Supreme Court Allows Transgender Military Ban

[Calthrina950]

Transgender soldiers have served America in every war and peace since 1775. Sad that Republicans want to turn the military into a social experiment that excludes them.

I know about Klinger during Korea, but what??

Echoing this. I've read about the instances of crossdressing soldiers (i.e. women disguising themselves as men) during conflicts such as the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, but I have never read anything about transgender soldiers prior to the middle of the twentieth century. I wouldn't be surprised if there were, but the percentage was probably very insignificant. It is still insignificant now, as transgenders comprise a small fraction (~15,000 out of ~1.5-2 million) of the current armed forces.

[Calthrina950]

Transgender soldiers have served America in every war and peace since 1775. Sad that Republicans want to turn the military into a social experiment that excludes them.

I know about Klinger during Korea, but what??

Echoing this. I've read about the instances of crossdressing soldiers (i.e. women disguising themselves as men) during conflicts such as the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, but I have never read anything about transgender soldiers prior to the middle of the twentieth century. I wouldn't be surprised if there were, but the percentage was probably very insignificant. It is still insignificant now, as transgenders comprise a small fraction (~15,000 out of ~1.5-2 million) of the current armed forces.

That guy in WW2, too. Forget his name. They'll probably make a movie soon that'll end up winning Academy Awards.

I wasn't even aware of this. But it only reinforces my point, that historically, the percentage of transgender soldiers in the military has been very insignificant. Now, this doesn't mean that I think they should be barred from serving. But I do understand the objections which have been put forth.

[Calthrina950]

Transgender soldiers have served America in every war and peace since 1775. Sad that Republicans want to turn the military into a social experiment that excludes them.

I know about Klinger during Korea, but what??

Echoing this. I've read about the instances of crossdressing soldiers (i.e. women disguising themselves as men) during conflicts such as the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, but I have never read anything about transgender soldiers prior to the middle of the twentieth century. I wouldn't be surprised if there were, but the percentage was probably very insignificant. It is still insignificant now, as transgenders comprise a small fraction (~15,000 out of ~1.5-2 million) of the current armed forces.

Crossdressing is not the same thing as transgender, as I think you are aware. However, before the late 20th century and hormone treatments, it would have been the only option for transgender Americans to fit into their preferred role in society.

I'm aware that crossdressing isn't the same. The cases I mentioned occurred at times when women were not allowed to serve in the military, and those who did had to falsify their identity, as well as their gender, in order to do so. But otherwise, I personally have never read about transgender soldiers at any time prior to the last century. Perhaps that may be so because our history books haven't discussed them. Nevertheless, this whole contention doesn't change the fact that they comprised, and continue to comprise, a small portion of the overall military forces.

[Calthrina950]

Relevant post to this topic from someone I know IRL who works as a recruiter:


It's not always about hating people, but keeping soldiers we have in the best shape possible, mentally and physically. Transitioning is not easy on the body, and what someone goes through while transitioning isn't really good for roles they should be taking on in the military.

They said the exact same b******* about keeping gays out of the military. This isn't simply about keeping transgender people out, this is also about not ejecting the individuals in the military who are transgender.

What a fundamentally disingenuous argument.

I don't wish this surgery to be on my dime under any circumstances.

[Calthrina950]

I don't wish this surgery to be on my dime under any circumstances.

I do

Why?

[Calthrina950]

I don't wish this surgery to be on my dime under any circumstances.

I do

Why?

Normally citizens don't get a full veto power over what their tax dollars can and can't pay for. The US Government funds a lot of stuff I don't support, but I just have to suck it up and deal with it. So can the people who don't want their tax dollars going to fund gender-affirming surgery for the soldiers who put their lives on the line for our freedom to debate said funding.

If the courts rule that such funding must be provided, then I will tolerate it. But preferably, I would hope that a different course be taken.