Jump to content

More SARC briefings soon.


Recommended Posts

  • 8 months later...
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's too bad Secretary Carter doesn't understand that he can't fix the fighter pilot shortage with Eagle pilots alone.

Because senior leadership fires them when they oppose stupid ideas. This whole witch-hunt isn't really serving the purpose it is intended to. You know what I think will happen? I think you will su

I do. That's exactly what I said. We do demand this. Our leadership returns the favor by slapping us in the face. They call us rapists and racists and file paperwork for using foul language. They

Posted Images

http://www.defense.gov/News/Speeches/Speech-View/Article/821833/remarks-on-ending-the-ban-on-transgender-service-in-the-us-military

Quote

Remarks on Ending the Ban on Transgender Service in the U.S. Military / As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, Pentagon Briefing Room, June 30, 2016

[...] about 2,500 people out of approximately 1.3 million active-duty servicemembers and about 1,500 out of approximately 825,000 reserve servicemembers are transgender [...] Although relatively few in number, we’re talking about talented and trained Americans who are serving their country with honor and distinction.  We invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to train and develop each individual, and we want to take the opportunity to retain people whose talent we’ve invested in and who have proven themselves. And this brings me to the second reason, which is that the reality is that we have transgender servicemembers serving in uniform today, and I have a responsibility to them and to their commanders to provide them both with clearer and more consistent guidance than is provided by current policies. We owe commanders better guidance on how to handle questions such as deployment, medical treatment and other matters. [...] at least 18 countries already allow transgender personnel to serve openly in their militaries.  These include close allies such as the UK, Israel, and Australia, and we were able to study how they dealt with this issue. [...] RAND’s analysis concluded that there would be “minimal readiness impacts from allowing transgender servicemembers to serve openly.” And in terms of cost, RAND concluded the health care costs would represent, again, their words, “an exceedingly small proportion” of DOD’s overall health care expenditures.  Now, as a result of this year-long study, I’m announcing today that we are ending the ban on transgender Americans in the United States military.  Effective immediately, transgender Americans may serve openly, and they can no longer be discharged or otherwise separated from the military just for being transgender.  [...] Then, no later than 90 days from today:  The Department will complete and issue both a commanders’ guidebook for leading currently-serving transgender servicemembers, and medical guidance to doctors for providing transition-related care if required to currently-serving transgender servicemembers.  Our military treatment facilities will begin providing transgender servicemembers with all medically necessary care based on that medical guidance.  Also starting on that date, servicemembers will be able to initiate the process to officially change their gender in our personnel management systems. Next, over the 9 months that follow, based on detailed guidance and training materials that will be prepared, the services will conduct training of the force – from commanders, to medical personnel, to the operating force and recruiters. When the training is complete, no later than one year from today, the military services will begin accessing transgender individuals who meet all standards – holding them to the same physical and mental fitness standards as everyone else who wants to join the military. Our initial accession policy will require an individual to have completed any medical treatment that their doctor has determined is necessary in connection with their gender transition and to have been stable in their identified gender for 18 months, as certified by their doctor, before they can enter the military.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1530.html

Quote

RAND - Assessing the Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly
[...] we estimated, as an upper-bound, 130 total gender transition–related surgeries and 140 service members initiating transition-related hormone therapy (out of a total AC force of 1,326,273 in FY 2014). [...] We estimate that AC MHS health care costs will increase by between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually [...] What Lessons Can Be Learned from Foreign Militaries That Permit Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly? [...] In many cases, personnel are considered exempt from physical fitness tests during transition. Because the gender transition process is unique for each individual, issues related to physical standards and medical readiness are typically addressed on a case-bycase basis. This flexibility has been important in addressing the needs of transgender personnel. The foreign militaries we analyzed permit the use of sick leave for gender transition–related medical issues and cover some, if not all, medical or surgical treatments related to a service member’s gender transition. In no case was there any evidence of an effect on the operational effectiveness, operational readiness, or cohesion of the force. [...] First, military surgeons may currently have the competencies required to surgically treat patients with [Gender Dysphoria], and, second, performing these surgeries on transgender patients may help maintain a vitally important skill required of military surgeons to effectively treat combat injuries during a period in which fewer combat injuries are sustained.

 

 

Now, some quick math, as we will probably be barraged with many sound bites and quick numbers in the coming months.  There will be an estimated 2,450 Active Component transgender servicemembers every year, considering newly transitioned, existing transgendered people, and retirements.  The estimated actual increased cost for medical care will be $7,100,000 annually (RAND study, pg 36, averaged values of analysis #2).  Meaning the average increased medical cost would be about $2,900 per Active transgender servicemember.

However this does not include impacts to convalescence/readiness (est. 14 to 45 days convalescence, 12 months non-deployable, RAND study, pg.s 41 & 67), personnel education/training programs, leadership policy oversight, and facilities/construction.  There is a larger cost that RAND and the SECDEF have not addressed.  That down-played mentality may not be visible in my excerpts above, but it is certainly very strong if you read the full source documents.  They are obscuring it in the larger number of total DOD manpower and budgets.  The argument for adoption seems to be grounded in politics, morals, and principles, not simple math.  And this is fine--we have many, many policies in place not driven by a ruthless cost/benefit mindset.  But I'm poorly swayed by good reasons and bad math--just give me the good reasons to justify the actual math.

This is a quick response to a very new study and announcement.  If any of my math is wrong, or I've wrongly cited something, please correct me.  If any of my opinions are wrong, please post your own.

Edited by deaddebate
The editor is terrible
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gearpig said:

The VA is about to have an influx of piss test monitors with PTSD.

Funny you should say that, we had that problem last drill.  Person had changed, ID card had changed (name) but the piss test list hadn't.  After hanging on the phone with the JAG, I think they made said person pee with a BBG (I just made that up, biological birth gender) person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

Funny you should say that, we had that problem last drill.  Person had changed, ID card had changed (name) but the piss test list hadn't.  After hanging on the phone with the JAG, I think they made said person pee with a BBG (I just made that up, biological birth gender) person.

Ha, I initially thought Big Butch Girl to cover both genders before continuing to read. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On October 9, 2015 at 11:36 PM, sky_king said:

No, I'm saying the example you gave isn't as simple as "I drive a truck so I'm a rapist".  The example given from the slides leans more to, "My family requires a vehicle suitably large enough to carry us all and I decided to buy a truck for my desires, not the needs of my family".  It really has nothing to do with SAPR at all.

The link is no workie now but based on the example I'm a real dirt bag for owning a truck and a light aircraft that can't fit my whole clan.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, deaddebate said:

http://www.defense.gov/News/Speeches/Speech-View/Article/821833/remarks-on-ending-the-ban-on-transgender-service-in-the-us-military

 

 

Now, some quick math, as we will probably be barraged with many sound bites and quick numbers in the coming months.  There will be an estimated 2,450 Active Component transgender servicemembers every year, considering newly transitioned, existing transgendered people, and retirements.  The estimated actual increased cost for medical care will be $7,100,000 annually (RAND study, pg 36, averaged values of analysis #2).  Meaning the average increased medical cost would be about $2,900 per Active transgender servicemember.

However this does not include impacts to convalescence/readiness (est. 14 to 45 days convalescence, 12 months non-deployable, RAND study, pg.s 41 & 67), personnel education/training programs, leadership policy oversight, and facilities/construction.  There is a larger cost that RAND and the SECDEF have not addressed.  That down-played mentality may not be visible in my excerpts above, but it is certainly very strong if you read the full source documents.  They are obscuring it in the larger number of total DOD manpower and budgets.  The argument for adoption seems to be grounded in politics, morals, and principles, not simple math.  And this is fine--we have many, many policies in place not driven by a ruthless cost/benefit mindset.  But I'm poorly swayed by good reasons and bad math--just give me the good reasons to justify the actual math.

This is a quick response to a very new study and announcement.  If any of my math is wrong, or I've wrongly cited something, please correct me.  If any of my opinions are wrong, please post your own.

And yet we have people who can't get Lasik because the boss won't approve the 6 month DNIF.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pawnman said:

And yet we have people who can't get Lasik because the boss won't approve the 6 month DNIF.

Yeah, but they're not part of the social justice movement.  They need to prove they are being denied due to socioeconomic disparities and cultural bias.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So here is (one of many) legitimate questions I have:. How am I as an officer/leader supposed to enforce the regs/standards if I don't know which standards to enforce?

 

Example:. I'm at finance and I see an airman, which I clearly perceive to be a biological male, wearing earrings:  Do I then tell them they are not allowed as males to wear earnings?  What if the person just started identifying with the female gender that morning--is he/she immediately allowed to go with the female uniform regs?  Am I even allowed to ask or try to enforce the uniform standard?  Logically speaking, the easiest way for the AF/DoD to get around these questions is to truly only have one standard, which I am fine with as that is the way it should be if we are all truly 'equal' or the same.  

I guess I'm just looking forward to the circus...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I do the pt test as a female and then transition back after lunch?

  • Upvote 13
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

So here is (one of many) legitimate questions I have:. How am I as an officer/leader supposed to enforce the regs/standards if I don't know which standards to enforce?

 

Example:. I'm at finance and I see an airman, which I clearly perceive to be a biological male, wearing earrings:  Do I then tell them they are not allowed as males to wear earnings?  What if the person just started identifying with the female gender that morning--is he/she immediately allowed to go with the female uniform regs?  Am I even allowed to ask or try to enforce the uniform standard?  Logically speaking, the easiest way for the AF/DoD to get around these questions is to truly only have one standard, which I am fine with as that is the way it should be if we are all truly 'equal' or the same.  

I guess I'm just looking forward to the circus...

This may help, the new AFI on this subject will probably look something like this;

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/27/d-c-will-fine-you-for-calling-a-transgender-person-the-wrong-pronouns/

Excerpt; Employers and employees in Washington D.C. are legally prohibited from referring to a transgender employee or coworker by the “wrong” pronouns or asking “personal questions” about their gender identity, according to the city’s Office of Human Rights (OHR).

OHR published a best practices guide for “valuing transgender applicants and employees” earlier this month with a list of “behaviors by supervisors or coworkers [that] may be considered unlawful harassment or a hostile work environment.”

One of the listed prohibited behaviors is: “Deliberately misusing a person’s preferred name or pronoun.”

“Asking personal questions about an individual’s body, gender identity or expression or transition” and “Posting offensive pictures or sending offensive communications” are also among the prohibited behaviors.

The guide states, “The District uses the probable cause standard in determining whether the above constitute harassment or a hostile work environment.”

Stephanie Franklin, OHR’s interim director of policy and communications, confirmed in an email that “Any workplace environment in DC—private businesses included— in which supervisors or co-workers deliberately misuse a person’s preferred name or pronoun may be considered unlawful harassment and/or a hostile work environment according to DC law.”

The “best practices” guide featues a chart on “gender and gender-neutral pronouns” that includes the gender-neutral pronoun “ze.” The chart includes example phrases using the gender-neutral pronoun, such as “Ze smiled,” “I met zir,” “Zir bike” and “Ze is zirself.”

“Regardless of the legal name and gender, employers should use an employee’s desired name and pronouns when communicating with them, and when talking about them to third parties,” the guide states.

The guide says, “The employer must ensure employees respect and use a transgender employee’s preferred names and pronouns, as repeated failure to do so can be considered harassment, and can cause severe distress to a transgender employee.”

“When an employee transitions in the workplace, the employee and their supervisor should discuss how the employee wants to transition the use of their name and pronouns,” the guide later states.

“This can include establishing a date the employee wants to start using their new name in the workplace, which allows the employer to complete the tasks necessary to ensure the preferred name is reflected on outward facing documents.”

The guide also make clear that employees should be allowed to use the bathroom in which they’re most comfortable .

“Transgender employees should at all times be able to use the restroom and other gender-segregated facilities (such as locker rooms) that they are most comfortable with,” the guide states.

According to OHR’s annual report, all discrimination complaints must go through a mandatory mediation process, with an OHR employee serving as the mediator, in an attempt to reach a settlement.

In the 2015 fiscal year, 307 discrimination complaints (including race, gender and disability complaints) ended in settlements via the mediation process. In 2015, the annual report states, “more than $3.69 million was awarded in settlements during successful mediations, a 74 percent increase over [the 2014 fiscal year].” That averages out to more than $12,000 per settlement.

Accused parties that don’t settle discrimination complaints through the mediation process typically end up paying more than those who agree to a settlement.

Discrimination complaints that aren’t settled via the mediation process are decided by the city’s Commission on Human Rights, which is described by the city as “a quasi-independent body.” The annual report states that the commission resolved 13 discrimination complaints by decision or order in the 2015 fiscal year. The commission assessed $594,000 in penalties, averaging more than $45,000 in penalties per decision.

Franklin listed a litany of legal penalties for businesses who allow workplace harassment and/or a hostile work environment, including: compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and civil penalties, among others.

According to non-profit organization Workplace Fairness, D.C.’s anti-discrimination protections are “broader than federal law because you may prove your case by showing that your employer acted wholly or partially for discriminatory reasons, and because you can bring an individual claim against your supervisor for ‘aiding and abetting’ discrimination.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, waveshaper said:

This may help, the new AFI on this subject will probably look something like this;

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/27/d-c-will-fine-you-for-calling-a-transgender-person-the-wrong-pronouns/

Excerpt; Employers and employees in Washington D.C. are legally prohibited from referring to a transgender employee or coworker by the “wrong” pronouns or asking “personal questions” about their gender identity, according to the city’s Office of Human Rights (OHR).

OHR published a best practices guide for “valuing transgender applicants and employees” earlier this month with a list of “behaviors by supervisors or coworkers [that] may be considered unlawful harassment or a hostile work environment.”

One of the listed prohibited behaviors is: “Deliberately misusing a person’s preferred name or pronoun.”
 

....

And the decision to leave just keeps getting easier....it's not all about the money.  The PC insanity is hitting ludicrous speed and I frankly don't want to be apart of it.  The military has already tried to brainwash me enough for one lifetime. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My prediction is that this will be one big nothing, just like DADT repeal.  We all do a one-off CBT and get back to work.  Can't figure out someone's wacky pronouns ... try Rank LastName or callsign.  We're looking at something like 1/3 of 1% of servicemembers here, I have a difficult time seeing how there will be too much fuss.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, guineapigfury said:

My prediction is that this will be one big nothing, just like DADT repeal.  We all do a one-off CBT and get back to work.  Can't figure out someone's wacky pronouns ... try Rank LastName or callsign.  We're looking at something like 1/3 of 1% of servicemembers here, I have a difficult time seeing how there will be too much fuss.

The problem is that there is a big fuss being made about, as you pointed out, 1/3 of 1% of people. This is barely a blip on the radar but you'd think we found the key to defeating ISIS with the amount of press coverage this is getting. Also in the current hypersensitive SAPR/PC environment all it would take is one honest mistake by some poor officer and they'd be raked over the coals. Chances are most of us will never have to deal with this but I'm thinking about that young officer or NCO in their first leadership position or hell a new squadron commander and you have to deal with this issue and the convoluted rules associated with it. People just want to do their damn job but it's getting hard to focus on that when there's so many new changes and policies that could end your career due to one screw up. 

Edited by Fuzz
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
59 minutes ago, Warrior said:

Interesting that policy decisions like these get rolled out via twitter.

I signed up for a twitter account solely to follow Trump. I'll just leave this here:


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

477c358d19cd1b3e9005aea520db495c.jpg

While the venue may not be the best place to voice policy, the decision is wholly welcomed. If we could continue this trend and focus more solely on our purpose as warfighting organizations I imagine a significant portion of the glaring retention issues would be solved regardless of the incredible outside opportunities.

  • Upvote 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...