Disagreement between friends.

[ashleymasters]

Hello all

So this year I have begun identifying as trans. I am in therapy and nearly fully decided on transition physically in the near future. A friend of mine who is also trans forwarded an article to me about the military ban on trans service members. I believe in equality and I believe in a lot of libertarian principles. But I didn't entirely take offense to this ban. Before I get jumped let me explain why and please be sure to read each of my words carefully. 1 as a trans person I believe being trans is a medical condition. NOT A MENTAL CONDITION!!! but a medical one. As far as I'm concerned my body is deformed bc it should look one way but it looks another. The steps I plan to take to correct this and reshape my body so that it is correct are very impactful on many parts of daily life. So I can understand that some may be concerned about going through the rigors of combat while dealing with those things. (Having been through combat myself I can say it's not a good time to be going through treatments of any kind) 2 I've never believed being in the military is a right. I think sometimes they have to make unfair choices based on the highest probability of success. All of that is really just background to the point of this post. My friend seemed offended that I called being trans a medical condition. She kept repeating "I'm not sick" I don't think she understood me. My real question is how do you view this. I see my large upper body and course skin and male genitalia asdeformities. My genetic make up got mixed up wrong and now I want to correct it. Is this just crazy? I'd like to hear how all of you view it. I try to. Be open to new opinions and this world is new to me s I want to hear as much from others

[AlyssaJ]

Eww, this has the danger of getting into a political discussion quick. As far as how I look at being transgender, I do consider it a medial condition. So does the AMA and that's why we're able to get medical intervention for it and why some insurance companies actually cover some of those expenses. I do know there is a lot of sensitivity in the transgender community toward calling it a medical condition. In the past, people have used labeling it as a mental defect as a way to justify discrimination against us, I think that's why there is fear in calling it a medical condition.

[Pat]

As a transgender veteran, i'm a little put off by the latest nonsense about the military. If there are service members who need treatment for being transgender, I don't see it as different than needing a tonsillectomy or coronary bypass on the government dime -- if someone needs treatment, they get it.

That aside, it seems like you and your friend are separated by a common language. Sure, being transgender can a medical condition -- being healthy is a medical condition. In the latter case you need no treatment, in the former you MAY need treatment. On the other hand, your friend is right -- she's NOT sick. The medical conditions related to being transgender are side-effects and the latest diagnostic manuals recognize that what needs treatment is not the transgenderism but the side effects of dysphoria or societal non-acceptance related to transgenderism. To me, the perfect analog is being left-handed. It's a medical condition but not a disease. Left-handed people have experiences that right-handed people do not, including problems caused by societal non-accptance by the majority who are right-handed, but you don't try to cure left-handedness, you try to cure the unhappiness caused by having people pick on you for being left-handed. At the same time you educate society so they understand being left-handed is not wrong. We came to that understanding after many years of trying to "cure" left-handedness and having the cure fail. Just like trying to "cure" transgenderism.

So I think you're both saying the same thing. What we used to call "being in violent agreement."

[LeaP]

The medical view is only ONE way of looking at transsexuality. There are plenty of trans people who detest it.

[Aunt Kelly]

There is no rational reason for treating trans military members differently. None. The "ban" is politically motivated, completely.

[Starling]

...So I can understand that some may be concerned about going through the rigors of combat while dealing with those things...I've never believed being in the military is a right...

Some may be concerned that they cannot go through the rigors, etc. In an all-volunteer service, no one is compelled to serve. But it seems to me the ban is foolish, and is not based on reality, but on spite--not to veer too deeply into politics. As for whether being in the military is a right, it used to be viewed as an obligation.

Lallie

[Kaitlyn Michele]

and it sets us apart...

it says..."they" are not good enough... "they" are a problem ...."they" are not worth it.

its not just about discrimination and politics..
...its about the dehumanization and othering of us...

about being used.... and frankly i think the LGB community is only marginally better when the rubber hits the road....

[Mirya]

Here is a link to a short 10 min video documentary that gives a glimpse into what it's like to be a transgender person in the military. It's a really great video and may change your perspective on how fit or unfit trans people are to serve in the military.

[Starling]

Of course, that film was made before the transgender ban was lifted. Then, in 2016, 15,000 patriotic men and women were allowed to stop lying and looking over their shoulders. It's such a tragedy to reimpose this stupid policy, especially as it serves no purpose but revenge, in my opinion.

Lallie

[Georgette_USA]

I can understand the different positions on whether TS is a medical or mental condition. There does seem to be some studies that show it is a medical condition from when still in the womb. If that is true than it is no different of treating it as a medical condition, just like a variety of other birth problems, using different medical treatments. If it is a mental condition, but also seems to be one that also can be treated using medical treatments. In my case I was able to get some re-reimbursements for surgery and such under my companies health insurance policy under the psychiatric part of the policy. If your friend does not think it is a medical or mental condition, and not being "sick", than what does she think it is. Just a "choice" to change body using medical treatments. Like getting body modifications or piercings or tattoos.

As to the Military option, Yes serving is not a right, but that is a choice to serve. Thank You for serving in a combat role for some period. BUT most in the military DO NOT serve in direct COMBAT roles. Not sure why we keep getting back to the idea of the military being just combat roles. I was aboard a submarine as a computer tech, a far cry from any combat, I served from 1969-74, where we had a conflict called Vietnam, and I was not allowed to be anywhere near combat. I know others that serve on bases doing a variety of jobs. Is flying airplanes a combat role. Most shipboard people are not in direct combat roles. There are a variety of TG people doing support roles already in combat zones.

[grace7777]

Georgette makes a great point in that most military people do not serve in direct combat roles. From what I have heard a lot of the jobs are basically 8 to 5 Monday thru Friday. Yet the military acts like all jobs involve direct combat, and expects all its people to meet standards that are required for being in combat. To me non combat jobs should have different standards than combat jobs. This would open up opportunities for more people to serve than can currently serve. There may be some jobs that transgender members may not be a good fit for, but most of them that is not the case. An all out ban definitely does not make sense.

I did try to join the military years ago and I was not allowed because I had asthma. Now I understand that my condition would not be good for combat roles, but I could definitely have performed well in non combat positions. In fact I had absolutely no desire to serve in combat and would not have wanted to join if that was the only option. It is long past time for the military to change the way it operates and develop a new way of thinking. By changing, the military can open up opportunities for more people to serve, and actually increase its ability to defend the United States.

[Pat]

From what I have heard a lot of the jobs are basically 8 to 5 Monday thru Friday. Yet the military acts like all jobs involve direct combat, and expects all its people to meet standards that are required for being in combat.

The military actually has a base assumption that a time could come when any person could be handed a rifle and sent into combat. They are expected to be able to perform in that role and to protect the person next to them. They make that clear when you join. Many people have "jobs" that never will involve combat but the understanding at all times is that the needs of the (Army in my case) come first. I could have been taken out of my specialty and put in any other role. That's the deal going in. So it's fair to talk about the deployability of transgender folks. It's not fair to claim that potential surgery is a reason to preemptively disqualify them. Even the baddest badass can end up in the hospital and not qualify to deploy in a given moment. The commanders of transgender troops would be involved in scheduling any procedure that would affect their ability to deploy -- it's always been that way.

[docrobbysherry]

I was in the Army during Viet Nam. I served with a lot of guys who were NOT fit for combat. Including me!

And, none of their or my fitness issues had anything to do with being trans or CDing!

(I didn't begin dressing until the 1990's).

[Rianna Humble]

OK folks, this has gone just about as far away from the topic in the OP as is possible.

Thread done.