[Discussion] Trans Issues and Rights

This thread is for the discussion of current events relating to trans rights, for discussion of the lives of trans people and difficulties they face, and for basic questions about the lives and experiences of trans people. (If basic questions become dominant we'll look at making a Q&A thread at that time.)

So unbelievably terrible. The outright, blatant discrimination is completely insane. Like Mr GT, it's actually been quite a while since I've been surprised by anything that ass has said or done, but this one floored me. Must stop typing before this turns into a long string of swear words.

Really? This disgusts me, but doesn't surprise me at all.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/9PD4P18.jpg)

What really burns me is the same pundits who were just last week talking about how trans-inclusive language erases cis women, that trans healthcare shouldn't be included in insurance coverage, who go on and on about how interrogating where their sexual preferences came from is forcing ourselves on them are now all claiming to be on Team Trans when it comes to our opportunity to get chewed up by the military industrial complex.

If it helps:

Greg Sargent wrote:

In emails to me this morning, top Democrats flatly rejected the notion that they need to fear the politics of this debate. Guy Cecil, the head of Priorities USA, the Super PAC that is staking out a central role in opposing Trump for Democrats, told me:

The comments only serve to reveal how morally repugnant this administration really is by playing politics with our country’s defenses and attacking fellow Americans who honorably serve to protect our freedom. It also reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how Senate campaigns work. If this is their approach, than 2018 will definitely be a banner year for Democrats.

From: WP: Trump just kicked transgender troops out of the military. This one ugly quote says it all.

Tanglebones wrote:

Really? This disgusts me, but doesn't surprise me at all.

It does surprise me because it's so blatant and unprovoked. Even with the Muslim ban (which is blatant racism), at least he could point to something like terrorism as his reason. As BS as that is, it's not unprecedented. People already knew he hated non-whites. This banning of trans people from the military seems like it came out of nowhere, for no real reason, like on a random Wednesday morning where everyone is already reeling about health care. It's just so crazy.

d4m0 wrote:

It does surprise me because it's so blatant and unprovoked. Even with the Muslim ban (which is blatant racism), at least he could point to something like terrorism as his reason. As BS as that is, it's not unprecedented. People already knew he hated non-whites. This banning of trans people from the military seems like it came out of nowhere, for no real reason, like on a random Wednesday morning where everyone is already reeling about health care. It's just so crazy.

Apparently Pence was the one pushing for it.

He worked with House Republicans to get several amendments tacked onto the Pentagon spending bill that would ban the use of funds for any medical procedure related to gender transition, banning funds from being used to conduct transgender sensitivity training courses, and banning tax dollars used to “screen members of the Armed Forces regarding gender reassignment surgery.”

Foreign Policy wrote:

Vice President Mike Pence and his staff have been working quietly to get Congress to roll back the Defense Department’s year-old policy covering medical procedures for transitioning service members, according to sources.

In a flurry of last-minute activity, House Republicans have submitted three separate but identical amendments to the 2018 defense spending bill this week that would prohibit the Pentagon from using government money to “provide medical treatment related to gender transition.”

Two sources involved in the lobbying effort on the Hill say Pence and his staff have been reaching out to Republican members of the House to push for the amendment to be included in the Pentagon spending bill. This month, an effort by Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) to end funding was narrowly defeated in the House in a 209-214 vote, with 24 Republicans voting against it.

Pence, who opposed President Barack Obama’s repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in 2010, has deep ties on the Hill from his years as an Indiana congressman. As governor, he opposed a federal directive on transgender bathroom use in schools, arguing that the matter should be left to states.

Ah ha! Now that makes a lot more sense. Pence has been so quiet for the last six months that I hadn't even thought about him. He's been openly anti-LGBTQ forever, so something like this would be no surprise from him.

I have the feeling Trump couldn't care less about anything LGBTQ, but Pence on the other hand has been destroying their rights for a long time.

Freyja wrote:

What really burns me is the same pundits who were just last week talking about how trans-inclusive language erases cis women, that trans healthcare shouldn't be included in insurance coverage, who go on and on about how interrogating where their sexual preferences came from is forcing ourselves on them are now all claiming to be on Team Trans when it comes to our opportunity to get chewed up by the military industrial complex.

Firstly, the bolded: WTAF.

Secondly, excellent point and one I'd surely have missed. Thank you.

Politico's reporting that Trump announced the transgender ban because moderate Republicans in the House were threatening a defense authorization bill that provided Trump with the money needed to build his border wall.

Politico wrote:

House Republicans were planning to pass a spending bill stacked with his campaign promises, including money to build his border wall with Mexico.

But an internal House Republican fight over transgender troops was threatening to blow up the bill. And House GOP insiders feared they might not have the votes to pass the legislation because defense hawks wanted a ban on Pentagon-funded sex reassignment operations — something GOP leaders wouldn’t give them.

They turned to Trump, who didn’t hesitate. In the flash of a tweet, he announced that transgender troops would be banned altogether.

Trump’s sudden decision was, in part, a last-ditch attempt to save a House proposal full of his campaign promises that was on the verge of defeat, numerous congressional and White House sources said.

muraii wrote:
Freyja wrote:

What really burns me is the same pundits who were just last week talking about how trans-inclusive language erases cis women, that trans healthcare shouldn't be included in insurance coverage, who go on and on about how interrogating where their sexual preferences came from is forcing ourselves on them are now all claiming to be on Team Trans when it comes to our opportunity to get chewed up by the military industrial complex.

Firstly, the bolded: WTAF.

My thoughts exactly, that makes no sense at all, and is absolutely ridiculous, because, in a "why not both" spirit, why can't we defend both cis women and trans women and trans men. It's preposterous, and it's blatant bigotry, plain and simple.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
muraii wrote:
Asshat-in-Chief wrote:

Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.

Because that makes sense.

Someone pointed this out in Slack, but the annual healthcare cost for all transgender service members is about the same as the cost for Trump to spend a single weekend at Mar-a-Lago. Good to know where our priorities are.

I'm afraid I can't remember where, but I read earlier today that the sum the DOD spends on healthcare for trans people is less than what it spends on viagra (presumably for cis men). I don't know how true that it is, but considering what little I know of how Chelsea Manning and other trans service men and women are treating, that wouldn't surprise me. I'm willing to bet that the budget for healthcare for trans people is near non existent.

OG_slinger wrote:

Politico's reporting that Trump announced the transgender ban because moderate Republicans in the House were threatening a defense authorization bill that provided Trump with the money needed to build his border wall.

Politico wrote:

House Republicans were planning to pass a spending bill stacked with his campaign promises, including money to build his border wall with Mexico.

But an internal House Republican fight over transgender troops was threatening to blow up the bill. And House GOP insiders feared they might not have the votes to pass the legislation because defense hawks wanted a ban on Pentagon-funded sex reassignment operations — something GOP leaders wouldn’t give them.

They turned to Trump, who didn’t hesitate. In the flash of a tweet, he announced that transgender troops would be banned altogether.

Trump’s sudden decision was, in part, a last-ditch attempt to save a House proposal full of his campaign promises that was on the verge of defeat, numerous congressional and White House sources said.

Until Pence's name came up as part of the group that helped push this out, I would have assumed it was a smoke screen to cover Manafort testifying in committee today.

Now it's both a smoke screen and a really sh*tty thing. *headdesk*

Eleima wrote:

I'm afraid I can't remember where, but I read earlier today that the sum the DOD spends on healthcare for trans people is less than what it spends on viagra (presumably for cis men). I don't know how true that it is,

Yep. Study last year about trans medical costs was up to 8.something million per year.

Viagra was 41 million, and all ED medicine was 80-something million.

On phone or I'd go Link and quote article.

Good article from AF Times on serving trans people vowing to stay in: Transgender airman: ‘I would like to see them try to kick me out of my military’. As standard for articles like this, don't read the comments.

If anything the comments support my theory that people who set their education on Facebook to "The School of Hard Knocks" or "The University of Life" are some of the biggest jerks with the least amount of empathy in the world.

The Cost of Banning Transgender Service Members

The Atlantic wrote:

The military has not historically covered gender-transition surgeries, though President Barack Obama did announce plans for it to begin doing so. That cost would be between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually for transition-related costs, according to a RAND analysis commissioned by the Department of Defense. The group estimated there are between 1,320 and 6,630 active-duty transgender servicepeople currently. A study in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2015 put the number at 12,800 people and $4.2 million to $5.6 million, concluding that “doctors agree that such care is medically necessary.”

This would be a military health-care spending increase of 0.04 to 0.13 percent. Even in the most extreme case, it is one tenth of the annual $84 million that the military spends on medication for erectile dysfunction.

The relative costs drops into the ten-thousandths of a percent when taken in context of the Department of Defense budget as a whole, expected to be proposed at $640 billion. The F-35 cost $1.5 trillion. Military bands cost taxpayers $437 million.

I'm a little wary of the Viagra cost comparisons, only because it seems to set up a dichotomy between Viagra and medications for transgender people. I recognize where that's coming from, but it sits a little weird with me.

I remember where I read it (Washington Post). Just to be extra clear, I'm not saying don't give Viagra, I'm just saying that it's ridiculous to say that it's ridiculous to say that medications for transgender people is too hefty a sum to shoulder. It's preposterous, and not a valid argument. For the record, I'm from a smelly hippie country which believes in access to healthcare and medication for everyone, that's mainly where I'm speaking from. It's not an either/or situation, not even remotely.

Meanwhile in Canada....

This afternoon, the Canadian Armed Forces tweeted about its welcoming approach to recruitment.

"We welcome Cdns of all sexual orientations and gender identities. Join us!" it reads, with a photograph of Royal Canadian Navy Band members playing instruments festooned in Pride colours.

Tyops wrote:

Meanwhile in Canada....

This afternoon, the Canadian Armed Forces tweeted about its welcoming approach to recruitment.

"We welcome Cdns of all sexual orientations and gender identities. Join us!" it reads, with a photograph of Royal Canadian Navy Band members playing instruments festooned in Pride colours.

Is 38 too old to join the Canadian military? Do they need software developers?

On the cost comparisons, Austin Walker said something earlier today on Twitter that sounded right to me, albeit in the context of other people saying the issue was the cost:

Austin Walker wrote:

I understand the urge to answer fiscal claims, but the dehumanization of marginalized ppl is fundamentally a moral issue. Do not cede this. If you go down the path arguing costs, you ought also, at every step, restate that equality for and protection of trans people are priceless

Austin Walker wrote:

Too often the moral part falls away and they hammer home the economics. This is what happened w/AIDS crisis, with black lives, w/ immigrants

Mostly I'm just echoing Clocky and Eleima, of course. I expect everyone here would agree that the real point is that this discrimination is wrong and the cost is irrelevant. I also expect you'd agree that the administration citing the cost is a transparent ploy to come up with an excuse to make the ban sound reasonable.

Mixolyde wrote:
Tyops wrote:

Meanwhile in Canada....

This afternoon, the Canadian Armed Forces tweeted about its welcoming approach to recruitment.

"We welcome Cdns of all sexual orientations and gender identities. Join us!" it reads, with a photograph of Royal Canadian Navy Band members playing instruments festooned in Pride colours.

Is 38 too old to join the Canadian military? Do they need software developers?

I think (?) it goes as late as 35... havent looked into if for a while. There are civilian roles as well.

Gremlin wrote:

Mostly I'm just echoing Clocky and Eleima, of course. I expect everyone here would agree that the real point is that this discrimination is wrong and the cost is irrelevant. I also expect you'd agree that the administration citing the cost is a transparent ploy to come up with an excuse to make the ban sound reasonable.

I do agree. Batting away the silliness of the economic argument also helps to show that this is really just discrimination with no reasonable basis.

It's so completely heart breaking that decades.. no, generations of efforts to better human rights conditions for MOGAI (Marginalized Orientations, Gender Alignments and Intersex) can be undone so f*cking quickly and easily.

I cannot express how ashamed I am of the US as a country,

I'm not sure what I can do personally but know that I will do whatever I can.

I'm sorry this is where we are. I'm sorry this has been imposed on us.

Wherever the fight goes, I'm there.

I bet the US has spent more on Trump's trips to his Florida golf club than anything we would spend on trans military healthcare.

That math was done earlier today. You won that bet easily. For a single weekend.

Nomad wrote:

I bet the US has spent more on Trump's trips to his Florida golf club than anything we would spend on trans military healthcare.

Fairly sure the 8 million spent on trans military care only covers two of the missiles Trump fired at that Syrian air force base a few months ago.

Rat Boy wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I bet the US has spent more on Trump's trips to his Florida golf club than anything we would spend on trans military healthcare.

Fairly sure the 8 million spent on trans military care only covers two of the missiles Trump fired at that Syrian air force base a few months ago.

But, you'll recall, that those missiles won the war on terror.

(I still can't get over how 45 supporters on my social media believed that made a huge difference in the conflict.)

Joint Chiefs to troops: 'No modifications' to transgender policy

There will be “no modifications” to the military’s transgender policy as a result of President Donald Trump’s tweets, the chairman of the joint chiefs said in a message to top military officers on Thursday.

Marine Gen. Joe Dunford wrote in the message to the chiefs of the services and senior enlisted leaders that the military will continue to “treat all of our personnel with respect.”

“I know there are questions about yesterday's announcement on the transgender policy by the President,” Dunford wrote in the message, a copy of which was provided to POLITICO. “There will be no modifications to the current policy until the President's direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidance.”

“In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect. As importantly, given the current fight and the challenges we face, we will all remain focused on accomplishing our assigned missions,” he continued.