I have no interest in defending Trump.

...Yeah, you smell it coming. BUT:

Budgetary concerns for telling trans people "thanks but no thanks" regarding desire to serve in the military might possibly be defensible and comparable to other conditions / states / whatever.

Manning was in jail (whether you think that deserved or not) and got ACLU assistance to be provided with hormone therapy and eventually gender reassignment surgery, because it was deemed psychologically damaging to withhold them. That's some pretty expensive treatment. Paid with tax dollars.

Perform a thought experiment and replace barring trans people from military service with some other group that would similarly require expensive medical maintenance. There's a pretty good example available: Type 1 Diabetes, requiring insulin. And guess what -- diabetics are barred from military service. If you develop diabetes while in the military it isn't grounds for discharge, but if you have it beforehand and want to join up you're SOL.

Back to trans. Do I personally think that they should be barred from service? No, not based purely on that. But if somebody feels that they need hormone replacement and/or gender reassignment surgery, I think they should be paying for that themselves, not on government / military dime.

I'll admit that I see those things not as necessary, but elective. Maybe that's unfair, but at what point does it become ridiculous? Can bald soldiers get hair transplants? Botox? Breast implants?

Trans people want to serve and either A) don't need hormone replacement / gender reassignment or B) are willing to pay out of pocket for them? Sign 'em up. Otherwise, it becomes murky. If that seems insensitive / bigoted, sorry. But plenty of things beyond your control can make you ineligible for military service.


**edit:
Oh, forgot to mention. Do I think Trump really had that sort of argument in mind when he made this decision? HELL NO. He's a spiteful prick. He probably did it for a combination of trying to curry favor with prick GOP congressclowns and just to prod.

The problem is that this health care cost is so small, when you compare it their other health care costs.

DoD spent 1.9 billion on tobacco-related health care issues in 2009. I think that is more than the cost of health care for transgender troops.

They currently spend more on Viagra ($41.6m) than on health care for transgender troops ($8.4m).

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, July 26th, 2017 11:46pm PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

That's the kind of thing that makes it obvious that the economics are NOT the real reason.

Include Viagra in my list of elective things that people should pay for themselves.

...On the other hand, to fully compare we'd need to know how many individuals are being provided with those things. I remember seeing that $8.4m figure before, I think it was for ~15,000 trans soldiers? The military is spending about 5 times as much on viagra, but I'd wager that it gets distributed to more than 75,000 (15k x 5) guys.

I don't really think the military should be paying for either, but I'm sure that the military line would be that they're buying more per-capita emotional well being with $41m worth of viagra than $8m for trans.

Yes, 15k soldiers is the number I have seen as well.

The other factor is the question about what that $8.4m is being used for. It sounds like you are assuming that it is for hormone replacement and/or gender reassignment, but I haven't heard if that is explicitly what the $8.4m is for, or if is the sum total of all annual trans health care in the military. That is something I would like clarified. It has only been stated as "the cost for health care for the 15k trans soldiers", so it is not clear.

I, too, would like to hear what is the Viagra "head" count. Hooooo!

I just think that it is a small price to pay (0.0017 %) of a $500b annual military budget, for people that are braver than myself, and willing to serve.

Gender reassignment and hormone therapy aren't covered by military healthcare, so that's not the issue. Honestly, I think Trump is either so misinformed that he believes they are covered, or he knows that by implying they are with the phrase "tremendous medical costs" his base will be outraged by an imaginary government expenditure on 'queers'.

@CrushBug -- Very good arguments in favor of absorbing the cost, even IF hormone therapy / gender reassignment is paid for by the military / government.

@entr0py -- Links that I've read from conventional news outlets claim that hormone therapy and gender reassignment were covered by military healthcare IF a doctor signed off on them as being medically necessary. An article I read about Chelsea Manning specifically stated that the hormone therapy was definitely paid for by the military, but that it wasn't 100% clear who paid the bill for her gender reassignment. I can't find that exact article, but here's another one from 2015 that suggests the same things:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/12/chelsea-manning-hormone-therapy/23311813/

Another article I read said that Obama issued an order / proclamation / whatever that the military would pay for those things if they were deemed medically necessary, which was a change from the former system (not covered). Not sure when/if that went into effect, but I think it must have. I'll look and see if I can find a link to that one.

I'm not saying that my info is right and yours is wrong, but it seems unclear. They (gender reassignment and hormone therapy) definitely weren't covered for a long time, but it seems like the hormone therapy was for sure at least in Manning's case.

Again, just to my personal opinion, I think the old system of "welcome to serve but we ain't paying for that stuff" was fine (ideal?). CrushBug presents a good argument for the military absorbing those costs since they are such a tiny fraction of the military budget (even though trans soldiers are arguably also a tiny fraction of the total).

Strangely enough, I'd pretty happily agree to those services being covered (if deemed medically necessary) as part of single-payer universal health care available to ALL CITIZENS. That would still be paying for them with tax dollars, but not tax dollars earmarked for military, which seems better to me somehow.

And again, I think Trump is 100% in the wrong for barring trans people from service simply for being trans. I agree that he's really just trying to rile up his base and trigger their righteous indignation. But, I do still basically think that the military paying for those services (or viagra / hair transplants / botox / cosmetic stuff, etc.) out of their budget is wrong. Even if amounts to a drop in the ocean that is military spending.

American don't want freaks in the military or anywhere else.

If you want to be a freak -be like everyone else, Step out Friday/Saturday and get your freak on and show up Monday like the rest of , normal.

So

I don't know how it is in the states, but in this country if you want to go through gender reassignment you will get it for free on the NHS. Its a long road, it isn't easy, they make it hard etc, but like anything else that poses a risk to somebodies health it is paid for by the state. I feel like a lot of people consider reassignment a sort of frivolous sex thing but being unable to escape the body in which you are born is, you know, desperately depressing. I don't think I am exaggerating when I say that surgery and hormone treatment are potentially lifesaving, and certainly greatly improve the quality of life in most cases.

Couple of things I don't understand - Is this the military saying they will no longer pay for treatments associated with gender reassignment, or is this a blanket ban on transgender men and women from serving in the military? One wonders why the military can't spend even a fraction of the amount is spends on toys on its servicemen/women...

Anyhoo. It's a distraction. Not trying to suggest that it is a minor thing for those affected, but I really think this is to divert the left and win back support from the right. It sucks dreadfully that a minority group is again used as target for political maneuvering and it is worthy of resistance but I can't help but feel we are playing into their hand by doing so.

@bobknight33 I pity you.

Neither do they want bigots and assholes hanging around...but look who's still here.

You think you're "normal"? That's adorable.

No NHS in the states. Personally, I think that'd be the way to do it. And I think it kind of needs to be a long and difficult road, to make sure that drastic option is necessary and won't be regretted later.

It's a bit hard for me to accept it, because I tend to think of it like that episode of South Park. Kyle can't actually become a tall black kid, and his dad can't actually become a dolphin.

But even though I think that is true -- you can't really become something you aren't -- I recognize that gender reassignment surgeries can be life saving / massively beneficial to quality of life in many cases.


To take a stab at answering your other questions:

I believe that Trump is saying that the military is instituting a blanket ban on transgender people from serving in the military. If / how the military elects to enforce that remains to be seen. I don't know the full timeline on that sort of stuff, but back in the 60's one (considered extreme at the time) way for young men to get out of being drafted to go to Vietnam was to take photos of themselves naked with another man (implying they were gay) or wearing women's clothing (implying they were trans). The mere implication that you might be either was enough to disqualify you from military service.

More recently, during Don't Ask Don't Tell you could be gay or trans in the military, but couldn't reveal that you were. That ended only 5-6 years ago. The military definitely wouldn't have paid for trans-related medical treatments prior to that, and didn't for quite a while after until Obama OK'd it.

Again, I don't really think that the military should be required / expected to pay for those kinds of treatments for soldiers, BUT I'd be 100% OK with something like the NHS making it available to any citizen, as in the UK. For one thing, I wouldn't want trans people to see the military as the only way to get those treatments (short of paying out of pocket), and having that be a major part of their motivation to join.

And I 100% agree that this is a basically a political distraction that sets back the rights and acceptance of an already marginalized group that in no way deserves it.