Quote:
Originally Posted by formula72
If we concluded that the only difference was in fact that they are transgendered, would you be fine with them serving?
If there were absolutely ZERO difference, of course. But you're always going to have the wrong chromosomes, so that's where we start.
If we concluded that in fact transgenderism gave someone a statistically significant likelihood to have or develop service limiting issues, would you concur with a ban?
Are you in favor of single PT standards, without exception, for military personnel?
Should transitioning be a part of "basic care"?
(People are currently citing Viagra costs ($44M) vs. Trans costs ($8M), but I don't believe the per individual costs are quite apples to apples. I also believe the combat effects are probably different (not that I want soldiers hopped up either on Viagra or external hormones - but I am not a doctor). I don't know why we're paying so much for Viagra either (although if a soldier suffered erectile issues due to combat, I can understand this being a part of VA benefits).)
How much sensitivity training should a force that is designed to "kill things and break stuff" have to endure in the name of inclusiveness?
Unlike Chelsea Manning, I don't agree that military service is social experiment. How do you feel about this: