Originally posted by Surtur
So then if the women in the prison fear for their safety because a man is going to be there it is irrelevant. I understand perfectly.
Not sure if legit reading fail or if you're being belligerent just to be, but which part of "now legally female" didn't you comprehend? If they're a woman (now) and have lady bits, they belong in a woman's prison.
As Adam noted, the prison officials make this call, if a given prisoner doesn't like it, they can get a lawyer and sue for change.
Originally posted by Robtard👆
Not sure if legit reading fail or if you're being belligerent just to be, but which part of "now legally female" didn't you comprehend? If they're a woman (now) and have lady bits, they belong in a woman's prison.As Adam noted, the prison officials make this call, if a given prisoner doesn't like it, they can get a lawyer and sue for change.
Originally posted by Robtard
Your tax dollars (80+million a year) already go to helping limp-dicked servicemen get erections via Viagra and other similar meds. So I don't see why not
Originally posted by darthgoober
Does that figure reflect the cost of the proper sex change surgeries for everyone man and woman in the military to get the necessary reassignment surgery, or is that how much is spent yearly up till now while the military hasn't been required to pay for the surgery? Also, have there been any surveys/studies done to figure out how many trans people who can't currently afford the surgery might sign up just to save themselves the cost?
Not sure why we'd factor a 'for every service person" cost, as not every service person would want a sex-change procedure. Of note, there seems to be very few trans soldiers (even before Trump's bigoted ban)
The "8.4 million" the study came up with seems to be an average estimate of what it costs.
No idea on how many people would join just to then get surgery. But going on previous data and the number of trans soldiers who got the surgery, it seems like a drop in the bucket.
edit: Google says there was at the most 15k active trans soldiers before the ban, out of a pool of 1.3mil active personnel. But there are lower figures.
Originally posted by SurturAgreed.
Idaho must pay for transgender inmate's surgery, court rulesThis is ridiculous lol. Thankfully the governor is appealing to the supreme court.
Originally posted by MythLordThere's a difference between life saving medical needs and a child molesting perv's wants. The perv convict won't die or be physically impaired w/o gender reassignment.
I mean, isn't it usually required of prisons to pay for the medical needs of their prisoners?Also, isn't this what the "Triggered" thread is for?
He's probably tired of getting molested by the other prisoners and this is a way out to a female prison or some sort of protection in the current prison.
Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure why we'd factor a 'for every service person" cost, as not every service person would want a sex-change procedure. Of note, there seems to be very few trans soldiers (even before Trump's bigoted ban)The "8.4 million" the study came up with seems to be an average estimate of what it costs.
No idea on how many people would join just to then get surgery. But going on previous data and the number of trans soldiers who got the surgery, it seems like a drop in the bucket.
edit: Google says there was at the most 15k active trans soldiers before the ban, out of a pool of 1.3mil active personnel. But there are lower figures.
But how could 8.4 million be an accurate reflection of cost? I mean it's not like the number would stay static. After all every year there'd be more and more, and even after they had the surgery unless I'm mistaken there's continuing costs as far as things like hormone treatments and such, so at best it'd be something that cost 8.4 million the first year, then the second year there'd be new surgeries to pay for PLUS the follow up costs from the year before, and that trend would continue until the first people that had their stuff paid for finally started dying from old age.
Originally posted by darthgoober
Yeah I totally misspoke, I was meaning to ask about every trans in the military, not every single man and woman.But how could 8.4 million be an accurate reflection of cost? I mean it's not like the number would stay static. After all every year there'd be more and more, and even after they had the surgery unless I'm mistaken there's continuing costs as far as things like hormone treatments and such, so at best it'd be something that cost 8.4 million the first year, then the second year there'd be new surgeries to pay for PLUS the follow up costs from the year before, and that trend would continue until the first people that had their stuff paid for finally started dying from old age.
It's no static, why we probably go with averages. One year it may cost 9.2mil for the military to provide services for trans soldiers; the next year it may cost 7.8mil.
It's faulty to assume the cost would only go up exponentially, that factor hinges on how many trans soldiers are joining** and how many trans soldiers who join seek medical help in transitioning. Not every trans person gets surgery, some don't even do hormones. **This is obviously before the ban.
Honestly, using cost as the reason to justify banning of trans people from servicing is a weak argument. Even if we multiple the last $$$ estimate by a factor of say 10, it's still chump-change in the military budget. Like what is spent to help military personal with limp dicks get hard again. Virtual pennies.
Let's be real, this is all about transphobia. Certain people are just disgusted by trans people.
Originally posted by Robtard
It's no static, why we probably go with averages. One year it may cost 9.2mil for the military to provide services for trans soldiers; the next year it may cost 7.8mil.It's faulty to assume the cost would only go up exponentially, that factor hinges on how many trans soldiers are joining** and how many trans soldiers who join seek medical help in transitioning. Not every trans person gets surgery, some don't even do hormones. **This is obviously before the ban.
Honestly, using cost as the reason to justify banning of trans people from servicing is a weak argument. Even if we multiple the last $$$ estimate by a factor of say 10, it's still chump-change in the military budget. Like what is spent to help military personal with limp dicks get hard again. Virtual pennies.
Let's be real, this is all about transphobia. Certain people are just disgusted by trans people.
You do know trans have a higher rates of suicides right. That’s a liability the army wants no part of.
Here’s the thing, just because you want to serve, doesn’t mean the Military has to care. I don’t understand why people can’t understand such a simple logic. The Military doesn’t want anyone with such problems.
The Sergent Major of the Army even put a new rules, if your on profile constantly, and your not fit to deploy, he wants you out of the army. No questions ask.
Here’s a question to you guys that’s bitching about this.
What’s the difference between a normal individual that wants to serve and has flat foot, or a trans that wants to serve?
Answers simple, the military as a whole doesn’t want extra baggage they have to pay you for.
You idiots also know there’s this thing called medboard. If your medboarded out of the military, the military has to pay you money each month. The military hates that shit. They’ll try their best to just kick you out with nothing. Doesn’t matter how broken you are.
Okay, what is the suicide rate for Trans soldiers?
Do you also think that them being seen as less than human by many could be a factor in their higher suicide rate figure?
White people have higher suicide rates than say Black people or Asians. Should the military start letting less White people in, just in case someone decides to off themselves? No, they shouldn't.
So answer your weird question of: "What's the difference between a normal individual that wants to serve and has flat foot, or a trans that wants to serve?"
Answer: A trans person can no longer enlist/serve, a flat footed person can. It isn't 1947 anymore, Squallx. Learn something already.
Originally posted by Robtard
It's no static, why we probably go with averages. One year it may cost 9.2mil for the military to provide services for trans soldiers; the next year it may cost 7.8mil.It's faulty to assume the cost would only go up exponentially, that factor hinges on how many trans soldiers are joining** and how many trans soldiers who join seek medical help in transitioning. Not every trans person gets surgery, some don't even do hormones. **This is obviously before the ban.
Honestly, using cost as the reason to justify banning of trans people from servicing is a weak argument. Even if we multiple the last $$$ estimate by a factor of say 10, it's still chump-change in the military budget. Like what is spent to help military personal with limp dicks get hard again. Virtual pennies.
Let's be real, this is all about transphobia. Certain people are just disgusted by trans people.
As for the hard on pills, if the result of someone's service in the military is PTSD that renders them unable to preform a biological imperative I don't have a problem with the government picking up the tab. If they end up with heart/circulatory problems that are best treated with pills which cause hard ons as a side effect... I don't got a problem with that either. But both of those scenarios are a far cry from trans surgery. By the same token, even though prosthetic limbs have become pretty advanced, and even though the military pays for prosthetics if a serviceman develops a need for one, I would be wholeheartedly against letting someone enlist who I knew beforehand would most likely need a $50,000 prosthetic to serve. I'd say save the $50,000 and hire someone who doesn't need a prosthetic. On the other hand, if a guy goes into combat and gets his dick blown off... I'd have no problem whatsoever with him telling the doctors to give him a V instead of a D when they went to fix the problem.
Originally posted by darthgoober
Maybe, but it'd be chump change that the taxpayers have to pay for. A figure as small as $10,000 would be virtually nothing compared to the rest of the budget, but I'd still have every right to get plenty upset if I find out they wasted it on something I'm morally against.. or even just something I consider stupid.As for the hard on pills, if the result of someone's service in the military is PTSD that renders them unable to preform a biological imperative I don't have a problem with the government picking up the tab. If they end up with heart/circulatory problems that are best treated with pills which cause hard ons as a side effect... I don't got a problem with that either. But both of those scenarios are a far cry from trans surgery. By the same token, even though prosthetic limbs have become pretty advanced, and even though the military pays for prosthetics if a serviceman develops a need for one, I would be wholeheartedly against letting someone enlist who I knew beforehand would most likely need a $50,000 prosthetic to serve. I'd say save the $50,000 and hire someone who doesn't need a prosthetic. On the other hand, if a guy goes into combat and gets his dick blown off... I'd have no problem whatsoever with him telling the doctors to give him a V instead of a D when they went to fix the problem.
Be real for a moment, 99.999% of men who take something like Viagra or Cialis are doing it for sexual reasons, not their cardiovascular health.
And as far as that goes, we've come full circle, dick-help for our troops cost many times more of our tax dollars than we spend on our trans soldiers needs. From the article, this was costing ".000001% of the military budget". so it's not a money issue people have, it's a transphobia issue.
Originally posted by Robtard
If we're going to use the "but I'm morally against!" or "I find stupid" in regards to military spending, it's going to be a long and bumpy road. As I'm pretty sure there's people who are morally against say spending 2.7mil in bombing a heavily civilian filled part of say Iraq. eg I find it stupid that we spends billions (plus upkeep) on some machines of war that sit in storage until they're deemed obsolete.Be real for a moment, 99.999% of men who take something like Viagra or Cialis are doing it for sexual reasons, not their cardiovascular health.
And as far as that goes, we've come full circle, dick-help for our troops cost many times more of our tax dollars than we spend on our trans soldiers needs. So it's not a money issue people have, it's a transphobia issue.
Originally posted by darthgoober
Wake up... it IS a bumpy road... and we've been on that bumpy road for years and years now. People constantly ***** about what the military spends their money on. It's not like people against us having troops in the middle east are just kicking back content to let the government waste money, they're raising Hell and rightfully so. It's not like if the government developed a new high priced drone that those against spending money on such things would just say to themselves "well it's just a small portion of the overall budget", they're going to rally and petition and try to stop what they see as the waste of money. If anything, it's actually our responsibility as citizens to do what we can to make sure our money is spent in what we consider to be a responsible manner.
Okay then. If it's just a "money issue"'; being responsible citizens wanting checks-and-balances and nothing to do with transphobia, why are you against a measly 8.4mil a year or ".000001% of the military budget"? That's like the cost of half a wing of an F-22.
Or we can be real and just admit it's all about transphobia.
Originally posted by Badabing
Agreed. There's a difference between life saving medical needs and a child molesting perv's wants. The perv convict won't die or be physically impaired w/o gender reassignment.He's probably tired of getting molested by the other prisoners and this is a way out to a female prison or some sort of protection in the current prison.
Originally posted by Robtard
Okay then. If it's just a "money issue"'; being responsible citizens wanting checks-and-balances and nothing to do with transphobia, why are you against a measly 8.4mil a year or ".000001% of the military budget"? That's like the cost of half a wing of an F-22.Or we can be real and just admit it's all about transphobia.