I've never questioned whether something might be just a bad dream until a couple of days ago, when I heard the decrepit old jackass pretending to be our president snicker to a crowd of bible belt kids about his prowess at cocktail parties, and with beautiful people, yachting and general decadence that he was too polite to mention, and the next day claim he was the greatest leader since Abraham Lincoln; then find myself rooting for Jeff Sessions a day later; and on the forth day, hear conservative republicans angrily defending the rights of transgendered people. We are not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy, and I'm afraid to click my heels together three times because I'm terrified that it might not work.

@2 Honest questions: Would you say that veterans with PTSD need psychiatric help? Would you say that veterans who return home with injuries only to become addicted to pain medication need psychiatric help? The defense department commissioned a study last year and concluded that the annual cost for transgender voluntary* service members (of which there are currently upwards of 10,000) was between 2.4 and 8.4 million dollars. According to Military Times, the estimated annual cost of military spending on Viagra alone is around 41.6 million dollars. This figure is about 5x the high estimate for medical expenses for trans service members. And for further reference, according to Politico, it costs taxpayers approximately 3 million dollars each time trump travels to his safe space, his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. Lol just trying to follow your logic here lol.

@2: Of course it's understandable to be perplexed as to why anyone would want to change their gender. But if you seek to understand gender dysphoria, or someone close to you has made the transition (as did my close friend), then can begin empathize what the feeling of being on the wrong bus in life is like with no chance of escape. This was the fate of everyone so afflicted until the pioneering efforts of Christine Jorgensen, a WWII veteran who had the MTF surgery ~1950.

You should be happy that your identity has always matched your gender. And you shouldn't be surprised that the two are not always in sync given the fact that we are simply biology controlled by DNA and hormones along with their permutations of what can go wrong, with no choices whatsoever as to how we get constructed.

And yes, given that we're an all volunteer armed forces you would then be glad for those whom have made the transition, now have a happier life, and can now fulfill their patriotic dreams.

@raindrop...except as a whole,trans people aren't happier after transitioning. They have a 40%+suicidality rate regardless of whether they're out, transitioning, or not.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/w…

I don't think anyone who wants to serve our country in the armed forces should be denied for any reason if they are mentally and physically fit and willing. Pretty sure enlistment is set up on a case by case basis and that's how it is going to stay. Trump will never get a ban on trans soldiers.

You should however know the statistics before you anectdotally apply judgements on whether transitioning affects trans people's happiness or not. Because it doesn't correlate at all.

Also,@2 is making assumptions based on his feelings about the matter with no facts to back it up. Regardless of an extremely high suicide rate and a seemingly expensive medical regimen (out of the 1300-6600 trans soldiers on active duty less than 250 have received procedures...so cost is not a real issue worth mentioning) trans people screened on an individual basis like every other soldier are able to serve with all the distinction and honor that any other human is capable of.

@6: Yes, snicks, the plural of anecdote is not data. Nor are any of my comments required to parallel pieces coming out of an LA, or any other, think tank. However, I only know three transsexuals personally, so we'll let others chime in if we're only quibbling about happiness post op.

It's UCLA, for the record. And it's not a quibble. It's a statistic. And one that trans activists ignore because it ruins their narrative about trans people being unhappy because they're unaccepted, or haven't transitioned yet, or they HAVE transitioned, or they feel bullied because they've come out to an unreceptive welcoming, or they haven't come out at all.

All these factors have little to no affect on the extremely high suicidality of trans people. Which unfortunately makes @2's point that this is a mental illness that again, unfortunately, isn't cured by transitioning.

@8: For someone who like to point to stats, you're jumping to unscientific conclusions.

It makes me giggle that anyone is stupid enough to believe that people join the military so that they can get a sex change. But those are the same people who think the Trump was a successful businessman and a Christian.

In any event, the armed forces are essentially a huge welfare program for people with no other opportunities in life, so if somebody want to transition while they're in there, why not let them? We throw lots more money away on way dumber things in the military.

@10: Do soldiers not work to earn their wages? I am no armed forces expert, but I am pretty sure that soldiers have jobs to do while they are enlisted, making it not so much "welfare" as "a job."

I am pretty sure "Beetle Bailey" is not a documentary.

Theodore dear, a jobs program is also welfare (Please not that I am not opposed to "welfare". Welfare has saved many families and adds to the economic security of the nation). Our military is much larger than it needs to be, and it really is the only opportunity that a lot of young people have these days, since educational grants are decimated, tuition are through the roof, and student loans are now a revenue stream.

And it's not all about the soldiers - the military budget is a huge corporate welfare program as well. Indeed, a good part of our region's prosperity is tied to that corporate welfare.

@12: Note that our military spending is just 16% of our federal budget: Politifact.

Raindrop dear, by that article in politifact, we are spending more than 50% of our budget on military spending. It's a relatively small piece of the overall pie, but a big chunk of that is the earned benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare. It may also include the VA. They sort of left that part out.

Do you really think it's wise to spend more than 50% of our discretionary budget on military?

@14: You obviously didn't read the article. My 16% figure is from their own evaluation which they say is more accurate. The pie chart at the bottom.

...didn't read the full article...

Raindrop dear, you're quite right. I didn't not read all the way to the bottom. But you did not answer my question: Do you think it's a good idea to spend more than 50% of the discretionary income on the military?

But now that I do, I think that their reckoning is a bit dishonest. Social Security, Medicare, The VA and TriCare are earned benefits (I know you probably want to call them "entitlement programs", but that's just silly. We've all paid into them, in one way or another, except for the wealthy). And while we're at it, where are they hiding the VA and TriCare? In "defense" or in "health"? Since the military adds mightily to public health costs, I think it should be in "defense". And where's service on the debt? In any event, the earned benefit programs should not be considered in a true picture of the annual budget considerations.

@17: No, not more than 50%. But 16% is okay, which is essentially the point of the article - provided that Politifact's methodology is sound.

Raindrop dear, don't be obtuse. It's 16% of the total budget - if the figures are sound - but over 50% of the discretionary budget. I know you understand the difference.

We're spending more than 50% of our pin money on designer clothes and gourmet chocolate when we haven't fixed the hole in the roof.