jd โถโ
๐ผ๐๐๐ช๐บ๐ญ๐บThe #USA military spends five times as much on Viagra as it would on transgender troopsโ medical care
Why Anti-Imperialists Should Support Trans Soldiers
โ '...American culture prioritizes its military over civilians, which is anathema to the anti-imperialist worldview. It should not be so. But regardless, in an imperialist nation, the military represents what that nation feels is its truest self. Removing trans people from the military works to remold Americaโs conception of gender in general. It creates the terrain on which it becomes straightforward to erase us everywhere else. If we are banished from our countryโs most revered institutions, we can easily be banished from its bathrooms...'
http://fpif.org/why-anti-imperialists-should-support-trans-soldiers
Thankfully one closeted trans military soldier didn't want to slaughter Iraqis and leaked this video to #Wikileaks โ without Bradley, later to be Chelsea, Manning we would have never seen this video.
#ChelseaManning's leaked video...
https://youtu.be/5rXPrfnU3G0
Erez G.@jd I am dumbfounded. Look at people's reaction to the video via the comments section - disheartened and angry over the US military.
And yet, at other instances, many people still argue that military power is necessary for security and peacekeeping. As far as imperialism goes - militaries have but one effect - death and destruction.
#Transgender Liberation Won't Be Found in the Military
By Sydney Roberts
'...Contrary to the rhetoric dominating the news cycle right now, trans liberation doesn't look like gender non-conforming bodies in military uniforms killing civilians overseas. It doesn't include rallying for entrenchment into the military-industrial complex that furthers the imperialist aims of the United States, or assimilating in hopes that a country that has never cared for trans lives will begin to.
.... Freedom won't be found by piloting drones killing children in Yemen or upholding a nation built and sustained on blood. We don't need more trans bodies to act as bullet shields in lands we have no business occupying...'
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/41414-transgender-liberation-won-t-be-found-in-the-military
ิะฐำtะตr โ
ฌะฐััาปัnัkั@jd i agree banning transgender people from the military or really from anywhere else is rather deplorable (though, fuck the military) but the real issue here is why the hell are taxpayers paying for viagra?!
@wxl Well it is prescribed because some men cannot get it up, basically. This can be an illness โ altho I think we can imagine this fact being abused in the US Military. I think there might be a medical reason for women, as well โ I do not recall what tho.
@jd i guess my issue with it is how much we're spending on it. i understand that medical spending for the military involves non-active and/or retired members and that this condition increases with age. i understand the emotional value of a healthy sex life. the amount we're spending is staggering, though, even despite that.
Charles ๐ข Hutchins@wxl @jd Buying drugs for a LOT of people with doing price negotiations will always look extremely expensive. When the US finally gets universal healthcare, any particular treatment will add up to a staggering amount, with our without negotiations due to the large numbers of people. (And it will still end up costing less than the current terrible for-profit patchwork.)
Health care for veterans is still most cost-effective than the private system.
Health care for veterans is still most cost-effective than the private system.
@wxl @jd This kind of nit-picking over what actual, real health conditions are normative/worthy enough to merit coverage is exactly the same logic as is used to exclude trans people.
Seriously, there is nothing wrong with covering people's sexual health. It's a social good. Everyone in the US should e able to access what they need in regards to this.
Seriously, there is nothing wrong with covering people's sexual health. It's a social good. Everyone in the US should e able to access what they need in regards to this.
@wxl @jd Obviously liberation and the end of privilege is a worthy goal. But I wonder if essentially laughing at people who have a health condition that presumably causes shame and unhappiness is the best way forward on this?
There are a lot of places where it's a good critique to point out erectile dysfunction coverage, for example, if other reproductive/genital health is not covered, but viagra is - that's a major indicator of privilege. Like if birth control isn't covered, but ED is. The comparison to trans coverage is less apt, but still ok.
But the point, hopefully, isn't to take away coverage from penis-havers, but to point out that other reproductive/genital health is also valid and worthy of consideration. It's a race to the top, not the bottom!
There are a lot of places where it's a good critique to point out erectile dysfunction coverage, for example, if other reproductive/genital health is not covered, but viagra is - that's a major indicator of privilege. Like if birth control isn't covered, but ED is. The comparison to trans coverage is less apt, but still ok.
But the point, hopefully, isn't to take away coverage from penis-havers, but to point out that other reproductive/genital health is also valid and worthy of consideration. It's a race to the top, not the bottom!