By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TallSilhouette on 27 July 2017
Edit Thread
Ka-pi96 said:
TallSilhouette said:
I really don't see how anyone can defend this. Even if the extra medical costs were at all significant (they aren't), you're talking about categorically denying a class of citizen - who've done nothing wrong - their basic civil rights. If this were really about cost and combat effectiveness, you could simply not cover reassignment related expenses or exclude from combat roles, but that's not the case. This is blatant persecution, plain and simple. Trump sure is fighting for the LGBT community, alright. Just when you think this administration has hit a new low...

Honestly I think that line of thinking is just wrong in all kinds of ways. Not all people are equal, some aren't as fit to do certain jobs as others and they absolutely do not have a right to do that job regardless.

Now if you want to take the "there wouldn't be much if any additional costs, disruption, or risks for either their mental and physical health and that of those serving with them" argument, then that's an entirely different thing and while I don't think there's enough proof one way or the other to make a fully accurate assessment that argument does at least have the potential to show why this is a bad decision.

The "denying a class of citizen their basic civil rights" argument however... well if you're going that route then shouldn't you also argue that autistic people, blind people, deaf people, other kinds of physically or mentally disabled people and even kids should be able to join the military too? People don't have a right to do it if they can't meet the standards required, not saying transgender people can or can't, but there is absolutely a basis for not allowing certain classes of citizens entry and depending on the circumstances there's not necessarily anything wrong with that.

I'll ask you the same question I just added above: If you met or exceeded all the same aptitude requirements as any other soldier, would being denied the ability to serve based on your sexual orientation be a violation of your civil rights? I'm not saying that every person is entitled to a military position regardless of qualifications, I'm saying that they should be just as valid as anyone else if they meet the same performance standards. To not even give them a chance to qualify and automatically deny an entire class of people based on their orientation is persecution.