Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Should Soldiers Be Allowed to Change Sex?

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 4:05:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is in response to a recent opinion poll about whether or not Bradley/Chelsea Manning should be allowed to change his/her sex while in prison.

http://www.debate.org...

This got me thinking about current military regulations surrounding discrimination against LGBTs. Given the military's current stance on forbidding discrimination against them, should a soldier in Manning's situation, where they find out during their service that they identify with the other sex, be allowed to undergo operations that would change their gender?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 4:08:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
My own answer is that the procedures would have to be deemed to not interfere with readiness issues...and I would think there are complications stemming from such procedures that will interfere with a soldier's duties. Perhaps increased prescription drug intake, perhaps medical check-ups over and above that for the "average" soldier, etc.

So, ideologically, it "should" be allowed given current law, but practically (and the military is supremely practical if anything), it would have to be extensively reviewed to ensure it does not interfere with readiness. Such practicality concerns outweigh ideology.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Juris
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 5:05:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
No. They should not be allowed to change sex because it will have an adverse effect to his/her behavior that would hamper group activity.

It is scientifically proven that certain operations, like sex, have a high probability of developing complications in body and brain. A person engaged into that treatment (sex change op) might developed behavioral changes.

So, a soldier who changed his/her sex will experience certain behavioral changes that will affect military operation.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 3:09:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 5:05:36 AM, Juris wrote:
No. They should not be allowed to change sex because it will have an adverse effect to his/her behavior that would hamper group activity.

It's arguable in Manning's case that the fact that he was NOT allowed to change his sex caused him to have a mental meltdown that resulted in his wikileaks fiasco.

It is scientifically proven that certain operations, like sex, have a high probability of developing complications in body and brain. A person engaged into that treatment (sex change op) might developed behavioral changes.

So, a soldier who changed his/her sex will experience certain behavioral changes that will affect military operation.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Juris
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:48:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 3:09:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2014 5:05:36 AM, Juris wrote:
No. They should not be allowed to change sex because it will have an adverse effect to his/her behavior that would hamper group activity.

It's arguable in Manning's case that the fact that he was NOT allowed to change his sex caused him to have a mental meltdown that resulted in his wikileaks fiasco.

It is not the attidude of a soldier to have such a weak fighting spirit. That person you mentioned is such a weakling! Also, that case does not represent a wider group.

It is scientifically proven that certain operations, like sex, have a high probability of developing complications in body and brain. A person engaged into that treatment (sex change op) might developed behavioral changes.

So, a soldier who changed his/her sex will experience certain behavioral changes that will affect military operation.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 6:02:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 4:48:16 AM, Juris wrote:
At 3/25/2014 3:09:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2014 5:05:36 AM, Juris wrote:
No. They should not be allowed to change sex because it will have an adverse effect to his/her behavior that would hamper group activity.

It's arguable in Manning's case that the fact that he was NOT allowed to change his sex caused him to have a mental meltdown that resulted in his wikileaks fiasco.

It is not the attidude of a soldier to have such a weak fighting spirit. That person you mentioned is such a weakling! Also, that case does not represent a wider group.

lol, how was his attitude "weak"? How did he not have a "fighting spirit"? One of the disciplinary issues he had before turning to wikileaks was that he reached for a rifle while being reprimanded and was restrained by the people in the vicinity. That's hardly "weak" and hardly lacking in "fighting spirit".

It is scientifically proven that certain operations, like sex, have a high probability of developing complications in body and brain. A person engaged into that treatment (sex change op) might developed behavioral changes.

So, a soldier who changed his/her sex will experience certain behavioral changes that will affect military operation.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 1:04:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 4:05:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is in response to a recent opinion poll about whether or not Bradley/Chelsea Manning should be allowed to change his/her sex while in prison.

http://www.debate.org...

This got me thinking about current military regulations surrounding discrimination against LGBTs. Given the military's current stance on forbidding discrimination against them, should a soldier in Manning's situation, where they find out during their service that they identify with the other sex, be allowed to undergo operations that would change their gender?

A major surgery is disqualifying from military service in almost all cases.

Manning was paid to be an intel analyst. I his gender identity disorder made him incapable of doing the job, he should not have signed up ... and the military should have separated him as soon as the issue was known.

Its not punishment, but the military does not need to be the advancement method for gender operative surgery in order to make Soldiers 'fit it.' Anyone requiring major surgery to serve would be rejected.

If people want that? Good on them.

Its just not conducive to military service ... which is about others, not ourselves. "i" need to be a different gender is a thought process inimical to selfless service.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 1:13:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 1:04:07 PM, neutral wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:05:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is in response to a recent opinion poll about whether or not Bradley/Chelsea Manning should be allowed to change his/her sex while in prison.

http://www.debate.org...

This got me thinking about current military regulations surrounding discrimination against LGBTs. Given the military's current stance on forbidding discrimination against them, should a soldier in Manning's situation, where they find out during their service that they identify with the other sex, be allowed to undergo operations that would change their gender?

A major surgery is disqualifying from military service in almost all cases.

Manning was paid to be an intel analyst. I his gender identity disorder made him incapable of doing the job, he should not have signed up ... and the military should have separated him as soon as the issue was known.

Its not punishment, but the military does not need to be the advancement method for gender operative surgery in order to make Soldiers 'fit it.' Anyone requiring major surgery to serve would be rejected.

If people want that? Good on them.

Its just not conducive to military service ... which is about others, not ourselves. "i" need to be a different gender is a thought process inimical to selfless service.

This is an excellent response, especially the underlined, and I'm surprised I did not think of it myself earlier.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 1:35:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"A major surgery is disqualifying from military service in almost all cases."

Maybe not such an important objection to the question. And we also have to consider that he's already in the military and so the question is redundant.

So I think that the question can't be argued on that basis at all. That leaves it to be argued on some other basis.

(and btw, I'm neither pro or con on this one)
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 1:36:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It seems like the attitude against this manages to be both sexist (women don't belong in the military) and transphobic (people have no business changing their sex).
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 1:43:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 1:36:51 PM, kbub wrote:
It seems like the attitude against this manages to be both sexist (women don't belong in the military) and transphobic (people have no business changing their sex).

How so?
Are you suggesting that an elective surgery should be conducted on an active soldier, that would put them out of commission for a few days to recoup (maybe longer), plus take hormones, which then may or may not disqualify them from service?

There is a difference between not allowing a post-op individual from joining the military, and while in the military, having the operation. I assume it changes you on the inside, presumably for the better, but not necessarily better for the military.
My work here is, finally, done.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 1:49:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 1:43:45 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/25/2014 1:36:51 PM, kbub wrote:
It seems like the attitude against this manages to be both sexist (women don't belong in the military) and transphobic (people have no business changing their sex).

How so?
Are you suggesting that an elective surgery should be conducted on an active soldier, that would put them out of commission for a few days to recoup (maybe longer), plus take hormones, which then may or may not disqualify them from service?

The timing is something that can be adjusted. If it is vital that they are on the immediate front lines, I can see a case for waiting. As for generally being allowed to have the surgery, of course.

There is a difference between not allowing a post-op individual from joining the military, and while in the military, having the operation.

I can grant you that. I think that there are different positions while in the military. Unless they are in a position where a surgery would compromise a vital position, they should be allowed to make the surgery (and of course should be allowed to join).

I assume it changes you on the inside, presumably for the better, but not necessarily better for the military.

I'm not *exactly* sure what you mean, but that sounds sexist. I'll give you a chance to clarify.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 1:50:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 1:36:51 PM, kbub wrote:
It seems like the attitude against this manages to be both sexist (women don't belong in the military) and transphobic (people have no business changing their sex).

That's it! That's all it is, but that's not me saying that it's right. I'll remain neutral on it even though I thought it was necessary to agree with your intelligent comment.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 2:05:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Bradley Manning didn't so much have a breakdown as he exploded. He wanted attention. All you have to do is look at his personal history. It had nothing to do with some psychology that goes with associating with the opposite sex, but that he spent his life alone. Both the sex change and the releasing of the information were to correct this. It was drastic action to go with drastic action. The man had literally decided to cut his penis off, what was releasing some ultra-sensitive information? And then you're not really guarding against something like that in simply disallowing sex changes to soldiers, but you very well might make things even worse in adding in a potential human rights agenda for people like Manning. That said, yes, ban sex changes for soldiers in the US army.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 2:07:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Bradley Manning is so crazy. I know a dude like him on another internet forum. Going through the exact same thing.

...it's, like, no words, man.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 2:10:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
And I guess you weren't saying it had anything to do with such a psychology, but still. You can't really use him as an example to back up your practicality dealie. Fair enough about that other stuff. Yup, ban sex changes in the US army.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 6:27:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 1:35:04 PM, monty1 wrote:
"A major surgery is disqualifying from military service in almost all cases."

Maybe not such an important objection to the question. And we also have to consider that he's already in the military and so the question is redundant.

So I think that the question can't be argued on that basis at all. That leaves it to be argued on some other basis.

(and btw, I'm neither pro or con on this one)

If you require major surgery while on active duty, you will more than likely be medically discharged.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 6:31:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 1:36:51 PM, kbub wrote:
It seems like the attitude against this manages to be both sexist (women don't belong in the military) and transphobic (people have no business changing their sex).

I have no idea how you are reaching this conclusion.

The situation/dilemma works just the same if it was a female soldier looking to become a man.

The transphobic part is less about transphobia and much, much more about readiness issues stemming from health issues. Major surgeries require many, many procedures outside of the surgery alone that will most likely interfere with a soldier's duties.

The military prizes conformity unquestionably...that prioritization stems from readiness. Any deviation from conformity that sacrifices readiness typically gets tabled.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 11:35:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 1:35:04 PM, monty1 wrote:
"A major surgery is disqualifying from military service in almost all cases."

Maybe not such an important objection to the question. And we also have to consider that he's already in the military and so the question is redundant.

So I think that the question can't be argued on that basis at all. That leaves it to be argued on some other basis.

(and btw, I'm neither pro or con on this one)

Even on active service, a major surgery is disqualifying from future service.

Again, I pass no judgement on people that are trapped by these feelings, but it can be a pretty traumatic experience for an organization to have to adjust to a new gender as well.

This is not a case of discrimination. This is not a case of, "I have black skin and wish to be judged on my merit, not an immutable quality that I cannot change."

This is based on a choice, and although I acknowledge that persons trapped in this disorder, it remains a disorder and the person has a choice: coup with the difficulty or get an operation that disqualifies you from further service.

That applies to all other kids of disorders, from depression, eating disorders, schizophrenia, PTSD, etc. If any of these disorders get to the point where a person can no longer coup, they will have to exit the service.

The same applies to even protected choices. If you covert to Jehovah's Witnesses for example (and I have seen this), your sudden adherence to pacifism disqualifies you from military service. Its not discrimination, its an acknowledgment that the values you espouse and the values of the military are not comparable any longer.

Lastly, I will state that there is an attitudinal problem as well. This is idea that the military must take us, as we are, regardless of circumstances, is itself a problem. Whether you like it or not, the military exists to achieve one thing - victory in battle. That necessitates a need for standards and rigid discipline. In a era where only 1% serves, the military need not invest in person's whose attitude clearly conveys a thought process inimical to military necessity.

Defending others necessitates the subordination of our own desires, and it is rather difficult to be the strong defending the weak when we lack the ability to discipline our own issues.

There are many people struggling with many disorders in all walks of life, very few of them commit treason as a result. (Putting aside the fact that Manning's actions can be debated, the point being that the thought process to do or not do that things was not informed by his gender issues - it has been argued based on moral or ethical grounds ... as it should be.)