Pentagons latest

Well, the military IS experiencing problems but the pentagon (administrative leadership) does not want anyone to know about it. When an organization is given a directive to make something work they do everything they can to make it work. If it does not work they do everything they can to make it appear that it is working.

Nothing will ever be as bad as evangelical doomsayers predict but it is bad. Moral is low in all branches of the military at all levels. The Marine Corps is experiencing levels of officer attrition exceeding that of the early '80s.

But, but, but...

For a site with posters who seem to daily compete for the "most stupid" post, you are today's winner.

How will transgender people be treated in the military?

Will someone born male but who self identifies as female be treated as a female and get to live in the woman's barracks and train with female recruits?

Will someone born female but who self identifies as male be treated as a male and get to live in the men's barracks and train with male recruits?

Or will there be new facilities to house transgender soldiers...and will those be two separate facilities or one?

Or will there just be soldiers living and training in the same barracks on the same team regardless of sex or sexual preference or gender identity?

I finally won something. Yay!

Cowboy, unlike some here (see above), you are smart enough to know that correlation does not equal causation. So why bring this up on THIS thread?

I'm far, far from any expert on military morale or being a soldier but as far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to serve our great country should be able to. The army can find someplace to put transgender people where they can contribute. Not everyone in the army goes in foxholes.

Is there any evidence that there is an effect on military morale due to integration? I've seen none. Enlighten us if you have evidence.

All I've seen is studies that say the military (like the rest of the adult population of this country) is largely cool sitting at the same lunch table as Richard Simmons.

Study
"Our conclusion is that ending the policy “has had no negative impact on overall military readiness or its component parts: unit cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment or morale.”"


"In one survey, more than 750 active duty troops were asked three months after repeal about their morale, housing, perception of officer and troop quality, and overall quality of life—factors considered key components of military readiness. All the figures were the same or slightly higher than in a parallel survey administered in the months before repeal, meaning readiness did not drop after repeal. Recruitment and retention figures throughout the military have remained steady, and survey responses indicate that troops are just as likely to re-enlist after repeal as before"


You know - so there's that.

So you think they are going to have a 'limited' role? I just keep wondering about the sleeping arrangements for males who identify as females and if they get to bunk with the females...but I'm not a closet transgender lesbian....Really...I'm not.

Probably the first two. Whatever they identify as, that's where they will be assigned to train and live, whether their barracks-mates like it or not.

Before I retired, policy came out regarding management of transgenders in VA hospitals in regard to bathrooms, bed assignments, etc. The patient was to be managed according to how he or she self-identified. For example, if the patient self-identifed as a female, even if the transition was not complete (male features still present), "she" was to be treated as such, be addressed by her preferred name and title (Miss or Mrs.), use the female bathrooms, be assigned a bed in a room with other females. If the other female(s) objected, every effort was to be made to work it out, find a private room for one or the other, etc. If a male to female transition wasn't complete, for instance a male had grown breasts and long hair but chose to retain his male name and be addressed as Mr., use the male facilities, etc., that would be accepted. IMO, policy favored the transgender person over non-transgender sensibilities. Kind of like, OK get used to it.

And they might as well get used to it, because there are many people who are in reality...the word used to be 'hermaphrodites', that is they are born with organs of both sexes. A baby boy might have a well developed penis, but also have ovaries and maybe a uterus. I witnessed this as an OR nurse at a pediatric hospital. The kid happened to have had an inguinal hernia, and during the surgical procedure to repair the hernia the ovaries and uterus were seen.

Talk about a tough post-op conversation to have with the parents! "Everything went fine, we repaired the hernia, but we discovered something during the surgery. Little Johnny has ovaries and a uterus. How would you like us to proceed?"

The medical establishment finally concluded that it didn't work well for parents or anybody else to decide which sex to turn the kid into, such as removing the ovaries and supplementing with male hormones for the rest of his life. "He" still might identify as a female as he progresses toward puberty, even if the female parts had been removed. Don't ask me to explain it, but that is what has been found over time.

At different ages they begin to realize something feels wrong; a male feels more like he is or should be a female, or a female feels more like a male. This is not the same as sexual preference,, e.g. homosexuality (or bi).

The geneticists and endocrinologists eventually came down on the side of letting the kid decide, once they could reach the age of consent, or maybe before, they could begin measures to make the transition, e.g. hormones, surgery, etc., if they wanted to.

But the military usually does new things better anyway. It'll be OK.