President Trump issues order to ban transgender troops from service except in 'limited circumstances'

Tranny's need to be in a mental hospital, not the military.

True, they are more concerned about their "sexuality" than about the mission, and are using the military as a social experiment and to having the "government" pay for their sex change operations. "Chelsea" Manning is the most glaring example of this.

"The military spends five times as much on Viagra as it would on transgender troops’ medical care."

WaPo

"The military spends five times as much on Viagra as it would on transgender troops’ medical care."

So you would deny intimacy help to brave men who serve their country and help the mentally ill mutilate themselves for some sick fantasy?

Can't get it up due to cardiovascular issues, eh?   That probably means you've got a desk job and aren't on the battlefield anyway.    Plus it's not clear why you think you need an erection on the battlefield.

WaPo

Yeah, that's a reliable source.

they are more concerned about their "sexuality" than about the mission

So the men who need viagra to render a salute.

We can’t have these women in the military.  I mean, they’re just too fragile and emotional.

Nothing says mental stability like steroid abuse. 

So you agree with Trump that we should preemptively take their guns?

I think you're thinking of pathetic traitorous freaks like this one..."Chelsea Manning"

Manning is a very good reason for the military to treat LGBT folks well and to fire the bigots who try to harm them.

Why?  If we don't give them what they want and indulge their mental kllness and delusions, they too will commit treason? 

It just means that if you treat people poorly there will be side effects.     At the very least if you want to keep your war crimes a secret don't give your soldiers cause to expose them..

So you condone and excuse treason.   

As far as I am concerned Bradley Manning should have been offered a last cigarette and shot alongside side bergdahl for their crimes. 

No, I said that the the Dod is foolish to mistreat their soldiers because the adverse consequences are obvious.    However I do think that our war crimes should always be exposed and prosecuted.    The one in question was rather egregious,

It just means that if you treat people poorly there will be side effects.

The military is no place to worry if somebody if offended.  If they can't handle the pressures of training and deploying then what is the point of having them "serve"?  

At the very least if you want to keep your war crimes a secret don't give your soldiers cause to expose them..

And what did he release that "exposed war crimes"? 

The military is no place to worry if somebody if offended.  If they can't handle the pressures of training and deploying then what is the point of having them "serve"? 

It's not a question of being "offended", but if the DoD treats their soldiers poorly and with disrespect they shouldn't be surprised by the consequences.

.

And what did he release that "exposed war crimes"? 

Obviously you don't know very much about the Manning issue if you have to ask that.    One of the very first things he leaked was the DoD's own video of two Apache helicopters assaulting a civilian newspaper crew and the civilians who tried to rescue them, including children.   It exposed that the air crew and the DoD had lied about the crime when they claimed they were fired upon by insurgents.

theguardian

en.m.wikipedia

Then that is a photo of a real black woman.

It exposed that the air crew and the DoD had lied about the crime when they claimed they were fired upon by insurgents.

To conservatives, exposing those war crimes and lies is treason while an enemy foreign government hacking private citizen emails and exposing political sausage making to help one political party win a national election is patriotic.

It's not a question of being "offended", but if the DoD treats their soldiers poorly and with disrespect they shouldn't be surprised by the consequences.

If they can't handle being in the military, don't waste our time.

One of the very first things he leaked was the DoD's own video of two Apache helicopters assaulting a civilian newspaper crew and the civilians who tried to rescue them, including children.   

As far as you know it was attacking "civilians".  What the clip DOESN'T show you is the attack on the convoy and the attackers moving into that crowd.  You obviously don't know what we faced, and continue to face in Iraq.  But don't let that stop you from playing armchair general.

It exposed that the air crew and the DoD had lied about the crime when they claimed they were fired upon by insurgents.

What did they lie about?  How are you so convinced Manning is telling the truth?  

As far as you know it was attacking "civilians".  What the clip DOESN'T show you is the attack on the convoy and the attackers moving into that crowd.  You obviously don't know what we faced, and continue to face in Iraq.  But don't let that stop you from playing armchair general.

It's true that there had been an earlier engagement nearby but that doesn't excuse a later attack on unarmed civilians.

rferl

.

What did they lie about?  How are you so convinced Manning is telling the truth?

Ummmmm......prior to the prosecution the official statements made by the DoD were lies despite the fact that they knew the video didn't support the claims made by the soldiers at all .    Initially the  DoD  said that all the dead were insurgents.   Then it claimed the helicopters reacted to an active firefight.   Then it made a faux investigation to bury the incident.

It's not even a question of what Manning thinks or said about the video.....as far as I know he said nothing whatsoever, it was Julian Assange who noted that the US had lied and tried to cover up a war crime.    Manning simply leaked a video which proved the soldiers and the DoD were lying to the Iraqis and to the US public for over 2 years.    The truth didn't come out until Manning leaked it.

But I'm not surprised the Bush administration covered it up given that their invasion and occupation had no basis whatsoever in international law.   The Iraq war was itself the # 1 war crime.

I think you're thinking of pathetic traitorous freaks like this one

You know who really stinks in this country.  Arm-chair, never-served, never-would scumbag chikenshits who attack people of courage.

Tranny's need to be in a mental hospital, not the military.

We have been over this and you are consistently wrong. Transgendered people are not mentally ill.  Trans people are not suicidal just because they are transgendered. Trans' people are only suicidal when they are denied care and/or abused by people who don't understand gender identity. It is the denial of care and the physical and emotional abuse by conservative people that is the problem because when trans' people get the care that they need and live in a supportive environment they have a suicide rate that is no different than the population average. 

The bigger question is that why are you so obsessed with something that doesn't affect you? You need to learn facts about gender identity and stop worrying about what doesn't concern you.

Because you say it.....it is so?  I don't think so.  According to you they only get upset when (fill in the blank)

Lets not get them upset cause we don't know what they will do!!!!!

Lets not get them upset cause we don't know what they will do!!!!!

I have facts to support my claims. You have an unfounded belief. 

Why do you care about something that doesn't concern you? 

I might ask you the same thing.  Why are you so concerned?

It’s called empathy.  You make it clear that not everyone is born with that emotion.

I might ask you the same thing.

I dont like to see the rights of others being trampled in your political and conservative religious zeal.

I also have a problem with ignorance in public policy.

Why are you so concerned?

Probably for the same reason that any ethical person would be concerned when any disfavored minority is irrationally targeted for harm by our government.

Harm by our government?  They should be a protected species and kept out of harm's way.

Political and religious zeal?  That's different!

Take it out of its proper place and put it in the safe zone for atheists and liberals....political and religious. Some of you have no intelligent conversation without using those two subjects.

Oh, I have empathy for people with real problems. 

Harm by our government?  They should be a protected species and kept out of harm's way.

The good news is that the courts intervened 9 months ago and that injunction is still in force.   Trump's "new policy" is utterly meaningless and the DoD said they're ignoring it.

Earlier Friday, Maj. David Eastburn, a Pentagon spokesman, said the announcement of a new policy would have no immediate practical effect on the military because the Pentagon is obliged to continue to recruit and retain transgender people in accordance with current law.

Political and religious zeal?

Religious belief has no place in determining public policy. The courts have already ruled on transgendered people serving in the US military and this statement from Trump doesn't change that previous decision.

Trump is tossing red meat to his base to try to deflect from the scandals of Russia and Stormy Daniels.

Trans' people are only suicidal when they are denied care and/or abused by people who don't understand gender identity.

Well, thank goodness Mount Holyoke College no longer allows professors to refer to their students as woman/women anymore!

Well, thank goodness Mount Holyoke College no longer allows professors to refer to their students as woman/women anymore!

Holyoke is a private school so they can do as they please. Personally, I find that a bit silly.

Simply refer to the person in question with their desired gender pronoun.  If in doubt, just ask the person what they prefer.

If their gender"identity" is so important to them that their major concern is using the proper bathroom, then they shouldn't be in the military at all. And if they are treated like they are special and given alternate facilities, it would not set well with the rest of the troops.

If their gender"identity" is so important to them that their major concern is using the proper bathroom, then they shouldn't be in the military at all.

Is your gender identity important to you or do you simply use whichever restroom is closest?    Do women object when you walk in to the women's restroom?

They should be a protected species and kept out of harm's way.

1.) Trans people aren't a different species from the rest of us. They don't want special rights. They do want the equal rights to live, work and love as they see fit. 

2.) They chose to put themselves in harm's way I think that we should let them serve if they want to do so.

What you are calling a mental illness has only to do with people's sexuality, which does not come into play on the battlefield or the bunkhouse, (at least it shouldn't!  )  It's unrelated to military service.

What you are calling a mental illness has only to do with people's sexuality

Or rather their gender identity.    And I agree that it's a non-issue as does the DoD.   Only Trump, Pence and their fellow bible-babbling bigots are worried about this issue.   It's red meat for their base of utter morons.

Trump needs to be in a mental hospital, not the White House.

Fixed.  You're welcome.

This is just one piece within the movement to roll back time.  The old white male generation is desperately trying to hold on to a era in which they were the most relevant in the food chain.   Time and evolution cannot be stopped.  I encourage these old peeps to focus on enjoying what remaining time they have left and stop trying to control the lives of others.

There is no place in the military for misfits and malcontents. Our armed services deserve only the very best and mentally ill SJW's are not welcome in the ranks.

What you call misfits others call son's, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers......

I think you get the point. 

Bottom line is we all have our idiosyncrasies.  Some are more accepted in society than others.  I admit that some of this makes me uncomfortable also.

Some are more accepted in society than others.

And then there are some things that should never be "accepted" in society.

I have no problems with gay, lesbian, bi, or even queer. But all this stupidity about transgender and sexual "identity" is going too far. Bruce Jenner may wear a dress, but he remains Bruce.

Yes Greg, I agree there are always those who should not be accepted.  I'm glad you agree that there are some that should.  

Wow- we compromised.  

I have no problems with gay, lesbian, bi, or even queer. But all this stupidity about transgender and sexual "identity" is going too far. Bruce Jenner may wear a dress, but he remains Bruce.

I have yet to see one argument in opposition to gender identity that isn't based on abject ignorance. I have explained this many times but many people have an emotional block that prevents them from learning facts.

It isn't sexual identity because Caitlyn isn't questioning the idea of being a lesbian.

A person's physical gender and their gender identity are not the same. Sex is an act and their sexual orientation determines what apparent gender they are attracted to.

There is no place in the military for misfits and malcontents.

I agree.   The DoD has no interest in hiring bigots.

What you call misfits others call son's, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers......

Mental institution are filled with son's,  daughter, brother, sisters etc. And that is where those that think they are something they are not belong,  in a mental hospital. 

How many times do I need to explain this subject to you before the information sinks in? They are not mentally ill. 

apa

 Drs oppose the ban on transgendered people serving in the military. Do you know more about the subject than an MD?

psychiatry

Yeah.....okay.  What's your point?  If you're going to be negative then I'm not interested in having a discussion.

This site with all the right leaning new members has turned into a depressing cesspool of hate and negativity.

Drs oppose the ban on transgendered people serving in the military.

And at one time doctors were OK with people smoking too. So what? 

What you call misfits others call son's, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers......

Time to stop pulling the bleeding heart SJW card. To be successful at all times, our US military must include only the most stable people among our legal immigrants and citizens. Our Armed Forces isn't the place to include those who want/need psych counseling, medications, and surgeries for their gender identity issues and that treatment is not the responsibility of taxpayers.

And at one time doctors were OK with people smoking too. So what?

Science moves on as knowledge is gained. 

Why do you refuse to learn from what you have been told? It seems to me that there is something innately personal with you about this discussion. Do you feel threatened by trans people because they make you question what makes a person male or female?  Is it the fact that what you see may not be who the person actually is? Do you have a family member or friend who is trans that you cannot accept?

It seems to me that there is something innately personal with you about this discussion.

I think the vast majority of right wing nuts are threatened by anything even slightly outside a very rigid gender norm and a lot of that is rooted in a rather profound misogyny.    It's also an aspect of their innate tendency to authoritarianism.

The DoD has no interest in hiring bigots.

They don't care what your beliefs are if you can do the job, and do it right. You sure throw the word "bigot" around a lot. Is that akin to a pot calling all kettles who don't agree him, a bigot?

You sure throw the word "bigot" around a lot.

If the shoe fits.....

However I definitely do think that the military has no use for these fragile and cowardly bigots.    If they're afraid of serving with a fellow soldier just because they're gay or trans, how can such an irrational coward ever be trusted on the battlefield against a real enemy?

You sure throw the word "bigot" around a lot.

They used to call everyone racists but that got old and wasn't effective any longer because of overuse. They overused homophone too and that became watered down. They needed something else to try so they chose "bogot"  

They used to call everyone racists but that got old and wasn't effective any longer because of overuse. They overused homophone too and that became watered down. They needed something else to try so they chose "bogot"

It must be tough to consistently be on the losing side of history and societal evolution.    No wonder you folks always have sore butts.

SJW

I don't know what SJW stands for.

Our Armed Forces isn't the place to include those who want/need psych counseling, medications, and surgeries for their gender identity issues and that treatment is not the responsibility of taxpayers.

I agree and have posted as much on previous articles that discussed tax payer money being used.  I've also outlined the exact same items that you have above. 

BUT - My aversion to using tax payer money for these procedures and services doesn't mean that I do not support these individuals for making a personal choice.

SJW = Social Justice Warriors.  

Drs oppose the ban on transgendered people serving in the military.

Many times the military doctors are learning how to master different procedures.  That's why I've heard it's so cheap to have a variety of cosmetic and other types of surgeries performed by military docs. 

Personally, I think the military is using these opportunities to learn more on how to manipulate the human body via drugs and surgery.  I've not doubt that they are getting just as much if not more out of performing these surgeries.  

Thanks X.  I never get those darn acronyms.  hahahahahahahaha

I'm flying out to your neck of woods tomorrow.....or close to your neck of the woods.  What's the weather like?

I agree and have posted as much on previous articles that discussed tax payer money being used.  

The amount of money is utterly trivial particularly since only a minority of trans folks need surgery of any kind.   Also the military has an interest in providing adequate health care to ALL its soldiers, and they're unusually expert in this area due to their skills in reconstructive surgery due to battlefield injuries.    All of that was noted in the Rand report.

that is where those that think they are something they are not belong,  in a mental hospital.

So all the conservative Republicans who think themselves intelligent should be sent to mental hospitals? Finally we agree on something.

Our Armed Forces isn't the place to include those who want/need psych counseling, medications, and surgeries for their gender identity issues and that treatment is not the responsibility of taxpayers.

would that be all psych counseling, medications and surgeries or just those related to gender identity issues ?

Even the most brilliant of us can be stumped by the most trivial.  

The American Psychiatric association disagrees with you:

LOL.....not only have you confused gender dysphoria with being transgender, but you also seem unaware that the primary source of gender dysphoria is the anti-trans animus which comes from bigots.    Those dumb bigots are the real cause of the problem.

Also you flat-out lied about what the APA said on this issue:

“The APA stands firmly against discrimination against anyone,” said President-Elect Altha Stewart, M.D. “Banning transgender service members from serving our country harms not just those transgender Americans who have dedicated themselves to service of others, but it unfairly casts a pall over all transgender Americans. Discrimination has a negative impact on the mental health of those targeted.”

The APA in 2012 passed a policy statement that opposed discrimination against transgender people and called for their civil rights to be protected. Transgender people do not have a mental disorder ; thus, they suffer no impairment whatsoever in their judgment or ability to work.

psychiatry

.

At the very least you should learn to read before you misrepresent the views of organizations which fundamentally oppose your anti-trans bigotry.

To be successful at all times, our US military must include only the most stable people among our legal immigrants and citizens. Our Armed Forces isn't the place to include those who want/need psych counseling, medications, and surgeries for their gender identity issues and that treatment is not the responsibility of taxpayers.

Perhaps you have a better idea of what we should have done with these pillars of fucking stability...  And keep in mind sugar, that this is the short list.

AIR FORCE
Robert James Acremant  Killed 3 people (1995)
William Andrews and Dale Selby Pierre  Killed 3 people (1974)
Committed their crimes while in the service. Pierre was suspected in another killing where the victim was a fellow airman.
Donald Jay Beardslee  Killed 3 people (1969-81)
Also went to a military school, where he was regularly humiliated, beaten and tortured by upperclassman as part of standard abuse and hazing.
Rudy Bladel (aka “The Railway Sniper”)  Killed at least 3 people, possibly up to 7 (1963-78)
William Bonin (aka “The Freeway Killer”)  Killed at least 21 people, possibly up to 43 (1979-80; some with accomplices)  Vietnam veteran gunner. Was awarded a good conduct medal.
Thomas Richard Bunday  Killed 5 people (1979-81)
Was in the service at the time of his crimes and was seeing a military psychologist. The psychologist committed a murder of his own, the hired killing of his own wife, which was done in a manner to look like part of Bunday’s then-unsolved string of killings, with the psychologist unaware that the killer was one of his own patients. Bunday hid at least one body on the base where he was stationed.
Peter C. Contos  Killed 3 people (1997)
Air National Guard. Committed his crime while in the service. Hid the bodies of two of his victims in a locker at the Air Force base where he served. According to a court appeal, he blamed his crimes on stress causing him to mentally go into “‘the zone,’ in which he reverted to his military training and eliminated anyone he perceived as a threat.”
James Michael DeBardelben  Killed at least 3 people, possibly 8 or more (1971-83)
Richard Eugene Dickens  Killed 2 people (1990)
Dennis Thurl Dowthitt  Killed 2 people (1990; with accomplice)
Robert Garrow  lled 4 people (1973)  During service, was ridiculed for bed-wetting.
Donald Harvey  Killed at least 37 people, possibly 57 or more (1970-87)
Committed some of his crimes at a Veterans Affairs hospital while working there.
John Joseph Joubert IV (aka “The Woodford Slasher”)  Killed 3 people (1982-85)
Committed some of his crimes while living on a base. Also attended military college.
Patrick Wayne Kearney (aka “The Trash-Bag Killer,” “The Freeway Killer”)
Killed at least 21 people, possibly 28 or more (1975-77; possibly with accomplice)
His possible accomplice was an Army veteran.
Barton Kay Kirkham  Killed 2 people (1956) Was discharged after committing a robbery while AWOL.
Randy Kraft (aka “The Freeway Killer,” “The Scorecard Killer”) Killed at least 16 people, possibly up to 67 (1970-83) Was entrusted with a “secret” security clearance. A former ROTC member who demonstrated in favor of the Vietnam War.
Gary Lewingdon  Killed at least 10 people, possibly up to 11 (1977-78; with an accomplice)
Vietnam veteran.
Dean A. Mellberg  Killed 4 people and unborn child (1994)
Committed his crimes at the base where he previously served.

Joseph Naso (aka “The Alphabet Murderer”) Killed at least 4 people, possibly 6 or more (1970s-1990s)
Simon Peter Nelson  Killed 6 people (1978)
John Leonard Orr (aka “The Pillow Pyro”) Killed 4 people (1984)
Kelsey Patterson  Killed 2 people (1992)
Dennis Rader (aka “BTK”)  Killed 10 people (1974-91)
Larry Keith Robison  Killed 5 people (1982)
Had paranoid delusions of being hunted by various government authorities, including the Air Force.
Daniel Harold “Danny” Rolling (aka “The Gainesville Ripper”)
Killed at least 5 people, possibly up to 8 (1990-91)
Worked in the former Strategic Air Command and as base security police. Honorably discharged. Used a Marine Corps Ka-Bar combat knife in his crimes. Also attempted and failed to enlist in the Navy.
Pat Sherrill  (see Marines listing)
Michael Alan Silka  Killed at least 9 people (1984)
Ronald Gene Simmons  Killed 16 people (1987)
Decorated Vietnam veteran who earned a marksmanship medal and retired as a master sergeant after 22 years. Also served in the Navy.
John Floyd Thomas Jr. (aka “Westside Rapist”)  Killed at least 7 people, possibly up to 30 (1972-1986)
Richard Lee Tingler Jr.  Killed at least 6 people, possibly up to 7 (1968-69)
Began committing lesser crimes while in the service with a fellow airman as an accomplice.
Thomas Warren Whisenhant  Killed 3 people (1975-76)
While in the service, attempted to murder a member of the Air Force WAF.
Andrew Paul Witt  Killed 2 people (2004)
Committed his crimes on a base while in the service and while wearing full battle dress uniform worn for the purpose of the attack. Victims included a fellow airman. Later apologized for the impact of his crimes on the Air Force.
Yahweh ben Yahweh (aka Hulon Mitchell Jr.)  Killed at least 14 people (c. 1980s)
Edward J. Zakrzewski II   Killed 3 people (1994)  Was in the service at the time of his crimes.

ARMY
Hasan Akbar
Killed 2 people (2003)
Victims were a U.S. Army captain and a U.S. Air Force major in Kuwait during invasion of Iraq. Claimed he preferred killing fellow soldiers to killing fellow Muslims. Prior to the attack, he wrote, “I may not have killed any Muslims, but being in the army is the same thing. I may have to make a choice very soon on who to kill.” And after being arrested, he said, “You guys are coming into our countries, and you’re going to rape our women and kill our children.”
Rodney Alcala (aka “The Dating Game Killer”)  Killed at least 5 people (1977-79)
Albert Anastasia (aka “The Mad Hatter,” “The Lord High Executioner”)  Killed at least 2 people, probably 9 or more (1921-57)
Was a known member of the Mafia’s “Murder, Inc.” when he was admitted into the service.
Joseph Ernest Atkins  Killed 3 people (1969-85)
Vietnam veteran who reportedly saw heavy combat in covert missions and on “Hamburg Hill” and the Tet Offensive; witnessed severely mutilated civilian corpses; and heard a fellow soldier who had been captured being tortured to death. Committed his last killings on the anniversary of the day of his arrival in Vietnam, and wore combat fatigues during them. Defense attorneys said post-traumatic stress flashbacks might have contributed to his crimes, during which he was “in his own mind…back in Vietnam.”
Robert Bales
Killed 16 people (2012)
Was a soldier serving in Afghanistan at the time of his crimes, which were committed on civilians. His attorneys said his crimes were affected by post-traumatic stress from combat, a brain injury suffered while serving in Iraq, and drugs and alcohol provided to him by Special Operations troops at his military outpost.
Joe Ball  Killed at least 2 people (1930s)
George Emil Banks  Killed 13 people (1982)
During his crimes, changed into military fatigues and a military T-shirt that read, “Kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out.”
Cesar Francesco Barone  Killed at least 4 people, possibly up to 5 (1979-1993)
Army Ranger and veteran of the 1989 invasion of Panama.
Earl Russell Behringer  Killed 2 people (1986; with accomplice)
Came out of the Army “infatuated with weaponry,” according to a friend. When entering his plea at trial, clicked his heels together military-style.
David Berkowitz (aka “Son of Sam”)  Killed 6 people (1976-77) During service, became an expert rifle shot.
William Bradford Bishop Jr.  Killed 5 people (1976)  Served in a counterintelligence unit.
Christopher Black Sr.  Killed 3 people (1998)  Had retired with the rank of sergeant.
Clifford H. Boggess  Killed 2 people (1986)
John Wilkes Booth  Killed President Abraham Lincoln (1865)
Temporarily joined the militia to witness the execution of John Brown.
Joseph Bozicevich  Killed 2 people (2008)
Victims were fellow soldiers on an Army base in Iraq during the war who criticized his battlefield performance.
Kenneth Lee Boyd  Killed 2 people (1988)
Vietnam veteran who claimed to suffer blackouts and memory loss after service and during his crimes. In his confession, he said of his killings, “It was just like I was in Vietnam.”
Lamar Brooks  Killed 2 people (1996)  Gulf War veteran.
Charles Noel Brown  Killed 4 people (1961; with accomplice)
Robert Charles Browne  Killed at least 2 people, possibly up to 49 (1987-95)
Claims his first victim was a fellow soldier.
Jerome “Jerry” Brudos (aka “The Shoe Fetish Slayer,” “The Lust Killer”)  Killed at least 3 people, possibly up to 12 (1968-69)
Attempted to impress potential victims by fraudulently calling himself a Vietnam veteran.
James N. Burmeister and Malcolm Wright   Killed 2 people (1995; with accomplice)
At the time of their crimes, they were serving on a military base where joined fellow soldiers in white supremacy and neo-Nazism that fueled their killings.
Michael Burnett  Killed 2 people (2011; with accomplices)
Committed his crimes while in the service as part of a secret crime/terrorism gang called Forever Enduring Always Ready (FEAR). One victim was another soldier who had been a FEAR member.
Samuel Byck  Killed 2 people (1974)
Committed his crimes while attempting to assassinate President Richard Nixon. His assassination plot was inspired by the stunt landing of a stolen military helicopter on the White House lawn by another soldier.
Harvy Louis Carignan (aka “The Want-Ad Killer,” “Harv the Hammer”)
Killed at least 3 people, possibly up to 18 (1949-1975)
Committed one of his killings while in the service and living on an Army base.
Joseph Christopher (aka “.22-Caliber Killer,” “Midtown Slasher”)
Killed at least 5 people, possibly up to 13 (1980)
Committed his crimes while in the service. Also attacked a fellow soldier.
Christopher Bernard Coleman  Killed 3 people (1995)
Gary Bradford Cone  Killed 2 people (1980)
Vietnam veteran. Blamed his crimes on the influence of drugs, a habit he acquired in the service.
Craig Conkey  Killed 2 people (1992-94)
Richard Wade Cooey II  Killed 2 people (1986; with accomplices)
Michael Corbett  Killed at least 3 people (1975; with accomplices)
Committed his crimes while in the service. Inspired by his bayonet training, killed one victim—a fellow soldier—with a bayonet as an experiment. Accomplices included a fellow soldier and a civilian worker at their Army base.
Dean Corll  Killed at least 27 people (1970-73; with accomplices)
Frederick William Cowan  Killed 6 people (1977)
During his crimes, wore an Army field jacket and combat boots.
Donald Lavell Craig  Killed 2 people (1995-96)
Jeffrey Dahmer  Killed 17 people (1978-91)
James Floyd Davis  Killed 3 people (1995)
Vietnam veteran who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. A military rifle used in Vietnam was among the weapons he used in his crime. Received a good conduct medal and a Purple Heart belatedly while in prison, in a ceremony where they were pinned to his chest.
Albert DeSalvo (aka “The Boston Strangler”)  Killed 11 people (1962-64)
Carl C. Drega  Killed 4 people (1997)
Wayne Eugene DuMond  Killed at least 2 people, possibly up to 3 (1972-2001; with accomplices)

Sorry Hon, but I need to stop here.  If you want to see the rest of the list go here.  

Oh, and if you have a desire to actually read the list, you will see a plethora of names that should make you sick to think they were ever accepted into the military.

While I am not a mental health professional, I unequivocally did not lie about fuckall, I copied and pasted the content of the comment directly from the website I linked.

Yeah you did lie and deliberately misrepresented what the APA said.   You were either trying to twist the APA's words into saying something complete opposite of what their actual policy is, or your ignorance on the topic causes you to completely misunderstand what they're saying.

Not only did they say that transgender folks are not mentally ill per se, but they noted that whatever problems they do have are brought on by the mentally ill bigots who irrationally despise them.   In that regard you should seek help for any issues you might have - normal people don't exhibit the kind of biases you do.

You also rather ignorantly confused gender dysphoria with being transgender.   Not only don't all transgender folks ever experience gender dysphoria, but not all the folks who do experience it are transgender.....some are cisgender like you.

I didn't misrepresent anything so wither copy and paste that part of my comment you claim I lied about or shove your bullshit accusations up your fucking ass.

Maybe you should try to learn something about the topic before you copy & paste stuff which misrepresents the views of credible organizations?   As I noted, the APA not only directly opposes your transphobic views but they also say that folks like you are the real problem here.

So now that you know the truth I presume in the future you'll always copy & paste the APA's statement that "Transgender people do not have a mental disorder", right?    Or will you deliberately misrepresent their views again?    By the way no medical or scientific organization in the US supports your views, only hate groups do.

I already stated I'm no mental health professional so I'm trying to understand this issue the best I can, that doesn't mean I'm ignorant nor misrepresenting nor lying

People have tried on numerous occasions to educate you about this situation but you only want to hear what reinforces your currently held bias against transgendered people.  You banned me from one of your threads on Newsvine for telling the truth about trans people using the bathroom of their identity in Seattle. 

Transgendered people are not mentally ill because they are transgendered. The problem occurs when they are abused or they are denied proper medical/psych care to allow them to transition and live as they feel that they are. John Money tried in the past to treat trans people by attempting to reinforce their birth gender and the result was the person committed suicide.  That was the common treatment by insurance companies until the mid 1990s because it is cheaper than physical counseling hormones and gender confirmation surgery. Many people died as the result of that idiocy They are not a threat to anyone in the bathroom of their identity, despite your beliefs.  Your problem is that you cannot get past seeing their external genitalia and what you think is their DNA to understand that people are controlled by their psychological gender identity. A trans g female is not more of a threat to CIS women than a lesbian is and you cannot prove otherwise. You will likely post a story of a transvestite i using the ladies bathroom in rebuttal because you don't understand the difference between the two. 

John Money tried in the past to treat trans people by attempting to reinforce their birth gender and the result was the person committed suicide.

Note that was actually a cisgender male infant whose penis was mutilated due to a botched circumcision, and so Money convinced the parents to raise him as a girl after having sex reassignment surgery performed.    But the lesson is the exact same - if you raise someone in conflict with their gender identity the risk of suicide is 10 times higher than normal.

The other aspect the Reimer case and others like the Maines twins have shown is that gender identity isn't primarily a learned trait and that there are fundamental aspects which are present (despite all external influences) and which can be observed as early as the age of 2.

Our armed services deserve only the very best and mentally ill SJW's are not welcome in the ranks.

Someone's got to protect your ass and you don't seem to be willing to do it yourself.

Tell me something.  How much time do you have left?  I didn't know that only those over 50 die,

Here's hoping Trump is able to restore sanity to the military as quickly as Obama took it away.

Yes Armando, we have to start getting choosy about who we allow the privilege of dying in one of our stupid wars, absolutely!  

These fragile and confused misfits would not survive in an actual battle situation and would not be good for the morale of the other men in the unit. They would NOT be accepted by the other troops, and would be tortured if ever captured.

I sincerely doubt that you would survive an altercation with the ‘women’ I posted in the picture above.  Two hits, one of them being you hitting the floor.

Gotta get personal when all else fails.

Deleted CoC {SP}

These fragile and confused misfits would not survive in an actual battle situation and would not be good for the morale of the other men in the unit. They would NOT be accepted by the other troops, and would be tortured if ever captured.

You have absolutely no evidence for a single thing you posted. Skirting CoC {SP}

I sincerely doubt that you would survive an altercation with the ‘women’ I posted in the picture above.  Two hits, one of them being you hitting the floor.

Of those in that picture, how many would be able to take that fight on in full combat equipment?  They may look big and strong but looks and action are two completely different things.  I've seen many much larger than what you posted cower down in blubbering heaps when the first RPG detonated in front of them.

Of those in that picture, how many would be able to take that fight on in full combat equipment?

Who knows?    But so far the DoD has found no adverse consequences of having transgender folks serve and they seem to do at least as well in battle as anyone else.

Your concerns seem to echo the concerns of the racist and misogynistic morons who fretted about letting black folks or women fly planes or serve in combat......and the same as the irrational and obsessed homophobes who fretted about gays.

Oh please...if I wasn't so sure I was right, I wouldn't waste time posting here. Another personal attack on your part.

I've seen many much larger than what you posted cower down in blubbering heaps when the first RPG detonated in front of them.

Would you have the balls and the stamina to step out of the house as a woman?  Courage comes in more ways than you give it credit.

Who knows?   

You made the assumption that they could handle somebody.  But you can't honestly answer that question.

But so far the DoD has found no adverse consequences of having transgender folks serve and they seem to do at least as well in battle as anyone else.

They haven't published anything positive either.  In fact, the DoD had enough time to make the determination (good or bad) and didn't, so the President, as Commander In Chief, stepped in and made the "Command" decision.

Your concerns seem to echo the concerns of the racist and misogynistic morons who fretted about letting black folks or women fly planes or serve in combat......and the same as the irrational and obsessed homophobes who fretted about gays.

My concerns actually echo a Soldier.  Somebody who has been there and somebody who has seen the people of all sizes and backgrounds either break or step up.  As an NCO, there was no special treatment for my Soldiers.  If they couldn't handle the stress and the task, they were removed from the unit or the military all together.  

Oh, and nice try with the typical liberal bullshit of calling me a racist and misogynist.  It's evident you really don't have an argument any more.  You can re-insert your head into your 4th point of contact now.  

Would you have the balls and the stamina to step out of the house as a woman?  Courage comes in more ways than you give it credit.

More than likely.  At the same time, I wouldn't make a big spectacle of it.  

I wouldn't make a big spectacle of it.

Most of them are trying to draw as little attention to themselves as possible.  They just want to feel comfortable in their own skin.

Think of it this way - that feeling that you would experience if you were to step out of the house as a woman, is what they feel like when they step out as their physical birth gender.  Mentally they are the opposite gender.  If presenting themselves as such is what makes them productive and mentally stable, who is anyone else to deny them that most basic of human rights?  Asking them to conform to your expectations is like asking you to start being a woman.  I don’t pretend to understand how or why it happens, I just know that my life and your life will not suffer by them being allowed to present themselves how they feel to be most natural to them.

You made the assumption that they could handle somebody.  But you can't honestly answer that question.

Actually I did answer with facts - the study commissioned by the DoD found that trans folks have no problem performing their duties as soldiers.   So your assumptions were unfounded and erroneous, and you simply seem unable to deal with facts which conflict with your anti-trans ideology.

.

They haven't published anything positive either.  In fact, the DoD had enough time to make the determination (good or bad) and didn't, so the President, as Commander In Chief, stepped in and made the "Command" decision.

What?   You obviously didn't read the Rand report and thus don't know what you're talking about.

.

My concerns actually echo a Soldier.  Somebody who has been there and somebody who has seen the people of all sizes and backgrounds either break or step up.  As an NCO, there was no special treatment for my Soldiers.  If they couldn't handle the stress and the task, they were removed from the unit or the military all together.

Yeah.....exactly like the racist, misogynist and homophobic soldiers who opposed service by blacks, women and gays.    The reality is that your irrational fears have no place in the modern world much less in our military, and they have no justification in the DoD's experience with trans soldiers.

.

Oh, and nice try with the typical liberal bullshit of calling me a racist and misogynist.

I didn't call you that but I did say that your moronic and irrational arguments exactly echo those irrationally bigoted arguments.    Your irrational fears are your own problem, they shouldn't be the problem of a fellow soldier.

They just want to feel comfortable in their own skin.

Then doing that in a high stress, high risk profession is not for them.

that feeling that you would experience if you were to step out of the house as a woman, is what they feel like when they step out as their physical birth gender

The difference is, I don't really care what others think of me.  It has no bearing on how I live my life.  I know who I am.  I know what I'm capable of.  I don't need anybody's approval.

Asking them to conform to your expectations is like asking you to start being a woman.

Look at it this way.  They want to join the military, they, just like myself and millions of others, will conform.  It's that simple.  

Look at it this way.  They want to join the military, they, just like myself and millions of others, will conform.  It's that simple.

They're already in the military and doing quite well.   They always have been.    The only difference today is they no longer have to pretend to be the other gender.

Here's hoping Trump is able to restore sanity to the military as quickly as Obama took it away.

Too bad for the bigots that the court injunction is still in effect......your Fuhrer can issue as many anti-trans memos as he likes but none of them will ever have any impact at all, at least not until he can convince a court that his ban has some rational basis and is supported by sound science rather than bible-babbling bigotry.

It's also rather amusing that no right wing nutjob is aware of that fact.    They all seem to think that the military must follow whatever Trump nutty thing tweets or signs.

The only bigots around here are the science deniers who don't understand how basic biology and chromosomes work. You don't get to decide your gender. Keep your social experiments at home.

The only bigots around here are the science deniers who don't understand how basic biology and chromosomes work.

Ah, so now you believe in man made global warming, good to know. 

The only bigots around here are the science deniers who don't understand how basic biology and chromosomes work.

So which of the 6 common chromosomal sex karyotypes are you?     You'd be in a very small minority if you ever actually had yours tested.   The Dod doesn't even test it when you're enlisted.   It's simply not relevant to military service.

Also, please explain what if any relation genetic sex karyotype has to gender identity or even to body morphology and sexual traits, given that both are determined primarily by prenatal hormones not by genetic sex karyotype.

.

You don't get to decide your gender.

I agree - you are what you are and much of that was determined in the womb.    Transgender folks no more "choose" their gender than cisgender folks do.

The only bigots around here are the science deniers who don't understand how basic biology and chromosomes work. You don't get to decide your gender. Keep your social experiments at home.

The only science denier is you. A person's chromosomes or their DNA determines their physical gender but does not determine their gender identity. A persons gender identity is their psychological sense of self that is not always determined by in utero hormones.

Sex is assigned at birth, refers to one’s biological status as either male or female, and is associated primarily with physical attributes such as chromosomes, hormone prevalence, and external and internal anatomy. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for boys and men or girls and women. These influence the ways that people act, interact, and feel about themselves. While aspects of biological sex are similar across different cultures, aspects of gender may differ.

apa

If you are going to attempt to discuss a subject you should have a reasonable knowledge of what you seek to discuss.

Physical gender is somebody's real gender. Always has been, always will. Frankenscience doesn't change that. Science was wrong about eugenics, letting people with syphillis die as an experiment and death camp doctors. And they are wrong about this.

A person's chromosomes or their DNA determines their physical gender but does not determine their gender identity.

I'd go further than that and observe that DNA only really determines genetic sex karyotype and very little else since it's prenatal hormones which directly impact all the sex-related fetal development phases, of which there are several and all of them are susceptible to environmental influences.    There really is no such thing as "physical gender", at least not any one such thing.

So pretty much all the traits we usually think of as sex-related aren't actually determined by genetics.    That's especially true before puberty but even the more permanent morphological changes at puberty are caused by hormones not by genetics.

"You'd be in a very small minority if you ever actually had yours tested."

I'm not the one asking for special treatment or denying obvious reality. If Brad Manning or Bruce Jenner want to get tested to find out what they are, let them. But I think you know real science would not back them up no matter how much technobabble you want to throw at it.

I'm not the one asking for special treatment or denying obvious reality.

In fact you are - you're demanding special treatment for cisgender folks (which I presume you are), despite there being no rational basis to support that privileged treatment.     That's why no court has found Trump's arguments to have any merit whatsoever.   You're like the butt-hurt bigots who didn't want black folks, women or gays to be allowed to serve.

.

But I think you know real science would not back them up no matter how much technobabble you want to throw at it.

An interesting comment given that no scientific or medical organization supports your unscientific and uninformed views.    Not even the study commissioned by the DoD supports your views at all.

But what's most revealing is that the DoJ claimed to have "experts" who disputed the views of the DoD's Rand study.......but they refused to tell the court who those "experts" are.    LOL.....apparently they were just some bible-babbling morons whom Pence found in the sewers.

Physical gender is somebody's real gender. Always has been, always will. Frankenscience doesn't change that. Science was wrong about eugenics, letting people with syphillis die as an experiment and death camp doctors. And they are wrong about this.

A person's gender identity is not always the same as their physical gender. A person's phycological gender identity is obviously in their brain and it cannot be changed. For the vast majority of people, their gender identity and their physical gender align but for a few people per thousand there are incongruent and those people are transgendered.

You can jump up and down, scream and protest but your protests won't change basic facts of human sexuality.   Transgendneered people have always existed and were referred to by different m names among old cultures. Our gender identity, much like our sexuality is not always binary, so with time, people will be freer to be who they are instead of being held to an unnaturally strict binary gender role. 

I think you know real science would not back them up no matter how much technobabble you want to throw at it.

What you call technobabble is the work product of MDs and PhDs who are members of the American Psychological and American Psychiatric Associations. 

You only refer to it as technobabble because you lack both the ability to understand it and/or you have an emotional block that doesn't allow you to accept facts that run contrary to your emotionally held beliefs. 

Allowing a person with a penis into the women's bathroom/ locker room/ public showers is special privilege. As far as being bigoted against people due to their race as you mentioned, I have to ask why the left hasn't openly embraced transracial people like Rachel Dolezal. Nobody seems to be able to answer that honestly.

Allowing a person with a penis into the women's bathroom/ locker room/ public showers is special privilege.

Really?   When have there ever been crotch police at the entries to public restrooms?

.

As far as being bigoted against people due to their race as you mentioned, I have to ask why the left hasn't openly embraced transracial people like Rachel Dolezal. Nobody seems to be able to answer that honestly.

I think it's just the wingnuts and T-baggers who worry about that.    However you do remind me that your obsession with restrooms actually dates back to the Jim Crow era and racially segregated restrooms......where the white folks usually had a gender-segregated restroom but black folks did not.    Apparently your concerns really are rooted in a sense of privilege.

It's also interesting that your ilk wants to force transgender folks to use a non-conforming restroom, thus creating the kind of hysteria you fret about while simultaneously exposing trans folks to a very real threat of violence.

Allowing a person with a penis into the women's bathroom/ locker room/ public showers is special privilege.

it seems odd to me that so many conservative minded people are concerned with everyone else's genitals - do you regularly check out everyone's genitals in restrooms to make sure the "right ones" are in there ?

So I take it that you're wimping out on the whole Rachel Dolezal question like all the people who claim to be "pro trans" do. Then you double down by pretending a 100% natural thing like race is the same as the delusional using the bathroom they should be. I guess the left just isn't intellectually honest enough to deal with the transracial issue yet. Maybe someday they'll "progress" enough.

So I take it that you're wimping out on the whole Rachel Dolezal question like all the people who claim to be "pro trans" do.

I'm not clear why you think it's relevant.

.

Then you double down by pretending a 100% natural thing like race is the same as the delusional using the bathroom they should be. I guess the left just isn't intellectually honest enough to deal with the transracial issue yet. Maybe someday they'll "progress" enough.

Unlike gender identity race is merely an arbitrary social construct which varies from society to society and which has no real basis in science.   The "one-drop" rules in the confederate states are proof of that premise, as is the varying racial identity of Homer Plessy from white to mulatto, quadroon, octaroon and negro.   So is the phenomenon of "passing" and the black racial identity of people who look like Obama due to the way society treats them here in the US.......but in a country like Brazil they'd be classified as something else entirely, not black.

reuters

In contrast gender identity has been confirmed through fMRI and there's even a case of identical (zygomatic) twins where one is cisgender and the other transgender, both raised in the same very conservative family.

So I take it that you're wimping out on the whole Rachel Dolezal question like all the people who claim to be "pro trans" do. Then you double down by pretending a 100% natural thing like race is the same as the delusional using the bathroom they should be. I guess the left just isn't intellectually honest enough to deal with the transracial issue yet. Maybe someday they'll "progress" enough.

 She may identify with any other race but since all of the races have equal constitutional rights, even when that isn't always true is practice her ideas aren't relevant in this thread, despite your attempts to correlate her with transgendered people. Black and interracial often tried to pass as whites in the 1950s and 1960s so they could live freely in a racist society, so she isn't the first or even noteworthy, except to racists. 

So then you'd be okay if she applied for affirmative action preferences and minority only scholarships?

So then you'd be okay if she applied for affirmative action preferences and minority only scholarships?

Why do you continue to bring your racial views into a discussion of gender identity, despite the fact that the analogy is faulty? 

Does she financially qualify for those scholarships? Has she ever suffered the effects of racial discrimination? Is she even biracial?

it seems odd to me that so many conservative minded people are concerned with everyone else's genitals

They seem concerned about so many people's sex lives except the sexual deviants and criminals  on their side.  Yes, I'm referring toRoy Fucking Pervert Moore as well as Tim Murphy and Scott DesJarlais, and, of course The BigShitbag in the WH. 

If you can't see the similarity between somebody who claims to have a completely different identity despite their natural body then you're not looking hard. And yes, she has suffered discrimination due to her transracial claim. She was practically homeless at one point. 

Here's hoping Trump is able to restore sanity to the military as quickly as Obama took it away.

What did Obama take away? Be specific. 

It is a mental illness and we already have too many of those with guns.

"It's a mental illness..."

That was rather nasty, Mango, you should try to be more understanding and less judgemental.

Not everyone agrees with people changing their sex, some people believe, what nature made you as you should stay.  When people disagree about something they are considered a bigot.

Are you claiming that such people aren't bigots?    At the very least their comments reveal both bigotry against trans folks and complete ignorance of the topic - especially ignorance about the complexities of human fetal development.    And mere philosophical "disagreement" isn't the issue here, it's the desire on the part of these bigots to deny trans folks equal rights or to otherwise discriminate against them and harm them.    It's just as false and dishonest a claim as those who claim not to be bigots but merely "disagree" with the right of same-sex couples or mixed-race couples to marry.

As far as "what nature made you as you should stay", well, that's kind of the point isn't it?    Who they are is core to their identity, and in most cases transgender folks were transgender even before they knew what gender is.    It's far easier and far more possible to change one's external appearance than to change these neurological traits, really not that much different than wearing makeup.    There simply is no way at present to change a person's gender identity without destroying the person.     The alternative is suicide and that's what bigots and their hate drive so many trans folks to do as a last resort.

Who they are is core to their identity, and in most cases transgender folks were transgender even before they knew what gender is.

Then what the fuck are they doing in the military and demanding special treatment, separate quarters, and perhaps surgery while still entlisted....ala "Chelsea" Manning.

What "special treatment" are you talking about?   From what I can tell you're the only one demanding special treatment here.

Then what the fuck are they doing in the military and demanding special treatment, separate quarters, and perhaps surgery while still entlisted....ala "Chelsea" Manning.

Trans people don't want separate quarters. They want to live with the gender that they identify with.

If they have the support of Drs why shouldn't they receive the medical treatment necessary for their health?  Why would anyone allow a person who doesn't understand a situation to make medical treatment decisionss for others? Can we mandate that Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witness, and the Amish get to make your medical decisions?

The same could be said about born again scum in the military.

Deleted CoC {SP}

I do wonder why such superstitious scum are allowed in the military.   We see how much harm was caused by gullible superstitious folks like Mike Flynn and Jerry Boykin.....wouldn't it be better for our country if we only allowed rational people to enlist?

It is a mental illness and we already have too many of those with guns.

Lying is a sin according to your bible. Gender identity is not a mental illness. 

The change, although currently limited to Denmark, represents a new phase in the evolution of views on being transgender. An earlier change occurred in 2013, when “gender identity disorder” was dropped from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition ( DSM -5), U.S. psychiatry’s bible for diagnosing mental illness. A new condition called “gender dysphoria” was added to diagnose and treat those transgender individuals who felt distress at the mismatch between their identities and their bodies. The new diagnosis recognized that a mismatch between one’s birth gender and identity was not necessarily pathological, notes pediatric endocrinologist Norman Spack, a founder of the gender clinic at Boston Children’s Hospital. It shifted the emphasis in treatment from fixing a disorder to resolving distress over the mismatch.

scientificamerican

Let's hope these people have treatment.....otherwise!

Let's hope these people have treatment.....otherwise!

Treatment is typically begun before they enter the military.

Starting this month at U.S. recruiting offices, transgender individuals can note if their gender identity does match their gender at birth and disclose related surgeries or treatments on medical forms without being disqualified, said Gaylan Johnson, a spokesman at the U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command.

Once in the military, where gender determines housing, uniforms and physical fitness requirements, such recruits would use bathrooms and facilities aligned with their identity, Johnson said.

What kind of acceptance they find from boot camp to active duty may vary by unit, said Zander Keig, a Transgender American Veterans Association board member.

Bade, the Chicago enlistee, said, “The people I know in the military have said, ‘I don’t care what your gender identity is, as long as you can do your job.’”

I wonder if any of these dumb bigots realize that Trump's new memo had no impact whatsoever?    He can announce as many "new policies" on this issue from now until doomsday but the DoD will ignore every one as long as the court injunction remains in force.

Let their treatment not be paid for by the general public.

BTW......your info is nothing that can't be found on the internet.  Skirting CoC {SP}

After reading your statement I know have my doubts that you understand the basic concept of how medical insurance works. It isn't a personal savings account that is held by your insurance carrier.

BTW......your info is nothing that can't be found on the internet.

I could explain the fallacy of your statement but Skirting CoC {SP}

I am neither an MD or a psychologist so where do you think that I gained my knowledge of human sexuality?

Hint, it was in a classroom and via the analog precursor to the 'net.

I could explain the fallacy of your statement but Skirting CoC {SP}

How is my comment on the subject of epistemology a personal attack?  Hinting that knowledge that is supposedly innate is superior to what is learned either by independent reading or college classroom work is not an attack. It was sarcastic but it was not in any way a personal attack.

I have a minor in political philosophy and my forum name hints at my study of epistemology.

Off Topic {SP}

I'd like to know what he said that was worthy of a delete.

A grammatically incorrect deflection would be my guess.

It is a mental illness

you should be careful with that - there are many people affected with mental illnesses of various kinds and serving in the military as well. Which "mental illness" is acceptable to you in order to serve in the military ?

I know.  The dilemma of what to wear could set off fireworks.

The dilemma of what to wear could set off fireworks.

There is no fashion choice in the military. You wear what you are told to and say yes ma'am/sir. 

I think I knew that....duh!

I think I knew that....duh!

If you were aware of that then  why did you post what you did?

Unless you were just stirring the pot................

Off Topic {SP}

I was told the other day that only the seeder can flag a comment in their seed as off topic.  

My take is that if an individual is serving our Country, they can do so in a pink (or coral) tutu for all I care.

If an individual keeps their business to themselves, of what concern is it to anyone else. This goes into my IDGAF file.

The funny part is that none of the bigots seem aware that Trump's memo is meaningless since the courts have blocked any action Trump tries to take on this issue until he can convince the courts that the policy has a rational basis and is based in science rather than bigotry.    That memo had even less impact on the DoD than his tweets.

Earlier Friday, Maj. David Eastburn, a Pentagon spokesman, said the announcement of a new policy would have no immediate practical effect on the military because the Pentagon is obliged to continue to recruit and retain transgender people in accordance with current law.

.

Another aspect is that on Thursday the DoJ refused to provide the courts with the names of the "experts" they claimed supported their anti-trans policy.   That won't help them in court at all and it undermines what little credibility the policy had.

The problem is, the ones coming in now have no desire to keep it to themselves.

The problem is, the ones coming in now have no desire to keep it to themselves.

I know, right?    It's just like those straight guys who brag about what they did with the girlfriend on the weekend.....why can't they keep their sexual orientation to themselves?    DADT

And FYI, most trans folks have no interest whatsoever in your ilk ever knowing that they're trans.

It's a free country, people should be able to identify/be who they want to be without persecution. Sexually, I identify as a Cobra attack helicopter, but I digress....

I did my time in the service and personally, I couldn't care less if my fellow Marine was straight, gay, bi, red, blue, green, black, yellow, white or any combination of any of what I listed. My requirements? Be a good Marine, pull your weight, you watch my back, I watch yours and don't be a coward. Past that? Don't care. My point? OSM and I could not be further apart politically, but you can bet that if the lead started to fly, he would be the first person I would want watching my back. 

Sounds like he is jealous that they are braver than he ever was. 

Agreed.  Draft dodgers should be banned from instituting policy changes related to the military.

Do you know the difference between a deferment and draft-dodging?

Yes - if you are rich and entitled, they call draft dodging a “deferment”.

My bone spurs hurt.....I just can't remember on which side they're hurting.

Was Bill Clinton rich and entitled?

No, draft dodging is when you evade military service.

A deferment is when they give you a pass on enlisting.

Lol, wow.  The whataboutism defense - when you’ve got nothing else.

Can't answer the question as asked?

Did you say the same thing about Bill Clinton--that as commander-in-chief, he shouldn't make policy decisions for the military because he received deferments?

Or are you using a double standard for him and Trump because you hate Trump?

Clinton ran away to Oxford if I remember correctly. Cuz he "loathed" the military was what he said, I believe.

The whataboutism defense

It's an honest question, what about Clinton, and Obama, too? Didn't Obama get a religious deferment?

Yes, and remember how much shit he got from republicans about it?  Are republicans consistent?  Why not? 

And Greg, how old are you?  Why are you bringing up Obama, who didn't need a deferment because THERE WAS NO DRAFT,  and making up bs about a religious deferment is even worse,  or perhaps you need to rethink your news sources.

Obama used his wealth and sense of entitlement to avoid the draft?  Wow, that’s some interesting news.  You get that on Breitbart?

Did you make the same claims for Clinton as you do for Trump?

Or are you being hypocritical?

Did you make the same claims for Clinton as you do for Trump?

Did Slick Willy claim to have a medical condition to avoid the draft?

Didn't Obama get a religious deferment?

Which war was Obama drafted to serve?

Which war was Obama drafted to serve?

It's always hard to tell which is stronger:  their stupidity or their lying.

Did you make the same claims for Clinton as you do for Trump?

Who were the ones making a big moral stink about Clinton then?  And who are the ones who are giving a moral stinker x10 worse than Clinton a pass?  [Hint: you].

Did he?

Or did he get student deferments--like Trump received?

Oh, and by the way:

Donald Trump's Draft Deferments - snopes.com
https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/08/02/donald-trumps-draft-deferments

I never said shit about Clinton. It wasn't as big of a deal to me as it seems to be to you.

And, of course, I know the difference between deferments and draft dodging.

I never said shit about Clinton. It wasn't as big of a deal to me as it seems to be to you.

10.1.13 says that you did.  Don't try to lie when you are quoted.

Or did he get student deferments--like Trump received?

Trump also claimed a medical deferment because of bone spurs.

Trump received five draft deferments throughout the Vietnam War, and on one occasion, Trump received a deferment because of bone spurs.

I mean that I never said shit about Clinton getting deferments like I minded or something. And the ONLY reason I mentioned Clinton is because I want to know if he was being hypocritical.

I don't CARE who got deferments or not.

Did you read the Snopes link?

You might be surprised at one particular tidbit of info,.

Let's see if you can figure out what that is.

They just want to attack Trump with out hearing any counter talk about Clinton and Biden doing much the same thing.  

WE ALREADY HEARD IT!  Now its your turn.  Trump's turn. Suck it up or stop with the fricken hypocrisy!   Is there mass republican amnesia over all the crap they've doled out to everybody else about EVERYTHING?  My god, I've never seen so much whining from the very people (Trump esp) who have been loudly dishing out so much worse. 

My god, I've never seen so much whining from the very people (Trump esp) who have been loudly dishing out so much worse.

I've come to the conclusion that being forced to tell the truth and being held accountable for their past actions is a violation of their conservative Christian rights.  Lying for their religion is not only a right but appears to now be a sacrament. 

Clinton ran away to Oxford if I remember correctly.

Bill Clinton was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship, Which is a very high educational honor and not one to be turned down. It is hardly "running away." It's also an educational deferment. When he returned from England after his studying at Oxford he registered for the Draft and was given a high Draft number and was not called up before the Draft ended. He did not dodge the Draft.

Donald Trump received some education deferments and some exemptions from the draft because he supposedly had bone spurs in his heels. In most cases heel bone spurs are extremely painful, but these bone spurs did not stop him from an active life of play tennis and golf and he joked years later that they didn't affect him at all.

Good, glad to see that Trump did the right thing. Anybody that’s confused about his own gender needs to be in an institution not the military (unless they’re part of a tranny kamikaze squad). Even if a crazy liberal judge blocks Trump’s policy permanently (rather than just through a temporary injunction), the trannies should not be getting cosmetic surgery at taxpayers’ expense to create a meat costume just so they can pretend to be the opposite gender. And no soldier should ever be forced to participate in a delusion by requiring him to address a man as m’am or a woman as sir just because the fool thinks he/she was born in the wrong body. 

Good, glad to see that Trump did the right thing

Good to see that the order is meaningless and won't take effect.    The DoD even admitted they're ignoring Trump and are following the court order.

All Trump's memo amounts to is red meat for his base of morons.    It has no legal or practical effect whatsoever.

The DoD even admitted they're ignoring Trump and are following the court order.

All Trump's memo amounts to is red meat for his base of morons. It has no legal or practical effect whatsoever.

The temporary injunctions issued by the court are just that “temporary.” It doesn’t mean that Trump will lose the case and, even if he does, the matter goes up to the Supreme Court. Hopefully, Ginsberg will retire or leave feet first, and then they’ll be one more conservative judge appointed to take her place. With any luck, the damage done by the gender confused simpletons that are currently on the bench can be undone.

And that cause is aided by taking a sane position in contrast to the incessant lunacy from the left because judicial overreach will only encourage people to go to the polls in the hope of replacing them with more conservative judges. So just ignore all of this until the left is shoveled out the door. 

The temporary injunctions issued by the court are just that “temporary.”

True, but it also shows that the court thought the plaintiff was likely to prevail on the merits......and it covers Trump's new order and any subsequent orders he might make.   In fact the courts have several times reiterated their order that the law now stands as it was on June 30th 2016.

If you bothered to read any of the court rulings on this issue you'll see that no court has found any rational basis to support Trump's order, and they've directly indicated that it seems based on anti-trans animus.    That means it won't ever go into effect.

And on Thursday the Trump regime shot itself in the foot by refusing to release the names of their so-called "experts" who disputed the conclusions of the Rand study.   That means those bigoted views will be ignored by the court.

And the worst part for folks like you is that no harm has ever been found by allowing open service by trans folks, not here or by any of our allies who allow it.    All you have are irrational fears and superstition, neither of which will help you in court.

.

And that cause is aided by taking a sane position in contrast to the incessant lunacy from the left because judicial overreach will only encourage people to go to the polls in the hope of replacing them with more conservative judges. 

Even conservative judges will have a great deal of heartburn with Trump's mistreatment of transgender soldiers, as have even conservative Republicans like McCain who don't particularly like LGBT folks.

True, but it also shows that the court thought the plaintiff was likely to prevail on the merits......

That’s just one factor. Judges also consider whether the plaintiff can be irreparably harmed during the time it takes the court to reach a final decision. Obviously, somebody can be irreparably harmed if he’s discharged but later wins the lawsuit. However, an injunction does not mean that the plaintiff will win and I’ve seen cases where they didn’t.   irreparabl

If you bothered to read any of the court rulings on this issue you'll see that no court has found any rational basis to support Trump's order, and they've directly indicated that it seems based on anti-trans animus. That means it won't ever go into effect.

It does not mean that. The judge’s view is preliminary, not final. And anything a lower court judge does is subject to appeal right up to the US Supreme Court where the lower court decision can be reversed. 

And on Thursday the Trump regime shot itself in the foot by refusing to release the names of their so-called "experts" who disputed the conclusions of the Rand study. That means those bigoted views will be ignored by the court.

There’s nothing bigoted about it. Although the judge and other associated fruit loops see this as a discrimination issue, it’s really just a matter of whether the executive has authority to determine that the military should not be recruiting the mentally ill. 

And the worst part for folks like you is that no harm has ever been found by allowing open service by trans folks, not here or by any of our allies who allow it. All you have are irrational fears and superstition, neither of which will help you in court.

There’s no physical harm in letting somebody serve who thinks he’s Napoleon either but he doesn’t need to be in the military even if folks like you see no big deal in addressing him as “your majesty.”

Even conservative judges will have a great deal of heartburn with Trump's mistreatment of transgender soldiers, as have even conservative Republicans like McCain who don't particularly like LGBT folks.

Nonsense. A conservative judge can say, regardless of what I think, nobody has a right to be in the military and I can’t usurp the constitutional authority of the president by telling him to do what I would do if I were him. And there no mistreatment here. If you think the radio is talking to you, it’s not mistreatment to tell you that it’s not or tell that you to take your conversation with the radio elsewhere. 

That’s just one factor. Judges also consider whether the plaintiff can be irreparably harmed during the time it takes the court to reach a final decision.

Well, in this case it was also the government claiming irreparable harm.    So weigh that with the fact that the courts usually defer to the administration on matters concerning regulation of the military.

.

It does not mean that. The judge’s view is preliminary, not final. And anything a lower court judge does is subject to appeal right up to the US Supreme Court where the lower court decision can be reversed. 

It's true that these are preliminary injunctions.   My point was the fact that the Trump regime has failed to present any rational basis for the ban strongly indicates that they will lose.    Without a rational basis your side is doomed to lose.

.

There’s nothing bigoted about it.

LOL.   Absent a rational basis that's exactly what it is.   Your comments are proof of that.

.

it’s really just a matter of whether the executive has authority to determine that the military should not be recruiting the mentally ill. 

That's merely your opinion and not one shared by the DoD, by the courts, or by any relevant medical organization.   Your own bigotry is quite apparent here.

.

A conservative judge can say, regardless of what I think, nobody has a right to be in the military and I can’t usurp the constitutional authority of the president by telling him to do what I would do if I were him. And there no mistreatment here.

That's not the way it works.    The courts have seen and will continue to see an irrational and baseless effort to harm soldiers who have given loyal and unblemished service.   The bigots have several problems here, first that a significant number of transgender soldiers have served honorably and without causing any problems of significance.   That strongly argues for allowing them to remain.    Second, the replacement costs of those soldiers greatly exceeds their minor additional medical costs.   Third, the fact that the military will continue to allow these soldiers to serve argues strongly against Trump's recruitment ban.    So you're screwed no matter how you approach this......as the courts already observed when they rejected the DoJ's appeal of the injunction.

That's not the way it works. The courts have seen and will continue to see an irrational and baseless effort to harm soldiers who have given loyal and unblemished service. The bigots have several problems here, first that a significant number of transgender soldiers have served honorably and without causing any problems of significance. That strongly argues for allowing them to remain. Second, the replacement costs of those soldiers greatly exceeds their minor additional medical costs. Third, the fact that the military will continue to allow these soldiers to serve argues strongly against Trump's recruitment ban. So you're screwed no matter how you approach this......as the courts already observed when they rejected the DoJ's appeal of the injunction.

Until the Supreme Court rules, all you’re doing is guessing and one guess is as goood as another. The very existence of delusional soldiers is a problem because they will either be recognized as delusional or the normal soldiers will be required to accommodate the delusion. Neither option works any more than it would in allowing soldiers to serve if they think they’re napoleon or cleopatra. As for the cost of transgender surgery, it should be zero just as it is for any other voluntary cosmetic surgery like nose jobs and breast implants. The military’s current methods of dealing with a policy in legal limbo is irrelevant. If the Supreme court decides (as it should) that the president acted within his constitutional powers, then that’s the end of it and he can direct the military to act accordingly. 

Until the Supreme Court rules, all you’re doing is guessing and one guess is as goood as another.

True, but mine is informed speculation based on reading the court rulings and knowing a bit of the history of court deference to the executive on military personnel matters.   For example the courts even blocked the DoD from refusing to enlist new transgender recruits which strongly indicates that the courts view the attempted ban as a fundamental constitutional violation and not merely one of irreparable harm to the careers of currently serving soldiers.

.

The very existence of delusional soldiers is a problem because they will either be recognized as delusional or the normal soldiers will be required to accommodate the delusion.  Neither option works any more than it would in allowing soldiers to serve if they think they’re napoleon or cleopatra.

The animus and irrationality of your comment is another clue that you're views are wrong.   All federal courts today will immediately reject such views as being based in unconstitutional animus and having no merit.   

That's probably why the DoD refused to name the "experts" they claimed to consult.

It will be challenged in court. Trump will lose. The ban will be overturned. Case closed.

Trump has already lost in several circuit courts and at the 4th COA on the preliminary injunctions.    I wonder where he'll go venue shopping next?

The funniest part to me is the Trump regime's refusal to inform the court who has given them contrary advice to what the Rand study provided.    Without those names the courts will simply ignore all the bogus claims the regime makes as being not credible.    Apparently they're afraid of being ridiculed.

This is following the same pattern as the end of DADT but moving a whole lot faster.    The bigots however are recycling the same moronic arguments which lost in court last time, just like they did on the issue of marriage equality

Now THAT one I had to steal for future use! 

The funniest part to me is the Trump regime's refusal to inform the court who has given them contrary advice to what the Rand study provided.

Focus on the Family and Franklin Graham...

And Tony Perkins of the FRC hate group to be sure.   It's a guarantee that they didn't consult anyone other than bigots and bible-babblers, particularly since no other country which allows open service has any problems with it.

t

Off topic but a great Duke/KU game in OT right now.

M! GO BLUE!

Rather than deleting the 27 Off Topic comments about Trump's, Clinton's and Obama's Draft statuses and deferments.

I will be locking this article due to the total absence of the seeder since comment 1.