Former Green Beret Response to Kristen Beck (Transgender Former SEAL)
Quick Rundown:
Kristen Beck (formerly Christopher Beck) was a Navy SEAL.
Christopher Beck became Kristin Beck AFTER leaving the SEALs.
A retired Navy SEAL Team 6 hero who is transgender had a message for President Donald Trump after he announced the US military would bar transgender people from serving.
Yesterday, President Trump tweeted he made the executive decision to disallow transgender individuals from serving in the military.
After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.
Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you.
Kristen Beck issues vague threat to President Trump, implying President Trump said transgenders aren't "worthy" to serve.
"Let's meet face to face and you tell me I'm not worthy," Kristin Beck, a 20-year veteran of the Navy SEALs, told Business Insider on Wednesday. "Transgender doesn't matter. Do your service."
President Trump isn't calling Christopher Beck unworthy to be a SEAL (he proved himself).
President Trump is saying (along with the DOD leadership) that Kristen Beck would be a distraction on a SEAL TEAM... emphasis on the word 'TEAM'.
My Open Response and Challenge to Kristen Beck
Hey Kristen -- what would have happened if you walked into your team room one day and said to your teammates and commander:
Guys... I'm gonna get a sex change operation. I'll be out of commission for a while until I heal up, but I'll be back and ready to go. See ya soon!
I can pretty much guess -- the team would have laughed their collective asses off... until they realized you were being serious. After that, they would have told you to pack your shit and get out of the team room because they had training/missions to prepare for.
I spent time on a SOF team too, though not as much time as you and not on a SEAL team. Anyone who made it through a SOF pipeline was cut from very similar cloth and I can't imagine the above situation playing out any other way than I describe it.
Can you?
My simple argument is the same as pretty much everyone else who supports President Trumps decision: this was and would always be a growing distraction from the ultimate goal of combat readiness.
Do you not think that your team would have become 'the team with the tranny on it'? New guys would catch shit for ending up on 'the tranny team'. I don't say that in a derogatory manner towards YOU but do you honestly believe that any amount of mandatory sensitivity briefings would change that dynamic? Do you not believe guys would be disciplined or kicked off teams for not being sensitive to the issue?
Kristen -- you are literally one in a million. This is simultaneously a compliment since you were able to make it through BUDS and serve on a team, but also due to the reality that you are essentially the only publicly known former-SOF transgender.
Your decision to get a sex change after you left the team has NO BEARING on your teams combat readiness. Getting a sex change while on a team would have had a DIRECT IMPACT on your teams mission readiness.
Stop making this about you. It isn't about you. You should know better. This is about the one thing the military should ALWAYS focus on: combat readiness.
I like this reply. Did you post it somewhere he would see it? Is he on Steemit?
To me, this seems like obvious propaganda. I'm not Trump supporter, but this seems like a manufactured story to get more people to hate him. I served, not in SpecOps, yet I can't imagine this would have gone down well in a standard artillery unit, either.
Seriously, we had enough problems with guys who everyone considered a little effeminate. I can't imagine what kind of crap would have happened to a tranny.
Another thing nobody really talks about is sex. When I was deployed overseas in areas there were females, we had no end to the trouble caused by men going into the female barracks and vice versa. It was constant. Now, where would you put these tranny's and what's the rules about sex? It's not a non-issue. The UCMJ has laws about that sort of thing, and what do you call it when someone has sex with a tranny? Is it only sodomy when he's pre-op? What about a she who has a penis? Can she have sex with a man?
These things have real impact on mission readiness. Mission readiness = less casualties. It's that simple IMO.
Makes more sense than anything else... though I think President Trump did this to make the media dance like a puppet as usual.
TBH -- line units would be even worse, by my guess. Identification and exploitation of weaknesses/differences in others is the name of the game. I went through infantry basic and I know arty basic was probably similar. I knew guys who came from infantry and arty line units... the identification and exploitation process is an art form for those guys, especially since they have to mold privates fresh from basic to inculcate them into the unit culture.
Holy hell... I didn't even begin to consider that side of things.
"Makes more sense than anything else... though I think President Trump did this to make the media dance like a puppet as usual."
Just another day playing 4D underwater Backgammon:
Hm. that looks like my favorite Norwegian antique phone restoration board!!
also, i agree :P
Who said anything about getting a sex change while serving? And is everyone in the military a SEAL?
The military is likely the largest employer of transgendered people in the country (estimated over 15k) as there are many different capacities people can choose to serve their country. Not to mention, studies show that allowing transgendered people to serve has little to no costs or effect on readiness.
Trump is doing this for political reasons: to try and secure votes in homophobic, midwest states. Not to cut costs.
I keep hearing this 15k number but it sounds WAY too conflated. Source?
I found this -- https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1530.html
As far as the RAND study, I haven't read it completely, yet but consider this one of many experience-based challenges to that study... which was paid for by an administration that had the policy enacted before this study was even completed (report was commissioned in 2015).
Snippet from the report:
Summation: We should do this because there's really not that many of them so although there would be a detrimental impact, the number is so small no one will notice or care.
This is a very dumb reason to justify a situation that could have an impact on lives. This isn't like letting a demographic of people into a book club.
I've seen a few different stats linked, a UCLA Law School study claimed the number 15500, RAND study estimates ~4k, who knows what the real number is. But the actual number, however small it is, is besides the point.
Here is what I'm concerned about:
All in all, this is a somewhat complicated issue, because in the end it does cost more ($1000 avg) to allow a transgendered person to join the army than a cisgendered person, but it's still discrimination, and the method by which it was announced could not have been more unprofessional or impulsive. If Mattis and other Generals had deliberated for 6 months and reluctantly came to a conclusion similar to Trump's it would be one thing, but they did not. This needs to be fleshed out and discussed, not made rashly for obvious political reasons.
Good post. Clearly having trans people, genderless, transdolphin or whatever the fuck they call themselves will complicate bathroom and sleeping arrangements along with fitness requirements. Ultimately a distraction and making the military a less effective fighting force.
Joining the military is a privilege and not a right that's why they have age and health restrictions not everyone can server because they want the best of the best to fight for our country.
I remember there was a transgendered soldier on one of the bases I've been stationed on. No one gave much of a shit about his/her gender, sat in the smoking area with the rest of us. What everyone did wonder about is if army money paid for the sex change while some of us couldn't get basic rehab. Not wondering in any malicious way against that individual, just where funding priorities lie.
The military, and the V.A. does not pay for surgeries related to sex change. The V.A. does provide medical care for transgender veterans, but not sex change specific surgery.
Interesting, didn't know that.
Here's the problem with what you're saying. Those issues you bring up should be selected for through the fire that is the training. Trump made the decree that Trans are banned. Trains is an identity, not an action. If a person identifies as trans but never has the intention to undergo surgery, that person would still be banned. Also, nothing about this has any bearing on who has to pay for the surgery. Quite frankly I don't think that tax dollars should go to the procedure, I see it as an elective surgery/non essential surgery / the same way replacing a dead front tooth is considered by insurance to be elective - it sucks and you don't present yourself in the way you would like, but it's not going to directly cause you harm not to have it done.
Introducing additional extra-ordinary (in the specific definition of that phrase) complications to an already challenging situation is a waste of limited resources (time, manpower, energy). What would be the added benefit, aside from introducing a demographic that is <0.01% of the available population for the sake of introducing them?
Not according to the doctors who qualify/disqualify based on medical assessments. There are only two genders in the military and that is based on objective medical observation, genitalia, and chromosome make-up
If they don't say so during the enlistment process, how would it be known? Unless you're arguing for the "Male/Female" question as part of the enlistment process being eliminated? What would the medical assessments be based on? Choice, genitalia, chromosomes... or other?
Agreed
Actually, a dead front tooth could impair someones mission readiness, depending on the medical assessment
Comparing a dead tooth to a serious medical procedure that removes genitals is a stretch, especially when one has long-lasting requirements to maintain care (based on my research)
A few quick points - by going into the substantice details regarding the how, you are going into way more detail than what the president gave in his statement. This is similar to the "Muslim Ban" Trump kept repeating that it was a Muslim ban, but in reality it was increased scrutiny from a handful of countries. But on the same day as the AG argues the finer points on this, Trump doubles down and declares that it is in fact a Muslim ban.
Obviously there are going to be ways to get around this for a particularly ardent individual but by his statement, Trump is prohibiting a class of people from an entire sector of government. to me, it is irrelevant that this is likely to be walked back in its application, the President of the United States issued a degree that Trans people are no longer permitted to serve in the military.
Even taking the polarizing aspects of this out of the equation, the fact clearly remains that a group who Trump Championed and used his support of as an attack on his opponent, the LGBT community, he has now betrayed that community with this action. There is no way around that.
To my point about a tooth, first, certainly didn't mean that in a military context, I meant that from an insurance perspective and how they differentiate between necessary and elective surgery. I can tell you from personal experience that correcting a dead miscolored tooth is not covered by dental insurance because it is deemed as elective. The reason I included this was to innoculate my characterization of a gender surgery as elective by grounding it in an objective reality of insurance policy, to demonstrate how high that bar can be.
So good to see that some actually understand decent policy proposals and are not swept away by the emotions stemming from a one in a million story. Thanks for the support, it's nice.
L O frig'n L ...good one!
Just try'n to figure out this curation gig thing so saw how the first three comments came down.
By turning this into an issue is the very reason I think gives the military justification to do this. It prooves that this issue is something that will just be a distraction in the millitary.
Very interesting... what came first, the distraction of the conflation of the issue? :)
By allowing the issue to become a distraction is just hurting the whole
depends on what dimension your chess game is. President Trump has an uncanny ability to be a number of moves ahead of his detractors. Time will tell.
I could easily make the argue for the wisdom in this...
It's only a distraction if you forget about the plethora of treasons he's committing
Hard to really tell the tyrants from the tea-leaf readers anymore.
You are bang on about the combat readiness being the only thing that matters. Through training all the way to getting back home in a sound state of mind and body. Or, sadly and much too underappreciated, with whatever they've got left of their former selves as humanly possible. ✌️
Pretty solid summation. Thank you!
I should say that I'm not opposed to anyone serving in a capacity of logistics and support. Simply put, those who are in clear and present danger need to be able to work as a cohesive unit(s).
I believe the parents, siblings and loved ones of all who choose to serve would expect everything possible is being done to increase the odds of a safe return.
War is a racket, I trained as rad-op in the Canadian navy...only to demand release from my six year obligation within six months. I respectfully declined the offer of Royal Roads MC here on the island and was granted immediate honourable discharge as a non-conformist.
It was 1979...a brief time of relative calm although tensions were kept to allow continued growth of the military industrial complex. As it ever was and is.
This makes me a veteran by the book but I have never played myself as a true veteran of the military, even though I suffered the aftermath of my own decisions and ended up a homeless vagabond...more by choice than happenstance.
You Americans seem to get so upset about who does the doing instead of what they are actually capable of doing. I was similar when I joined up, but I got over it. In my view, if an individual can fulfil the requirements of the role, whatever that may be (and some roles are more physical and mentally demanding than others), they should be allowed to perform said role, regardless of sex, sexual orientation etc etc. We are living in the 21st Century for Christ sake!
I almost stopped reading because your mind is obviously made up. Did you even read what I wrote?
Regardless of what century we live in, X and Y chromosomes still exist and still have an impact on objective medical standards.
I read the entire article and I agree X and Y make a difference. But if an individual from which ever group you or they choose to associate can meet the medical/ physical standards for any given role, let them do it.
I have spent 20 years in the military and all the stuff about 'Tranny teams' etc is just banter. I remember a front page newspaper article about a cross dresser years ago, that was framed and had pride of place in many a Mess!
At the end of the day, if you can do the job and can prove you can do the job, you are accepted. If you are a little different it may take a little longer and be a little harder but in my experience you are still accepted.
(and I apologise for the 'You Americans' comment. I have just read so many American articles stating why an individual is incapable of doing a job, rather than treating them as an individual and letting them pass or fail on their own merits!)
Well, this is similar to the discussion of women in combat arms roles/SOF.
The problem with the "if you can do the job and can prove you can do the job, you are accepted" argument is that it never stays that way.
The US Army Airborne school was known as a difficult course before standards changed. You can tie the standards being changed directly to the introduction of women into the course, the consequential high-washout rate, and arguments by politicians and bureaucrats to create gender normative standards and/or lower the universal standards to increase the 'success' rates.
Now, this isn't me saying "women shouldn't be allowed to go to Airborne school", or even necessarily that women shouldn't be in combat arms or SOF.
I realize this is a 'slippery slope' argument, but its based on historical context and I see no reason it won't happen again.
This is a political problem being used as a 'combat readiness' problem, when in reality, its an attempt of a political solution to solve a problem that is purely political at the expense of combat readiness.
As far as the 'just banter' point, I agree it is just banter. However, it changes the dynamics of the culture and introduces unnecessary friction -- aka distractions -- into an extremely dynamic, demanding environment, particularly in combat arms and SOF roles.
I agree completely that it can be the start of a decrease in standards. I have seen exactly that in the past, but I feel that is a different argument (and one I think I would agree with you on). If a role requires a set standard of fitness, that should be the standard, otherwise you are endangering the individual as well as the rest of the team. If an individual can meet those standards, they should be accepted regardless. If an individual cannot meet the standards, they should not be accepted. In the UK we have had split standards for years, with men and women having separate physical targets to meet. I feel this is wrong. If job A requires a certain standard, that is what is required. It does not vary up or down dependent on sex etc.
I feel many of these 'issues' are blown out of all proportion to the issue at hand, because its great for the media to play on it. If the stated figure of 15k trans individuals in the US forces (approx. size of 1.5m) is anything to go by (don't kill me for incorrect figures), then that's only 1%. I suspect most people wouldn't even notice.
I used to be quite prejudiced 20 years or so ago but over the years I have been surprised and I would rather treat everyone as an individual and let them impress or disappoint me on their own merits than try and prejudge.
I don't care what people do on their own time, as long as it doesn't harm others.
But free society != military. Standards are the glue of big organizations by which metrics and 'success' can be measured. Saying that transgenders aren't allowed to enlist/commission is by definition a standard. A line has to be drawn somewhere. This makes it simple from a leadership perspective.
Plus, I would be ripping my fucking hair out with all the new 'required training briefings' that undoubtedly came from this.
The military is supposed to reflect the society it is supposed to represent. I agree that standards are the glue etc but I don't agree that excluding a portion of society can be deemed to be a standard (or not one worthy of an organisation such as the US Armed Forces).
I completely agree on the briefings point, but that is just the military going overboard on a new policy etc (which they do on everything). There is not enough time in the day to actually attend every mandatory brief and read every mandatory manual!!
I used to think exactly like you and maybe I got old but I saw some stuff and changed my perspective and mellowed a little. I don't think we are going to agree on this but I respect your opinion! I do think it is something you'll have to accept in the next few years though, regardless of what Trump says.
I swear someone has been dripping LSD into the American water supply.