WHY TRANSGENDER PEOPLE REPRESENT A THREAT TO MILITARY READINESS
The Great Catfish Explains:
NAMAZU, FORMER JAPANESE GIANT CATFISH DEMIGOD TURNED ANALYST AND COMMENTATOR
IT'S NOT JUST THE EXPENSE, IT'S THE HOLE IN HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT THEY CREATE: GENDER CONSTANCY IS NEEDED IN AN ACTIVITY THAT REQUIRES CAREFUL ERGONOMIC PLANNING.
Your President Trump has once again ignored political correctness and embraced common sense which of course has now gotten him in trouble with the main stream media liberal progressive propaganda machine. Most people are aware that transgender operations cost a fortune and that military members on active duty enjoy free health care. So there is some sympathy for the argument that the tax payers can't afford these super expensive elective operations. Given their expense and the benefit of free medical care in the military, the idea of getting a transgender operation for free could be a powerful incentive for transgender people to seek military employment. But the expense of the initial evaluation, pre- transitional care, and finally gender changing operation is just the start of the expense. Everyone is aware that there is no such thing as a fertile transgender. The gender change is never fully complete. To maintain the so called "changed" gender the transgender person must take an extensive cocktail of hormone tablets, sometimes injections, and secondary sex characteristics suppression drugs, as well as considerable cosmetic practices. The transgender condition could be medically described as "elective chronic". Other people in need of expensive operations and an expensive continuum of care (serious chronic conditions) are not eligible for military service, why should the tax payer be charged for those with an elective chronic condition? Yet the horrific expense is just the tip of the ice burg of the problems the employment of transgenders present to military systems , especially in the management of human resources.
There should be only one end goal in the management of military human resources, military readiness resulting in winning in combat and rapid, successful completions of military missions other than war. The problem of transgenders is in the planning. Consider the ergonomics of firefighting as a typical example.
Firefighting teams are important naval teams in shipboard damage control situations and are made up of active duty naval personnel. In an intense firefight a lot of equipment and supplies weighing in the vicinity of 65 pounds must be muscled about. The NIOSH (National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health ) standard for repetitive , asymmetrical (other than bent knee straight up lifting) for men is 65 pounds but only about half that for women. An all woman shipboard firefighting team would be rather ineffective compared to a male dominant team. In the modern navy as well as on the modern U.S. Air Force flight line an all male firefighting team is hard to come by so military managers try to plan for a male dominant team. This works as long as gender is a constant.
Unfortunately, among the things that do change for transgender people is that male to female transgenders do get weaker as a result of desired weight loss for body conformation, and the effect of injected or ingested female hormones. By contrast female to male transitions at best may achieve gains that would put them in the weaker population percentiles for males. One of the "controls" to prevent injuries recommended by NIOSH is physical training. The truth is that the typical male firefighter military or civilian is usually much stronger than the average male. Female firefighters after physical training may approach the bottom percentile of the males with always some notable exceptions. However, if gender is not constant, how do you plan for such forces. How do military flag, general and commanding officers, or even small unit leading non commissioned officers plan for longer term operations if in fact the ratios of male to female members aren't static because gender isn't constant?
One of the snowflake arguments in favor of transgender service is that they estimate that somewhere between 2500 and to over 7,000 transgenders are actively serving in the military today. The very numbers they cite are a serious reason for stopping the madness now. Those numbers are easily high enough to affect medical budgets as well as the planning of ergonomic economics for human composition of force elements. The firefighting teams example is just one of many such situations in force planning where gender ratios are critical due to the manifest difference in upper torso strength between men and women. But that's not the only area where a lack of gender constancy becomes a military human resources planning problem. In aviation for example women are scientifically shown to suffer less from green / red color blindness then men ( also a concern in naval navigation bridge operations`). Going back as far as WWII this gender difference has proven of utility in increasing pilot populations. Transgenders resent being referred to as a third gender and identify with their assumed through surgery gender. But the cross overs still bring with them the color blindness ratios of their birth gender.
Believe me the list of problems that transgender tolerance in the ranks imposes on military human resource planners and combat commanders is truly exhaustive. President Trump was right to stop the madness. For over 200 years this was not an issue in the American armed forces. Only the last eight years , the years of OBOZO have transgender people in any numbers been allowed in the U.S. Military. During his years of using the military as a social experiment the numbers blossomed to the joy of the snowflakes and the consternation of the professional military.
There is no doubt that the Commander in Chief has every legal right to establish service eligibility requirements. This is not a matter for the Congress, the Media, or Judiciary. However, the loud concern expressed for those transgenders presently in service is unnecessary. There are enlistment contracts, and service agreements involved, there are litigate-able retirement system vesting issues involved as well as the practical problems of replacing trained and experienced people even if we believe they can and will be replaced eventually by less expensive to maintain people who no longer present the military with the planning problems created by gender inconstancy. The most likely outcome of the change in policy, which is after all, as announced, and focused on initial enlistment or commissioning is a eventual reduction in transgender service members through natural attrition.
Some joined who joined simply to get the medical procedures for gender change always intended to opt out at the end of their initial enlistment, not unlike some who enter for the educational veterans benefits. Some will now leave in anger over the non PC policy and distinct turn away from being a social experimental human population that the services will take under a pragmatic Commander in Chief. Some will retire before a distinct retention policy for serving transgenders is articulated. Some that supervisors might actually like to release to the civilian population but who want to stay on may be retained due to needs of the service. But eventually the Obama created "pig in the python" human resources problem will pass mostly through relatively painless natural attrition. Buck up snowflakes, the Commander in Chief has this one under control.
READ MORE @ http://conservativetribune.com/trans-man-brutal-truth-trumps-ban/2/http://conservativetribune.com/trans-man-brutal-truth-trumps-ban/2/