TRUMP reminds me of All Might from Hero Academia. Any other Trump fans?

From what I understand, one of the things that's done for a transition, perhaps not always but at least some of the time, is the use of puberty blockers. For this reason I would propose that no matter whether we accept transgender individuals in the military, those who are also of a younger age, perhaps younger than 25, should not be allowed within the military. At around 25 years old is when the brain finishes development, so I would have to assume the effects would be much more reduced. Someone who joined when they were 18 and then started transitioning would not require the use of puberty blockers, as their puberty cycle should be over by then. I think if I were to concede at some point here, it would be on those who started transitioning only after they became old enough to join the military. I just used the term "kicked out" since you used it. It's the same result, they're not in the military anymore. Whether or not a person deserves a medal for it isn't particularly relevant to tax payers. Individual disparity is greater than group disparity. You can argue that two ways. No matter how crazy a group, individuals can succeed. At the same time, no matter how successful the individual, the group can still be insane. My particular argument here isn't that individuals can't do well, but that the risk especially in the political climate we find ourselves in, is greater than what some would believe. The biggest problem I have with accepting on the basis of ability, is the pressure to disregard those standards due to the politics. Said another way, I would be much more comfortable with it if there wasn't an activist movement to make it happen.

I think puberty blockers come into play when young children start their transitions, or when they know they will want to transition. Parents agree to stop puberty until the child is old enough to decide whether they want to go through natural puberty, or take hormones to develop their chosen gender. More a puberty delay than a complete block. I saw a documentary on this, it's much easier to transition when puberty hasn't already increased your body mass etc.

That's my point though. For someone to transition as a child is just bad all around. What if they change their mind? They're not old enough to be sure of their decision. They're young enough that adults should be making their decisions regarding their health. Testosterone also gives transgenders an unfair advantage over women. Whether it's male to female, or female to male, the effects of testosterone remain in the body unless it's atrophied. What if it sets a new standard in the military, in which women are pressured to take testosterone supplements?

I will say that Shinu and Manga_bird’s discussion gave me a nice opportunity to actually read a bit into the clinical guidelines for transitioning, which is nice cause it didn’t pop up in my class. Looks like the criteria to use puberty blockers are actually pretty stringent so I wouldn’t say that it’s a particularly easy thing for adolescents to get on. There must be documentation of a long history of intense gender dysphoria where it would worsen upon onset of puberty, there must be mental evaluations done, a clinical endocrinologist must sign off on it, etc. And they can only do it when they start puberty so approx age 16 (specifically tanner stage 2) because the reaction to the first changes has clinical value. And the pubertal blockers are fully reversible because they use gonadotrophin analogs to desensitize the receptors for only FSH and LH. Actually that’s why Guidelines say to start with pubertal suppression first because it can expand diagnostic phase and give patients more time to explore options before undergoing sex hormone treatment and/or reassignment surgery which is definitely not fully reversible. Do adults, especially healthcare providers, ultimately make decisions for them? Sure, but realistically, healthcare providers make decisions for adult patients all the time

Sounds like you know quite a bit more about human biology than I do. However from what I had read before on a quick google search as well as now, it seems that puberty typically starts at around age 10 or 11, specifically in reference to Tanner II (which is the first I've heard of Tanner stages). I can't lay any claim as to the exact effects of blockers, when they would ideally be used, what can be avoided, and what can't, so I'll have to go with your premise here that delaying it simply provides a longer window of time of which to make choices, and doesn't provide much other circumstantial problems. However, even assuming this is true, it still lays into my previous point that accepting people into the military upon them reaching legal age who undergo this treatment poses some problems, at least for the individual, who is now undergoing puberty at a later stage in their life, at the same point that they're being given a gun and told to use it and follow orders. Under most circumstances, decisions are not made for adults in respect to health care. An adult can choose not to be treated even if it kills them. Anyways my point was that the adults in this instance are not making the decision, and they should be (saying no), but letting their child make the decision. Although in some instances, they are. In both respects, I find it to be morally wrong to let or force your child to transition as a child. If you "let" your child delay their puberty, well I don't know about that and I would have to research that a bit more, since if it is indeed reversible or similar, then it's not so big of a deal in the long term maybe. But it's still problematic in relation to the military. Everyone has a right to their own body, but we don't let children make their own choices specifically regarding their own health. Children are uneducated, volatile, and very likely to change their mind about things as they age, including what gender they want to be.

But you don't need testosterone to be a badass, and I seriously doubt women would feel pressured into taking it. Yes trans going FtM will have a boost, but that will only put them on the same level as other men - they aren't doping, they just regulate their levels to match a man. They might not even get as strong as a natural man, I'm not sure. Women can gain serious muscle without testosterone though. Can men gain more? Perhaps, but is it really needed? So long as you can carry your equipment, not really. Then there's the added fact that MtF will be the opposite - losing muscle and weight due to higher levels of eustrogen. Again, maybe they won't reach the same levels as natural women, but there are still women who will out pace them. It depends on your body mass and how much you're willing to train and hit the gym.

The problem isn't the capability, but the quick and easy results. Couldn't it happen? A group where the standard is to take a drug in order to be stronger, without having to actually try? Standards would rise and pressure would build to circumvent the effort a woman would usually have to put forth. Are you saying that it absolutely can't or won't happen? Where do you have the confidence?