More SARC briefings soon.

[Prosuper]

As a former Flight Chief of 100 Crew Chiefs this has to be welcome relief to today's Officers and NCO's. With Iran ,China, NK ETC ,rattling sabers we need to be mission focused. It was bad enough when straight Amn Snuffy  married a stripper and then cried in front of my desk complaining that the other 99 Crew Chiefs know what his wife looks like naked including me. Also you know for sure that POTUS is no politician. All those other guys who ran would have not had the guts to pull the trigger on this.  

[VMFA187]

9 minutes ago, Prosuper said:

As a former Flight Chief of 100 Crew Chiefs this has to be welcome relief to today's Officers and NCO's. With Iran ,China, NK ETC ,rattling sabers we need to be mission focused. It was bad enough when straight Amn Snuffy  married a stripper and then cried in front of my desk complaining that the other 99 Crew Chiefs know what his wife looks like naked including me. Also you know for sure that POTUS is no politician. All those other guys who ran would have not had the guts to pull the trigger on this.  

If that is true, I think it beats the story of one of my 35 Airframes' Marines, who was 19, spending several grand on his government credit card at a strip club in Guam...

[Lord Ratner]

If that is true, I think it beats the story of one of my 35 Airframes' Marines, who was 19, spending several grand on his government credit card at a strip club in Guam...

What a ing moron. Everyone should have seen the email by now stating that all lap dances are to be booked in DTS on the initial authorization...

Sent from my Vitamix 450x Professional using Tapatalk

[nsplayr]

Y'all realize that in the short-term at least this will cause a lot more bureaucracy and red tape around this issue, right? Because this was a tweet and not a fleshed-out policy released through the normal channels, no one knows what's going on. DoD was working on rules governing if they would accept transgendered recruits and had recently asked for more time to decide that, but I guess that part is decided now at least.

However reading POTUS' new "policy," what do you do with people who are transgendered who are currently serving? Do we kick them out immediately? Do we just pass them over and up-or-out them eventually? Can they keep serving?

Yes it's an extremely small % of the current mil population, but these are real people who woke up today and now have no idea what's going on or if they can continue serving or not.  No matter who you are as a leader, that's not a good way to treat your people.

So if you're just against transgendered people serving in the military for whatever reason, great, this is moving policy in your preferred direction. But if you're more agnostic to the actually issue and you're just against queep and red tape and consternation around the issue generally, I'm sorry to report that this abrupt, vague change will immediately make things worse rather than better.

If you're a Commander and happen to have a transgendered troop working for you, how do you even begin to explain this new "policy" when they knock on your door?

Edited July 26, 2017 by nsplayr

[Duck]

This is bull$hit. I mean all 7 of those people now can't join. Thanks a lot Trump.

[matmacwc]

24 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Y'all realize that in the short-term at least this will cause a lot more bureaucracy and red tape around this issue, right? Because this was a tweet and not a fleshed-out policy released through the normal channels, no one knows what's going on. DoD was working on rules governing if they would accept transgendered recruits and had recently asked for more time to decide that, but I guess that part is decided now at least.

However reading POTUS' new "policy," what do you do with people who are transgendered who are currently serving? Do we kick them out immediately? Do we just pass them over and up-or-out them eventually? Can they keep serving?

Yes it's an extremely small % of the current mil population, but these are real people who woke up today and now have no idea what's going on or if they can continue serving or not.  No matter who you are as a leader, that's not a good way to treat your people.

So if you're just against transgendered people serving in the military for whatever reason, great, this is moving policy in your preferred direction. But if you're more agnostic to the actually issue and you're just against queep and red tape and consternation around the issue generally, I'm sorry to report that this abrupt, vague change will immediately make things worse rather than better.

If you're a Commander and happen to have a transgendered troop working for you, how do you even begin to explain this new "policy" when they knock on your door?

I know you are left of center brother but a lot of operator types and commanders just took a sigh of relief.  You need to look on the other side of the coin, the Army commander that has to deploy his unit next year but Bob wants to be Sara and will be out of the deployment due to elective surgery.  And lets not mix anything up, it is elective, they don't have to do it to survive life and a lot of people would say their mental state is already fragile.  We kill people and break their stuff, anything else is noise.  Anything else Duck said, unless he's drunk, which is a distinct possibility. 

[di1630]

I could give 2 fvcks if a tranny showed up and did the job...problem is that people are trying to join the army/marines, drop the tranny card and they are ineligible to deploy while they "transition" and then after they got free treatment, they leave.

Good for Trump. Time to end the social experimentation.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[nsplayr]

50 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

I know you are left of center brother but a lot of operator types and commanders just took a sigh of relief.

My point is this: what is the new policy? Can anyone at DoD explain it at this point? Doesn't it make more sense to roll something like this out in a coordinated fashion with applicable service-specific policies and procedures laid out ahead of time?

It's estimated that ~13,000 transgendered people are currently serving in the US armed forces, where do those people stand as of today? Can they continue to serve? Pack their shit in a cardboard box and get out by Friday? How do you answer these questions as a Commander when your troop shows up at your door?

[HU&W]

2 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

It's estimated that ~13,000 transgendered people are currently serving in the US armed forces, where do those people stand as of today? Can they continue to serve? Pack their shit in a cardboard box and get out by Friday? How do you answer these questions as a Commander when your troop shows up at your door?

Source?  CNN cited RAND today that an estimated 4k-7k have some sort of gender dysphoria, but the true number is unknown because not all have come forward.

[matmacwc]

You tell them you do not know yet, get back to work.  I agree the "officially" policy should have come out as well, but he did say the Generals were on board.  I do have trouble with estimates/polls/experts when we really do not know how many, as a percentage it is minuscule and the rest of of shouldn't have to wear diapers if somebody else….well, wants a period….meh,  you get the idea.

Edited July 26, 2017 by matmacwc

[nsplayr]

31 minutes ago, HU&W said:

Source?  CNN cited RAND today that an estimated 4k-7k have some sort of gender dysphoria, but the true number is unknown because not all have come forward.

The 2016 RAND study had between 1,320 and 6,630 on AD and 830 and 4,160 in the reserves. 2,150 - 10,790. A previous study by a think tank at UCLA Law School estimated 15,500. The exact number is unknowable because people (apparently smartly) don't always want to be out. Either way it's a small number percentage wise, but it's still thousands of real human beings and fellow service members who put on the uniform and now don't know what tomorrow looks like career-wise.

 

30 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

You tell them you do not know yet, get back to work.  I agree the "officially" policy should have come out as well, but he did say the Generals were on board.

Ok, just as long as we're clear that Commanders are in a tough spot right now. Not being able to tell someone whether or not they can keep serving due to a new policy announced from POTUS via twitter...I'm not sure what they're supposed to do. Does that person go on a deployment next month or will they be kicked out before then? Should I push them for promotion/crosstraining/etc. or will they be kicked out soon? Are they still motivated to work at a high level with this new lightning bolt of career uncertainty straight from the top?

Like I said, any Commander who has a transgendered troop working for them just inherited more headaches, not fewer.

If as a nation we want to say that the military can't accommodate trans people and still get the mission done, that's a discussion to be had and in fact one that was being had in a methodical way. But now...???? No one knows WTF is going on; not anyone's idea of good policymaking regardless of if you happen to agree or disagree with the eventual outcome.

Edited July 27, 2017 by nsplayr

[BashiChuni]

Jesus h c gender identification? What a great society we've become. 

[Duck]

God. I miss the days when dudes were born dudes and chicks didn't have dicks.

[yatalpan]

Well the previous administration pushed transgender policy down the departments throat despite the services medical standards experts saying this was unwise.  There is evidence in the medical literature that transgender folks have a significantly higher risk of suicide over the general population.  And given the suicide problems the department has and the resources devoted to suicide prevention I can not understand why the department would accept that risk.

[waveshaper]

I know this transgender stuff is relatively new in the military. I have a few questions about transgender and PRP positions.

- Is there any data that shows how many transgender folks are holding PRP positions, particularly critical PRP positions?

- Is there any established guidance on how Commanders (PRP certifying officials) and medical (particularly mental health folks) handle the PRP certification process for individuals that initiates/request a gender transition?

- Should Commanders of transgender PRP certified individuals temporarily decertify (immediately) these folks based on the Presidents (CiC) tweet on this subject or should Commanders wait for further guidance before initiating the PRP decertification process?  

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by waveshaper

[Jaded]

https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=80124D36-EF8B-4CBD-A75A-9C6C697CA235

From John McCain:

STATEMENT BY SASC CHAIRMAN JOHN McCAIN ON TRANSGENDER AMERICANS IN THE MILITARY

Washington, D.C. ­– U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, released the following statement today on President Trump’s tweet regarding transgender Americans in the military:

“The President’s tweet this morning regarding transgender Americans in the military is yet another example of why major policy announcements should not be made via Twitter.

“The statement was unclear. The Department of Defense has already decided to allow currently-serving transgender individuals to stay in the military, and many are serving honorably today. Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving. There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train, and deploy to leave the military—regardless of their gender identity. We should all be guided by the principle that any American who wants to serve our country and is able to meet the standards should have the opportunity to do so—and should be treated as the patriots they are.

“The Department of Defense is currently conducting a study on the medical obligations it would incur, the impact on military readiness, and related questions associated with the accession of transgender individuals who are not currently serving in uniform and wish to join the military. I do not believe that any new policy decision is appropriate until that study is complete and thoroughly reviewed by the Secretary of Defense, our military leadership, and the Congress.

“The Senate Armed Services Committee will continue to follow closely and conduct oversight on the issue of transgender individuals serving in the military.”

[tac airlifter]

55 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Ok, just as long as we're clear that Commanders are in a tough spot right now. Not being able to tell someone whether or not they can keep serving due to a new policy....

Like I said, any Commander who has a transgendered troop working for them just inherited more headaches, not fewer.

3 things: first, every commanders job just got easier, not harder.  I'm around a lot of joint GOs, their relief is palpable and so far, anecdotal only, but 100% of the feedback from their subordinates is reliefe.  The Army was telling chicks they'd have to shower next to someone with a dick and if they were concerned they were bigots.  For goodness sake, there was far more unease about trying to integrate these folks.  

Second, the initial rollout of the policy allowing trannies caused just as much "how do we do this?"  It's inevitable with these socially charged issues that the full details take awhile to come out (pun intended).  I understand the viewpoint of "have the full policy ready before releasing" but I'd rather just know the bosses intent now and standby on details.  And by the way, no one even knew how the old policy could have been implemented without massive changes to GO1.  So, confusion has been the defining characteristic of this issue since Obama forced it on the military.  That show is have been a clue to leave it alone.

Third, does tranny integration improve mission effectiveness?  No.  If you want  elective surgery when you leave, fine.  I'm not the morality police.  Be as crazy as you want because freedom!  But letting folks transition while on duty by definition takes them out of duty status.  And we opened the door to "non-binary" individuals and asexuals and all manner of sexual confusion.  Dude I do feel bad for fellow transsexual service members whose future in the service is now closed.  On a human level, it's unfortunate for them and I'll show only kindness to any I meet.  But this was not good for the mission, and that's where my loyalty is.  

21 minutes ago, yatalpan said:

Well the previous administration pushed transgender policy down the departments throat despite the services medical standards experts saying this was unwise.  

Shack.  The military didn't want this, Obama forced it.  Since he ruled by fiat and decree, it can be undone with a single tweet.  

[Jaded]

The Army is not a social laboratory; to be effective, it must be organized and trained according to the principles which will insure success.

Experiments, to meet the wishes and demands of the champions of each person for the solution of their problems are a danger to efficiency, discipline, and morale.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, yatalpan said:

Well the previous administration pushed transgender policy down the departments throat despite the services medical standards experts saying this was unwise.  There is evidence in the medical literature that transgender folks have a significantly higher risk of suicide over the general population.  And given the suicide problems the department has and the resources devoted to suicide prevention I can not understand why the department would accept that risk.

So I can be wise on that literature, can you post a source on "significantly higher risk of suicide"? 

I ask only because in the past when it comes to the military admission, folks have used all sorts of "literature" to say things like blacks lacked qualities to make them combat effective personnel, women are unable to fly fighters, gays will somehow lack the adaptability to be open and rainbow.

 

Here is a better argument that may work for you, I do not like (insert new group trying to gain accepted status in the military) because it does not align with the cultural identity I wish to uphold. But hey maybe you actually have a done a lot of research on your "suicide" claim.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jaded said:

The Army is not a social laboratory; to be effective, it must be organized and trained according to the principles which will insure success.

Experiments, to meet the wishes and demands of the champions of each person for the solution of their problems are a danger to efficiency, discipline, and morale.

The military has always been a social laboratory! See Truman 1948, order 9981, who told a bunch of folks, the African Americans are coming and they will be part of this organization. 

^this probably pissed off a bunch of European Americans! Just like this latest group is going to piss lots of us off.

https://www.thinglink.com/scene/510155664333471745

To be clear I am saying that the transgendered community are facing acceptance hurdles, hurdles the groups like AA, women and gays had to endure. Those hurdles will be different for each one of those communities depending on the level of pushback from society.

[HuggyU2]

5 hours ago, di1630 said:

I could give 2 fvcks if a tranny showed up and did the job..

 

[RTB]

23 minutes ago, 1111 said:

So I can be wise on that literature, can you post a source on "significantly higher risk of suicide"? 

I ask only because in the past when it comes to the military admission, folks have used all sorts of "literature" to say things like blacks lacked qualities to make them combat effective personnel, women are unable to fly fighters, gays will somehow lack the adaptability to be open and rainbow.

 

Here is a better argument that may work for you, I do not like (insert new group trying to gain accepted status in the military) because it does not align with the cultural identity I wish to uphold. But hey maybe you actually have a done a lot of research on your "suicide" claim.

Google:

55% have thought about trying and are 14 times more likely to do so than the general population  

29% have tried and are 22 times more likely to do so  

thats WAY higher than the rest of the population

https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2017/05/04/Study-shows-rising-rates-of-suicidal-acts-in-transgender-adults/4561493909781/

 

[Prozac]

Not arguing in favor or against, but the second order effects may be worth considering. Many, maybe most New recruits as of right now have social views that don't resonate with a lot of the old heads. By excluding this group, the DOD may be inadvertently sending the message that it is a backwards organization and one to be avoided by these youngsters. We already have a major disconnect where huge segments of society cannot or will not relate to military service. One of my concerns is that we are shutting the door not just on the transgender community, but on a whole bunch of forward thinking millennials that we probably want to keep in the recruiting pool. 

[Prozac]

.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Prozac
Double post

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, RTB said:

Google:

55% have thought about trying and are 14 times more likely to do so than the general population  

29% have tried and are 22 times more likely to do so  

thats WAY higher than the rest of the population

https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2017/05/04/Study-shows-rising-rates-of-suicidal-acts-in-transgender-adults/4561493909781/

 

From your study, see limitations of the study in the UCLA link in your link.

 

Quoted from your study:

"The results of this meta-synthesis are very preliminary and there are a number of limitations inherent to a study of this kind, relying as it does on datasets that are methodologically varied....The manner in which researchers inquired about sui- cidality is also concerning. For example, some research- ers63 note that yes/no questions, such as ‘‘have you ever attempted suicide?’’ tend to overestimate positive re- sponses from those who have self-harmed, but not attempted to end their life. This might be corrected by questioning participants’ intent to die through in-person interviews, which have been found to reduce attempt rates from 4.6% to 2.7% of an adult sample.109,110 Unfortunately, only 14% of the 42 studies included here collected data primarily from face-to-face interviews."

 

to be clear what I am saying is study in this field is very young and prone to generalization. The researchers from the study you posted highlights this in their report.

 

thanks for the feedback, so how prone are they really to suicide?

 

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by Guest