Therefore, we are done here. This is not going to go anywhere it is clear.
Why do Obama and Biden hate fat people, surely fat people should be allowed to serve?
And another president rescinded that waiver.
No no no. It's cleary discrimination, "repression", "suppression", and hatred of tall people.
And yet David Robinson served on a submarine. I guess he "disproved Biden's BS" years in advance.
He didn't start it, though, did he? It was the standard until Obama changed that in 2016.
I have exactly the same empathy for them as I do tall people, short people, ulcerative colitis patients, peanut allergy sufferers, or anybody else.
YOU are the one demanding they are some special case who need to be treated differently.
Absolutely.
More hatred, "repression", "oppression", "suppression" and all the other "essions".
AND fat shaming. Good grief, these people are horrific.
You left the bold sentence out of your "commentary" - I don't need to ask why. Clearly, I recognized tall people serving in my comment!
We're wasting (my) time here. You continue to evidence that an entire type of citizens unsuitable to your biases are not fit to serve in our military and you don't have any regard for them whatsoever.
GOOD BYE.
People can be denied to serve their country based on weigh due to health considerations, and I am pretty sure those people can appreciate that their health-related problems are considered (especially when and if we have a military draft). Apples compared to apples. . . transgendered people who are FAT would face similar rejection until they got their weight under control.
What motivates conservatives to strike all transgendered service people from servicing their country? Clearly, those transgendered servicemembers are not fat (as they are in the services already) but are being asked to leave - not due to weight-associated problems, nevertheless.
Vic? 'Anybody' likely conservative?
Is there a problem with opposing viewpoints?
Do LGBTQ people deprive the straight population of anything?
I think you may be looking for an argument that doesn't exist. You might find a debate over why a modern NYPD Police commissioner apologized for his predecessors enforcing laws that were on the books at the time or why the month of June is dedicated to a sexual orientation or why a parade is held every year celebrating the same.
Thanks for proving my point.
You won't answer those questions.
You were looking for someone who was against gay people.
Have a good one.
Are you someone "For" homosexuals?
I have no problem with homosexuals. Why such a question?
Don't you understand the article?
I'm questioning the society's values.
which values are those?
The ones you were asked about.
Post 2.2.2
your b.s. gets boring fast
Then do what you were told to do.
You are laughable. Do the cops arrest everyone they suspect of committing a crime?
What is the point of questioning society's value about homosexuals. Do not be coy. What is the point of this article?
1. Stone Wall 'uprising'?
2. Pride Month?
3. Homosexuality, generally?
4. A truck full of sissies, queens, and 'bodies' drenched in debauchery?
5. A search for truth about homosexuals and their way of living?
6. All of the above?
7. Something other than the above? (Please explain.)
What does that have to do with post 2.2?
Talk about self-righteousness. . . some conservatives compel homosexuals (and minorities) to live in worse ways than their dogs and cats. . .and then stand in judgement when they 'survive' using their instincts (and intelligence) to make a life for themselves by making lemonade out of putrid lemons (choices). It all so reminds me of the stereotypes go about blacks and watermelon-eating (selling).
We simply can not be left alone from the disparagement of meddlesome and indecent people otherwise.
How so?
I am pretty sure you do not want or wish for policies that condemn your dog or cat (animals) to a less-than existence.
It is irresponsible to ask why homosexuals "do it" where ever they could find a 'bush' or 'hole' out of the sight of heterosexuals 'taught' through religious upbringings (brainwashing) to mock and punish homosexuals simply for their dare to expose themselves for whom they 'are.'
IF some conservatives think that heterosexuals 'had it hard' or 'have it hard'. . . in a country (a world) dominated by heterosexuals. . . it is easy to realize and accept that homosexuals had it HARDEST because they were and still are by conservatives told how worthless they are to society (as people and as a class).
Some conservatives treat people like 'animals' and 'brutes' for centuries and then have the unmitigated gall to demand they 'class-up' and dismiss what they were forced to learn ('tricks of the trade' so to speak) during their time required to make a life out of what was left to them.
The simple reason homosexuality is 'out' in this nation is because of events like "Stonewall" and the reaction to it by liberal heterosexuals who made a decision that enough maltreatment of homosexuals as as class was enough!
And so here we are. . . another the "age of Trump" and a so-called conservative-leaning Supreme Court which are both prime to reclaim the past 'glories' of heterosexuality dominating and suppressing those on the other end of the spectrum. . . instead of being welcoming. . . .
. . . And, some conservatives try, and fail to call themselves friends and champions of Fairness and Diversity - for all. - Humph!
[✘]
But if you notice I asked what if heterosexuals did the same.
Would they not be condemned by a civil society?
The question is the wrong one to ask. . . as by design it lacks nuance. . . the homosexual life-style had evolved to what you SEE in the trailer. People with only their sex drives as their own. Is it really so hard to relate to the fact that 'EVOLUTION' (branching off) occurs with culture too? Rule #1 of the homosexual lifestyle in early America. . . do not take a man home for sex. . . because though you may need RELIEF. . . it is highly probable you will be 'outed,' blackmailed, robbed, and/or burglarized of everything you have achieved of value and hold dear.
While heterosexuals have a similar concern. . . especially women, they also had support of society. Homosexuals did not. Their 'losses' where their fault! That is, passing judgement states: They got what they deserved for being whom they are.
If conservatives want to know why homosexuals 'are'. . . it is necessary to listen before spouting 'conclusions.'
During the centuries and era before and during Stone Wall. . . there were permanent and religious inequalities in the United States by law between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
When one speaks of 'law and order' one has to talk about how laws are crafted and how so people are required to live under law/s. Not just speak about the law imposed on people
If you watch that film, you will hear from someone who participated in it. Anyone can listen to it. Tell me if I got it wrong.
While heterosexuals have a similar concern. . . especially women, they also had support of society. Homosexuals did not.
You mean they didn't have the acceptance of society. In that case you would be right. At one time it was viewed as a perversion. Obviously, that is no longer true. However, you used the words "support of society." I'm not sure they are entitled to support.
That is the 'problem' for conservatives, "you" do not have to decide much of anything about the way of life of homosexuals-as long as their 'decadent' or stability does "you" no harm. What is wrong with that. . . because this op-ed has a point! Mind telling us what its POINT is? Mind telling us what moral authority you hold to that leaves the homosexual lifestyle confusing to you? Go deep!
So they shouldn't have to pay taxes?
So should I support them. Am I forced to walk in the parade? Should I advocate for Pride Day? Tell me how I must support them.
No, you can do whatever you desire. Just realize that you can accept gay people as people or just sit there as the world corrects another age-old mistake.
You neglected my questions. This in not about 'one-upsmanship' do respond to those participating with a proper participation of your own.
What support has any one asked of you—personally. Do not walk in parades. . . I don't. Do not support Pride Day -its a choice. How must you support them. Indirectly, you could leave homosexuals (and their "decadence") out of your quest for 'Input.'
Now then, What is the POINT of this op-ed for you personally? What moral authority do you hold that leaves the homosexual lifestyle " confusing" to you?
Again: Go deep! (Shallow discussions is one of the conditions 'killing' our nation right now.)
"Selling the perversion part" . . .and one has to observe with 'wonderment' that the PBS video you have "presented" leads with that mantra: 'Homosexuality: Perversion' BOTLO (for). Question: Do some conservatives still regard homosexuality as perversion and sin?
Homosexuals, for centuries, were cheated out of the 'support' society owed us—they willing took from us and gave what was ours to heterosexuals who 'gobbled' that up and wanted more. So yes, it is reasonable to ask for and receive support from the same country heterosexuals turn to to get 'relief' for their problems, issues, and stresses of life.
I am questioning the values of a society that does this:
As I told you, I accept gays. My support is reserved for the few things important to me.
So what? It's a flag. A symbol. And obviously not in 'vogue' in the current administration, or you may have an 'ear' you could bend in D.C. WHAT IS THE POINT YOU WANT US TO GET FROM THIS ARTICLE ABOUT PRIDE MONTH?
Where is this happening?
Let's start by cutting through the BS: Do you support:
1. Homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and/or Pride Month.
2. Dog/s as family members.
3. Cat/s as family members/
4. All of the above.*
5. None of the above.
* Your question can be answered by what you reply.
So, nowhere. It's happening nowhere.
Exactly!!!!
So you fail to engage in honest discussion, but continue to collect your own bias unto yourself! Get real, talking points are stupid.
I ask you where any of what you claim is happening. You can't answer that question leading one to believe it's not happening anywhere and you are talking for the sake of talking.
BYE.
You are being left alone in today's society.
I've enjoyed my heterosexuality immensely, but have felt no need to display it publicly or be be proud of it.
Just stop and think about someone else for a change - oh, that is the issue here isn't it? It's simply not possible for some conservatives to get over themselves (gazing in the mirror) and their wants, wishes, and needs to have empathy for others fighting everyday to get and keep pace with themselves.
Do you support homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and/or Pride Month? If so: Why? If not: Why not?
Thank god we have advanced our backwards thinking and the people who do think this way are slowly losing sway.
To answer the question posed by the seeder, it is not morally confusing at all. Your set up of the question was wrong.
Ask yourself: Is it right to treat another person badly for being gay? Because that is what the police did.
I find it highly disingenuous that you could watch the whole of the video and not come away with that fact. They were treated so badly that every action that they took had to be either straight or out of sight. The repercussions for being found out were dire and desperate.
And then you title the article "The era of decadence" as if somehow by treating people as people is decadent.
From the video
If I could shove a quarter through this screen, I would tell you to buy a clue.
So the police don't have to enforce laws and we should dedicate July to heterosexuals. Got it
The whole premise of this article and your questions miss the point entirely.
You post an article asking a question, but then do not accept correction of your flawed logic.
Of course police must enforce the laws. But the laws, along with the realization that the laws were wrong, have slowly, very slowly, changed. With those changes the realization has dawned on people that the LGBTQ community is just like everyone else: weird in there own special way. So your question is extemporal in that it asks a question relating to 55 years ago as if it were somehow related to what we now recognize as being true. That is the reason that the police Commissioner apologized.
Then the police are no longer put in that position. Until that happens, we are a nation of laws.
You put these statements out there with the built in assumption that I disagree. You would have to actually understand the conversation before you can do that, and I really don't think you do.
We were a nation of laws, until Trump. Now Trump defines his wishes and EO's as the law, and persecutes anyone who says differently. He has taken any shred of decency and run it into the ground.
Who needs decency ?
‘I’m sorry,’ says inspector who led Stonewall raid
Now 84, in 1969 Seymour Pine was a deputy inspector of the Police Department’s vice and gambling unit for the area of Manhattan covering Greenwich Village. He retired from the force in 1976. Pine admitted that the police of the era were biased against gays.
“They certainly were prejudiced. There was no question about that,” he said." B ut they had no idea about what gay people were about.”
Pine said there were two reasons why police raided gay clubs: First, many of them were controlled by organized crime. “We weren’t concerned about gays. We were concerned about the Mafia,” he said. Second, collaring gays was a way for officers to pad arrest records. “They were easy arrests,” Pine explained. “They never gave you any trouble. Everybody behaved…. It was like, ‘We’re going down to grab the fags.’ ”
Raids on gay bars during his two years working in Manhattan were “very common,” he acknowledged. At the time of the raid, the police had received a tip of the Mafia being involved with stolen European bonds. Police believed that “the after-hours clubs — like the Stonewall” were in on the operation. “If we could close them down, we’d see what would happen to the bonds that were surfacing,” he explained. Stonewall was known to be run by Mafiosi, the former deputy inspector said. According to author Carter, the bar was opened by Tony “Fat Tony” Lauria, whose father, also a mob figure, owned a building at the corner of Waverly Pl. and Sixth Ave.
But the money from the club ultimately made its way into the pocket of Matty the Horse. Another panel member, artist Thomas Lanigan-Schmidt, one of the homeless street kids who hung out at the Stonewall, as opposed to rival Julius’s bar — which they considered too preppy — said he knew the management was unsavory. But they liked the Stonewall’s edge. “Stonewall was where our souls could dance,” said Lanigan-Schmidt, who at the time lived in an abandoned East Village building. “It was a Mafia joint. The windows were painted black.” Pine said limos used to pull up in front of the bar on Saturday nights, for their well-to-do passengers “to ogle” goings on at the bar. “We never had anything to do with those people. We never had a raid when they were there,” he admitted.
There was always someone from law enforcement inside the club monitoring the activity. “We had policewomen in there as lesbians, plainclothes cops. We even had people in there from federal agencies,” Pine noted. T
he night the Stonewall riots started, there were two policewomen posing as lesbians and two plainclothes male officers in the Stonewall. They “would say who was selling [drugs], or whatever,” Pine said. Pine and his partner, Detective Charles Smythe, were waiting in Christopher Park, across from the bar, waiting for the signal from the two female officers inside, so they could start the raid. But strangely, no signal came. “It got to the point that either they were in trouble or they had forgotten what they were supposed to do,” Pine said. So the officers outside went to the door, in this case, looking to bust the bar for having minors inside. They expected the homosexuals to line up docilely and march out as usual.
But this night the reaction was different. “They were acting differently,” Pine said.
“When we entered, they weren’t going to go.” According to a WBAI interview of a man who was at the riots, which Carter played for the audience, a rumor had gone out that police were holding “kids” inside the bar and beating them up. Gays by the score began gathering outside, trapping the officers inside. This was soon followed by a hail of projectiles, from coins to more dangerous objects. At one point, a parking meter was picked up and used as a battering ram in an attempt to break the door down.
“It was very scary,” Pine said. “I had a group [of officers] completely scared. The cobblestones that were being thrown and the bottles being thrown when we moved back inside. We knew we were in trouble. I was concerned that someone wouldn’t lose their cool. If someone pulled a trigger, we were dead — because they would’ve just run over us,” he said. “They were throwing Molotov cocktails in there,” he added, “but we put that out.” According to Pine, a female officer managed to get out through a vent in the rear and make it to a local firehouse where there was a police radio, which she used to call the Sixth Precinct for backup.
More here:
From the Video:
Thank you for posting this. After watching the video, I find reenergized my faith in humanity.
I will watch the video and see what it can do for me.
"Heterosexuals legally had lots of sexual outlets. They called them: hotels, motels, lover's lanes, drive-in movie theaters et ceteras.'Homosexuals" had none of that. And, we had no right to that." — From the video.
UPDATE:
"More than 50 people were injured during a Pride celebration at Washington Square Park Sunday evening when false reports of gunfire and the deployment of bear spray sparked a stampede of people fleeing for their lives, according to police and sources.
A shirtless man unleashed the potent chemicals in the park — burning several bystanders’ eyes — at the same time, rumors of gunfire led thousands to rush out of the Greenwich Village park, believing their lives were in danger.
The man was arrested by police at the scene, according to the NYPD.
It wasn’t immediately clear how many injuries were a result of the stampede and how many were due to the mace, but none were expected to be life-threatening."
More than 50 injured after shirtless man unleashes bear spray during Pride gathering in Washington Square Park, causing stampede
To quote a NYP reader: "Hopefully no birds, squirrels or trees were injured. That and only that would make this tragic." That one was mild compared to others.
Hopefully "our readers" are of a better breed than those of your favorite rag.
The same readers here who call for a second amendment solution for all MAGA's? of religious practitioners? or just about anyone who disagrees with their beliefs?
[Deleted][✘]
How does the military monitor and manage medication side effects in transgender troops
The U.S. military monitors and manages medication side effects in transgender troops using the same protocols applied to all service members receiving medical treatment:
Medical Oversight: Transgender service members undergoing gender transition or receiving hormone therapy are managed by a team that typically includes military medical providers (MMPs), mental health professionals, and the individual’s command. The medical provider is responsible for diagnosing, prescribing, and monitoring all treatments, including tracking potential side effects and their impact on health and readiness.
Treatment Planning: For those exempt under previous policies or granted a waiver, the medical provider creates a detailed treatment plan. This plan outlines the timing of treatment, expected side effects, and the likely impact on the service member’s deployability and readiness. If side effects or complications arise that affect a member’s ability to perform duties or deploy, the provider will reassess fitness for service and may recommend periods of non-deployability as needed.
Deployability Assessment: Service members are considered deployable if they are medically qualified. If medication side effects or the transition process temporarily impact deployability, the service member is managed in line with Department of Defense (DoD) policy for any non-deployable member. This includes periodic reviews and potential separation if non-deployability persists.
No Separate Standards: There are no separate medical standards for transgender service members. All are required to meet the same health and deployability criteria as their peers, regardless of gender identity or transition status.
Medication Review: Medications are reviewed for deployability implications. Hormone therapy is not on the list of medications that typically preclude deployment. Most side effects are monitored and managed in coordination with the medical team, and only if a medication or its side effects significantly impair readiness would it affect a member’s ability to serve or deploy.
Ongoing Care: Service members receive ongoing care and monitoring for both physical and mental health, with adjustments to treatment as necessary to maintain readiness and well-being.
Credit: Perplexity AI
Of course, this Administration with its old and tired concept of what constitutes a man or woman will remove all trans-service members because of personal biases, ignoring professional participation acceptances and proofs of durability. All done under a guise of 'lethality.' As if every servicemember has ever been in combat, and that is not to suggest or state that transgendered servicemembers are to weak to kick and kill for country!