Average transgender soldier unable to deploy for 238 days

[IAMX 3,055]

7 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

How come people are so worried about wasting money on transgender surgery, yet don't say anything about how much the US military spends on Viagra? Strange that? 

Even presuming what you're saying has any validity (I presume this is just wild flailing due to outrage).. how long would viagra be keeping people unable to deploy if they're needed? 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Perhaps "should be" held to the same standard, but they are not.  Women are not required to run as fast nor do as many sit-ups and push-ups as men during their physical testing.  (Just talking physical stuff here, not intellectual)

 

2 hours ago, IAMX said:

Everyone would be held to the same physical and mental standards for each job, regardless of gender.

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I don't think the military spends any more on viagra than the rest of the population.  Hard to say for sure, though.  Maybe a little more, considering all the mental issues facing soldiers before, during, and after deployments.  Lots of "stuff" can get in the way of normal sexual functioning when one is focused on staying alive in combat.

 

One study said that in 2012 the military spent $41.6 million on viagra.  That same year, sales of viagra were $1.084 billion in the US alone. So the military amounted to 3.8% of sales that year?  2% of worldwide sales for 2012 ($2.051 billion).

 

So round it up, and let's say the military spent 4% of what the nation did on viagra in 2012.  

 

Now consider that the combined military forces in the US in 2012 were approximately 1.4 million people.  85.5% of those were men.  So that's about 1.2 million men.  Let's assume (can't find any HARD data on this part) that half of those men were prescribed viagra.  600,000 people.  $41.6 million worth of pills.  That's about $69 per man for a years worth of happy pills.  SIXTY NINE DOLLARS each. For a whole year.

 

I can say with 100% certainty that transgender surgery, medication, and time missed from work will work out to much more of an amount of wasted taxpayers' money.  Regardless of what spin the media tries to put on it.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/264827/pfizers-worldwide-viagra-revenue-since-2003/

 

https://www.drugs.com/stats/viagra

 

http://historyinpieces.com/research/us-military-personnel-1954-2014

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/military-women-glance/index.html

 

2 hours ago, Póg mo said:

How come people are so worried about wasting money on transgender surgery, yet don't say anything about how much the US military spends on Viagra? Strange that? 

Edited August 26, 2017 by IDWAF

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 hours ago, Póg mo said:

How come people are so worried about wasting money on transgender surgery, yet don't say anything about how much the US military spends on Viagra? Strange that? 

That's because a vast majority of those people that are using the Viagra are RETIRED and thus not active duty anymore. If you are retired you still have tricare and they lay for medical services. 

 

While the overwhelming majority of those want gender reassignment surgery are still active. That means that they bring down the Combat efficiency of a unit down while undergoing the gender surgery.

 

Try reading up or asking before you about off nonsense like that.

[IAMX 3,055]

57 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

I don't think the military spends any more on viagra than the rest of the population.  Hard to say for sure, though.  Maybe a little more, considering all the mental issues facing soldiers before, during, and after deployments.  Lots of "stuff" can get in the way of normal sexual functioning when one is focused on staying alive in combat.

 

One study said that in 2012 the military spent $41.6 million on viagra.  That same year, sales of viagra were $1.084 billion in the US alone. So the military amounted to 3.8% of sales that year?  2% of worldwide sales for 2012 ($2.051 billion).

 

So round it up, and let's say the military spent 4% of what the nation did on viagra in 2012.  

 

Now consider that the combined military forces in the US in 2012 were approximately 1.4 million people.  85.5% of those were men.  So that's about 1.2 million men.  Let's assume (can't find any HARD data on this part) that half of those men were prescribed viagra.  600,000 people.  $41.6 million worth of pills.  That's about $69 per man for a years worth of happy pills.  SIXTY NINE DOLLARS each. For a whole year.

 

I can say with 100% certainty that transgender surgery, medication, and time missed from work will work out to much more of an amount of wasted taxpayers' money.  Regardless of what spin the media tries to put on it.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/264827/pfizers-worldwide-viagra-revenue-since-2003/

 

https://www.drugs.com/stats/viagra

 

http://historyinpieces.com/research/us-military-personnel-1954-2014

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/military-women-glance/index.html

 

Very good assessment.

22 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

That's because a vast majority of those people that are using the Viagra are RETIRED and thus not active duty anymore. If you are retired you still have tricare and they lay for medical services. 

 

While the overwhelming majority of those want gender reassignment surgery are still active. That means that they bring down the Combat efficiency of a unit down while undergoing the gender surgery.

 

Try reading up or asking before you about off nonsense like that.

[Ban Hammer 13,282]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

Let's assume (can't find any HARD data on this part) that half of those men were prescribed viagra.  600,000 people.

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Did you?  Did you pay real close attention to detail?

 

2 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

 

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

I don't think the military spends any more on viagra than the rest of the population.  Hard to say for sure, though.  Maybe a little more, considering all the mental issues facing soldiers before, during, and after deployments.  

 

 

[ready4ONE 5,400]

4 hours ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

It's my own personal view and didn't need any prompting from anyone or source. I have already commented on this subject in plenty of threads, it's my belief the government/military should not be paying for elective surgeries. Someone suggested in one of the other threads that they military pays for Viagra for troops, unless it's as a result of military service injury they should pay for their own Viagra.

 

I have no gripe whatsoever with transgenders in the military, I assume anyone who joins is subjected to some sort of mental capability exam and if they pass let them in, but if their issues affect them they should not be allowed join which is no different that any other individual.

 

Transition before or after not during. 

You ended with a personal opinion. I also have no problem with transgendered serving in the military. But you started off with Obama, and oddly hit the second nail on the head. Donald Trump is patently trying to undo anything and everything Obama did. That would be likely a secondary reason for this action on Trumps part, the first being his clear bigotry, next pandering to the religious base that shares his bigotry.

 

It's yet to be shown transgenders are flocking to serve for free alteration surgery, making themselves unable to serve deployments, disrupting the military and costing the armed services large amounts of money on the scam. This is the point. Don't be distracted by Dear Leader and his merry band of Yes men.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 hour ago, IAMX said:

Very good assessment.

Good assessment. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

By the time it is shown what the effects will be on the military, it will be too late, the damage will already be done.  Not sure how many people you know in the military, but I know more than 100.  And in talking to them, and seeing their comments on the matter, not one single person supports TG in the military.  Not even the heavily left-leaning ones.  It will be a detractor, plain and simple.  And raises more problems than solutions.

 

Nothing wrong with a TG wanting to serve their country.  But there are better venues for them, in my opinion, such as fire, police, hospital, etc.  It will cause more than a small problem with PT tests, lodging, showering, etc.  The juice would not be worth the squeeze. 

 

Also just my opinion, but I think you are off base blaming this on the bigotry of Trump.  I would imagine his senior military advisors are ALL shaking their heads no to him when the topic comes up.  

 

1 hour ago, ready4ONE said:

You ended with a personal opinion. I also have no problem with transgendered serving in the military. But you started off with Obama, and oddly hit the second nail on the head. Donald Trump is patently trying to undo anything and everything Obama did. That would be likely a secondary reason for this action on Trumps part, the first being his clear bigotry, next pandering to the religious base that shares his bigotry.

 

It's yet to be shown transgenders are flocking to serve for free alteration surgery, making themselves unable to serve deployments, disrupting the military and costing the armed services large amounts of money on the scam. This is the point. Don't be distracted by Dear Leader and his merry band of Yes men.

 

[IAMX 3,055]

2 hours ago, IDWAF said:

By the time it is shown what the effects will be on the military, it will be too late, the damage will already be done.  Not sure how many people you know in the military, but I know more than 100.  And in talking to them, and seeing their comments on the matter, not one single person supports TG in the military.  Not even the heavily left-leaning ones.  It will be a detractor, plain and simple.  And raises more problems than solutions.

 

Nothing wrong with a TG wanting to serve their country.  But there are better venues for them, in my opinion, such as fire, police, hospital, etc.  It will cause more than a small problem with PT tests, lodging, showering, etc.  The juice would not be worth the squeeze. 

 

Also just my opinion, but I think you are off base blaming this on the bigotry of Trump.  I would imagine his senior military advisors are ALL shaking their heads no to him when the topic comes up.  

 

 

Clearly this change was politically imposed in the first place, otherwise they'd have did the studies first and policy later.

 

Or as the left call it.. "non-bigoted".

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

3 hours ago, ready4ONE said:

You ended with a personal opinion. I also have no problem with transgendered serving in the military. But you started off with Obama, and oddly hit the second nail on the head. Donald Trump is patently trying to undo anything and everything Obama did. That would be likely a secondary reason for this action on Trumps part, the first being his clear bigotry, next pandering to the religious base that shares his bigotry.

 

It's yet to be shown transgenders are flocking to serve for free alteration surgery, making themselves unable to serve deployments, disrupting the military and costing the armed services large amounts of money on the scam. This is the point. Don't be distracted by Dear Leader and his merry band of Yes men.

My question to you is if you ever served, and if so what branch? I have served for 8 years in the Marine Corps and I have served in Combat as well. Anything that takes always from the missions nd combat efficiently should not be allowed 

[IAMX 3,055]

43 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

My question to you is if you ever served, and if so what branch? I have served for 8 years in the Marine Corps and I have served in Combat as well. Anything that takes always from the missions nd combat efficiently should not be allowed 

WWII 93rd Social Justice Infantry Division, hunting zombie Nazis in the future

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

30 minutes ago, IAMX said:

WWII 93rd Social Justice Infantry Division, hunting zombie Nazis in the future

I did the read sequel to World War Z yesterday so that makes me a expert in the Zombie brigade.

Edited August 27, 2017 by cyberfx1024

[jg121783 3,909]

5 hours ago, IAMX said:

WWII 93rd Social Justice Infantry Division, hunting zombie Nazis in the future

Experts in race baiting and virtue signaling. Our enemies don't stand a chance.

 

Let's keep this real simple. Who cares if you are a man, woman or transgender. If you can do the job and are ready to deploy right away no problem. If not you shouldn't be in the military.