Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Congressional Research Service is a public policy research institute of the United States Congress. Operating within the Library of Congress, it works primarily and directly for members of Congress and their committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.
So basically, they do research at the behest of Congress members. Bryce H. P. Mendez seems to be a Doctor. That he is from Hawaii seems to be bad in your estimation. Why? Trashing Tuberville should be done on a daily basis. The guy shut down promotions in the DOD for months. Even pissed off a lot of Republican Senators.
Secondly, you seemed to extrapolate data from a number despite not knowing any real facts. Trump was President from Jan 20, 2017 until January 20, 2021. And initially Trump stopped the Obama policy, then held off on the Obama policy, then started the Trump policy in 2018. He had Mattis work on a solution that allowed serving members to stay in.
So, you got the dates wrong, the Trump policy wrong, and then made up a number. You accuse me of moving the goal posts, but you still base your entire argument on a make believe number. Facts win arguments. not make believe.
You are foolish if you believe that any entity in DC is non partisan. They are pushing a trans agenda in every single agency.
As far as the number, you have no idea what the cost was in 2023. Since there are 15 times more trans people now then there were before, and with inflation, and the increase in staff and equipment, I firmly believe the number to be well over 100 million.
As I stated before, you can believe whatever number you want to believe. Since I don’t share your ideology, I’m certain I would laugh at whatever you believe it to be.
You are foolish if you believe that any entity in DC is non partisan. They are pushing a trans agenda in every single agency.
As far as the number, you have no idea what the cost was in 2023. Since there are 15 times more trans people now then there were before, and with inflation, and the increase in staff and equipment, I firmly believe the number to be well over 100 million.
As I stated before, you can believe whatever number you want to believe. Since I don’t share your ideology, I’m certain I would laugh at whatever you believe it to be.
I have no clue what the number is, nor do you. What I chose not to do was make one up out of thin air and then stand and defend it.
I have no clue what the number is, nor do you. What I chose not to do was make one up out of thin air and then stand and defend it.
No, you got offended because you don’t like it when someone calls out this administration for wasting huge amounts of money on sex change operations that do not make us a stronger military. In fact, it weakens us by having most of them non deployable.
I’m offended that you have the audacity to support this nonsense, to hold water for this administration on virtually every issue. People like you are the problem. You make our adversaries stronger by supporting ideology that makes us weaker.
It's a medical procedure, not a hobby. To characterize the procedure as a hobby diminishes the individuals. After all, upon extensive forensic analysis upon exhumation of the body, it was determined that General Pulaski (1745-1749), Father of the American Calvary, was likely intersex. Today, Pulaski would perhaps have had surgery. But why they did that and so forth, is for the history forum.
No, you got offended because you don’t like it when someone calls out this administration for wasting huge amounts of money on sex change operations that do not make us a stronger military. In fact, it weakens us by having most of them non deployable.
I’m offended that you have the audacity to support this nonsense, to hold water for this administration on virtually every issue. People like you are the problem. You make our adversaries stronger by supporting ideology that makes us weaker.
Who said anywhere that I support this? Exactly. I didn't. You're treading awfully close to keyboard warrior territory there good sir.
I called out someone posting total BS and claiming it as fact. I went further because you just don't get. You can't make stuff up in grown up discussions.
I do not support transgender persons in front line units. At all. In the rear with the gear? Absolutely. If they want to serve, when so many dont', let them. That's pretty much verbatim with GEN Mattis' thoughts on the matter. I guess he wants to make us weaker as well?
I do not endorse the current or the previous administration. Heck not the one before that either. I was a Republican for decades. I no longer side with them because they worry too much about silly crap like this. You, and your fellow right wingers, expect not to be called on silly stuff. But just like the long discussion about Afghanistan withdrawal, you won't listen to what people are telling you and choose to disregard what we actually put forth and create your own interpretation. I was bothered by the 13 Marines killed during the withdrawal. But no more or less than the 2,446 that also died for that quagmire. See if you can digest that.
Finally, don't believe for a second that you are worth being offended about. You're just SGOTI that pretends to be a Libertarian while echoing the far right talking points. Bring facts supported by data. I might just agree. But you don't. You peddle assumptions, supposition, and downright made up stuff to support your points. No wonder you get called on it.
Fix the deficit, fix immigration, and enact term limits. Those are the things we should be really worried about.
If someone who is transgender joins, my opinion is that they should sign a waiver stating the military will not be responsible for gender reassignment surgery unless surgery is used to treat a service connected injury or illness.
In addition to that, when you have service m embers that require specialized medical care, (be it diabetes, MS, HIV etc) it is a drain on an already limited logistical chain. If I understand this correctly, trans need hormone therapy for life after the surgery. Why should tax payers pay for it?
Who said anywhere that I support this? Exactly. I didn't. You're treading awfully close to keyboard warrior territory there good sir.
I called out someone posting total BS and claiming it as fact. I went further because you just don't get. You can't make stuff up in grown up discussions.
I do not support transgender persons in front line units. At all. In the rear with the gear? Absolutely. If they want to serve, when so many dont', let them. That's pretty much verbatim with GEN Mattis' thoughts on the matter. I guess he wants to make us weaker as well?
I do not endorse the current or the previous administration. Heck not the one before that either. I was a Republican for decades. I no longer side with them because they worry too much about silly crap like this. You, and your fellow right wingers, expect not to be called on silly stuff. But just like the long discussion about Afghanistan withdrawal, you won't listen to what people are telling you and choose to disregard what we actually put forth and create your own interpretation. I was bothered by the 13 Marines killed during the withdrawal. But no more or less than the 2,446 that also died for that quagmire. See if you can digest that.
Finally, don't believe for a second that you are worth being offended about. You're just SGOTI that pretends to be a Libertarian while echoing the far right talking points. Bring facts supported by data. I might just agree. But you don't. You peddle assumptions, supposition, and downright made up stuff to support your points. No wonder you get called on it.
Fix the deficit, fix immigration, and enact term limits. Those are the things we should be really worried about.
So let’s recap. You didn’t like the number of what I believe trans in the military are costing us. But you have no idea what the number actually is. You cling to some 2017- 2021 data even though there are 15 times more trans people “serving” today.
Also, you apparently think it’s a good idea to carry 15,500 troops, and growing exponentially each year, to sit back in garrison and get sex change operations at the cost of taxpayer dollars. You think this is a “silly” issue.
Well, I don’t think it’s a silly issue at all. I think it is making us weaker as a military.
Gen Mattis certainly agrees with me, but he didn’t rise to General and SECDEF by bucking heads with the liberal civilians in the Pentagon and in “think” tanks like Rand.
In his memo, Mattis wrote that there is “substantial risk” from allowing the service of people with gender dysphoria, or the condition of someone’s biological sex being in conflict with their gender identity. The accompanying report argues that people diagnosed with gender dysphoria suffer from high rates of suicide, anxiety, depression and substance abuse, and that treatment such as hormone therapy and surgery has not proven effective
If someone who is transgender joins, my opinion is that they should sign a waiver stating the military will not be responsible for gender reassignment surgery unless surgery is used to treat a service connected injury or illness.
In addition to that, when you have service m embers that require specialized medical care, (be it diabetes, MS, HIV etc) it is a drain on an already limited logistical chain. If I understand this correctly, trans need hormone therapy for life after the surgery. Why should tax payers pay for it?
I agree. I'm all for treating trans people with respect and for affording protections under the law, but I do not believe that the military/taxpayers should be funding what are not "necessary" surgeries that don't actually provide value to the service. I hear people often retort with, well what about things like Lasik? But Lasik provides a tangible benefit to the service (and it's substantially cheaper than gender reassignment surgery) by ensuring that servicemembers are capable of carrying out their duties due to enhanced vision, etc.
That said, if things like gender reassignment surgery is going to be prohibited (or at least not funded by military/taxpayer dollars) on account of not being necessary or due to not being used to treat a service connected injury or illness, then I feel that certain other procedures shouldn't be funded by the military/taxpayers either, to include IVF and other fertility treatments and the such, which are also not necessary from a military readiness perspective.
So let’s recap. You didn’t like the number of what I believe trans in the military are costing us. But you have no idea what the number actually is. You cling to some 2017- 2021 data even though there are 15 times more trans people “serving” today.
Also, you apparently think it’s a good idea to carry 15,500 troops, and growing exponentially each year, to sit back in garrison and get sex change operations at the cost of taxpayer dollars. You think this is a “silly” issue.
Well, I don’t think it’s a silly issue at all. I think it is making us weaker as a military.
Gen Mattis certainly agrees with me, but he didn’t rise to General and SECDEF by bucking heads with the liberal civilians in the Pentagon and in “think” tanks like Rand.
In his memo, Mattis wrote that there is “substantial risk” from allowing the service of people with gender dysphoria, or the condition of someone’s biological sex being in conflict with their gender identity. The accompanying report argues that people diagnosed with gender dysphoria suffer from high rates of suicide, anxiety, depression and substance abuse, and that treatment such as hormone therapy and surgery has not proven effective
I'm open to discussion on the point, but I'd also like to know if the general study applies to those trans servicemembers on active duty today. In otherwise words, general trends need not apply to specified groups as self-selection, etc., can vasty change the baseline.
I'm not dismissing the idea (if it's true, it should be addressed and discussed), but I'm also mindful that certain other similar and different demographic outcome arguments were used to exclude people from military service for years on account of race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.
I'm open to discussion on the point, but I'd also like to know if the general study applies to those trans servicemembers on active duty today. In otherwise words, general trends need not apply to specified groups as self-selection, etc., can vasty change the baseline.
I'm not dismissing the idea (if it's true, it should be addressed and discussed), but I'm also mindful that certain other similar and different demographic outcome arguments were used to exclude people from military service for years on account of race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.
The same old tired comparison of race and sex.
But of course the difference is that when we added black people and women to the ranks generations ago, they didn’t need surgeries to change their genitals, surgeries to take off their breasts, nor did they need an infinite supply of drugs to combat their mental illness, nor did they need an infinite supply of hormones to keep changing who they really are.
But again, if you want a study that says that trans people actually make us a much better military, you will be able to find it on any corrupt think tank website. There are dozens of them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
