Trump bans transgender people from serving in the military.

[BULLDOG00]

Who are "the fathers"?

Kurt Cobain, Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic.

 

[chrisrobin]

Kurt Cobain, Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic.

goodness bulldog - you nearly made a joke except that I do think you believe it!

 

[Max_Polo]

goodness bulldog - you nearly made a joke except that I do think you believe it!

Either way, it's funny. And at least as informative as most recent posts in this thread.

 

[chrisrobin]

It is not practical nor worth it.

So, using your reasons for implementing the ban how far would you go with banning anyone with what you see as a deviant sexuality.
Ban them all.
White House and most of Washington would grind to a halt, television programs would stop and most live events wouldn't happen. Airplanes would cease to fly and restaurants close up - what you are proposing to support is a total shut down of civilisation, if as you state. its not practical or worth it.
What you don't understand is that society only exists because its inclusive.
So, ban in one part of the workplace and let the rest follow suit, oh dear, your medical insurance isn't worth a fucking dime as nurses and doctors are also on the banned list.(but at least you would be paying for Obama care!)l

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

I take it your are not a medical professional.

Medical professionals are precisely who advised against this.

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

Transgender soldiers are not asking for any change in standards.

Neither are any of the other people barred from service. So what.

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

One would hope. But I wasn't sure what line LittleBuzzSaw meant to draw, or what point he was trying to make.

My point was simply that (to the point most liberals are "now" screaming about), the military has *always* (and will continue to be) "discriminatory". This new point simply fits their agenda.

 

[Industrialsize]

Medical professionals are precisely who advised against this.

Not true.

 

[Klingsor]

My point was simply that (to the point most liberals are "now" screaming about), the military has *always* (and will continue to be) "discriminatory". This new point simply fits their agenda.

But some types of military "discrimination" have a reasonable, practical basis, while others are nothing but irrational prejudice. Surely the military should be free to exercise its own discretion in the first instance, but not in the second.

 

[Max_Polo]

But some types of military "discrimination" have a reasonable, practical basis, while others are nothing but irrational prejudice. Surely the military should be free to exercise its own discretion in the first instance, but not in the second.

FWIW, hepatitis C infection is disqualifying for active duty deployment but HIV infection is not. The logic for the former is that active duty service members all serve as a living blood donor pool when deployed and makes sense. The latter policy inconsistent with the former and the only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that it was made with political consideration weighed more than consistency or practicality.

 

[Klingsor]

FWIW, hepatitis C infection is disqualifying for active duty deployment but HIV infection is not. The logic for the former is that active duty service members all serve as a living blood donor pool when deployed and makes sense. The latter policy inconsistent with the former and the only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that it was made with political consideration weighed more than consistency or practicality.

But you seem to agree in principle to the distinction between reasonable and unreasonable justifications for exclusion--something LittleBuzzSaw's posts seemed to gloss over entirely.

 

[TexanStar]

FWIW, hepatitis C infection is disqualifying for active duty deployment but HIV infection is not. The logic for the former is that active duty service members all serve as a living blood donor pool when deployed and makes sense. The latter policy inconsistent with the former and the only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that it was made with political consideration weighed more than consistency or practicality.

What? This is just wrong all over the place.

There's no screening for hep c for military applicants.
There is screening for help c when soldiers donate blood, and if hep c is found then they're put on treatment, not discharged.

HIV is screened for all applicants.
Applicants who have HIV cannot join the military.
Soldiers who develop HIV while enlisted are allowed to remain in until the illness progresses to a point that it interferes with their ability to perform their role. They also cannot serve overseas (they can only work here stateside).

 

[Max_Polo]

What? This is just wrong all over the place.

There's no screening for hep c for military applicants.
There is screening for help c when soldiers donate blood, and if hep c is found then they're put on treatment, not discharged.

HIV is screened for all applicants.
Applicants who have HIV cannot join the military.
Soldiers who develop HIV while enlisted are allowed to remain in until the illness progresses to a point that it interferes with their ability to perform their role. They also cannot serve overseas (they can only work here stateside).

Applicants are handled differently, I was referring to newly diagnosed infection while on active duty - and to a policy that has likely changed since it was instituted. My point was that military policy has always been influenced by politics and is not entirely rational.

 

[TexanStar]

Applicants are handled differently, I was referring to newly diagnosed infection while on active duty - and to a policy that has likely changed since it was instituted. My point was that military policy has always been influenced by politics and is not entirely rational.

It's still backwards from what you said though and doesn't support an implication of politicization (not saying the military is immune to such things, just that this wasn't an example of it).

Enlisted who get hep C are not discharged.
Enlisted who get HIV are discharged once the illness interferes with their ability to serve and they are prevented from serving overseas.

 

[Max_Polo]

But you seem to agree in principle to the distinction between reasonable and unreasonable justifications for exclusion--something LittleBuzzSaw's posts seemed to gloss over entirely.

I do agree that there are both reasonable and unreasonable distinctions of course. As a society we would not tolerate discrimination based on race but we do allow discrimination based on visual acuity for example.

 

[Max_Polo]

It's still backwards from what you said though and doesn't support an implication of politicization (not saying the military is immune to such things, just that this wasn't an example of it).

Enlisted who get hep C are not discharged.
Enlisted who get HIV are discharged once the illness interferes with their ability to serve and they are prevented from serving overseas.

No, as I said, policies may have changed in the interval, but having practiced medicine, including running one of the larger military HIV clinics in the country, active duty members with HIV were deployed routinely (HIV infection was and remains treatable but not curable). And active duty members diagnosed with hepatitis C (which at the time was treatable but not curable as it is now) were discharged. The distinction between the two infections is currently significant (curability), but at the time both were treatable but incurable, both generally contracted by sexual contact or needle sharing, and the policy with regard to members diagnosed with these infections were very different in a way that is not rational, and clearly political in my opinion. I do not think there's another explanation for the policy that existed at that time. I'm also not supporting or criticizing the current or prior policy, just illustrating the point that politics influence military medical policy.

 

[ConanTheBarber]

The distinction between the two infections is currently significant (curability), but at the time both were treatable but incurable, both generally contracted by sexual contact or needle sharing, and the policy with regard to members diagnosed with these infections were very different in a way that is not rational, and clearly political in my opinion. I do not think there's another explanation for the policy that existed at that time. I'm also not supporting or criticizing the current or prior policy, just illustrating the point that politics influence military medical policy.

What years are you speaking of?

What you say makes sense but you're only offering a hunch ... no real evidence.

 

[Max_Polo]

What years are you speaking of?

What you say makes sense but you're only offering a hunch ... no real evidence.

1990 - 2000. The first treatment to cure hepatitis C was developed later. And I agree that what I've shared is opinion, and there may be a different explanation, but none is readily apparent to me.

 

[Industrialsize]

Applicants are handled differently, I was referring to newly diagnosed infection while on active duty - and to a policy that has likely changed since it was instituted. My point was that military policy has always been influenced by politics and is not entirely rational.

Bullshit. You literally made your own policy. This was the policy in 2009:
"We do not routinely test military members for evidence of hepatitis C infection. The presence of hepatitis C infection is usually discovered when members donate blood, as hepatitis C testing is conducted as a required part of the blood donor program, or is discovered during a clinical evaluation for symptoms or signs of an illness. When clinically indicated, military members do receive testing and, if appropriate, treatment for hepatitis C infection. Similarly, military members found to be infected with hepatitis C during testing of their donated blood are clinically evaluated and treated, as appropriate. For military members already on active duty, hepatitis C infection by itself does not render them unfit for continue."

 

[Max_Polo]

Bullshit. You literally made your own policy. This was the policy in 2009:
"We do not routinely test military members for evidence of hepatitis C infection. The presence of hepatitis C infection is usually discovered when members donate blood, as hepatitis C testing is conducted as a required part of the blood donor program, or is discovered during a clinical evaluation for symptoms or signs of an illness. When clinically indicated, military members do receive testing and, if appropriate, treatment for hepatitis C infection. Similarly, military members found to be infected with hepatitis C during testing of their donated blood are clinically evaluated and treated, as appropriate. For military members already on active duty, hepatitis C infection by itself does not render them unfit for continue."

See above.