Us Military Transgender Ban, Wtf Is This Really About

Discussion in 'Transexual and Transgender' started by Vanilla Gorilla, Jul 26, 2017.

  1. Asmodean

    Asmodean Slo motion rider

    Messages:
    50,556
    Likes Received:
    10,126
    Strength DOES matter. But I noticed not all women need to be big to have the needed strength
     
  2. 6-eyed shaman

    6-eyed shaman Sock-eye salmon

    Messages:
    10,378
    Likes Received:
    5,149
    LOL @ all of you saying "Anyone who wants to defend the country should be able to join the military."

    Never mind that there are physical and mental requirements to be eligible. Lets just lower the bar of physical requirement so everybody can win

    An all-inclusive military is a weaker military where more people get killed. Granted, some people should be allowed in the military with non-combat roles like mechanic, medic, pilot, driver, communications, and things like that. It's also true that female voices transmit much better on radio waves with lousy reception.


    As are most transgenders. Gender Identity Disorder (or the more politically correct Gender Dysphoria) is still a mental illness in the DSM5
     
  3. Asmodean

    Asmodean Slo motion rider

    Messages:
    50,556
    Likes Received:
    10,126
    I don't think that is what is ment 6-eyed... There are a lot of different kind of positions in the military.
    If you read this thread you don't see many people advocating anybody who wishes to should be able to be a frontline soldier. So which people are you talking about anyway...?
     
  4. Irminsul

    Irminsul Valkyrie

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    105
    I wonder what the berserkers were on to just run out naked with an axe from a boat and start fighting. Naked. Just an axe. Fuck that but from both views lol. Like I wouldn't wanna fight them.
     
  5. Asmodean

    Asmodean Slo motion rider

    Messages:
    50,556
    Likes Received:
    10,126
  6. NoxiousGas

    NoxiousGas Old Fart

    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,385
    LOL, you been watching too many movies....
    let me add to my previous post and say that relying on stereotypes to form opinion is also lazy, IMHO.

    this I can agree with though as it probably is skirting the rules and is essentially cheating, IMHO.
     
  7. NoxiousGas

    NoxiousGas Old Fart

    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,385
    so more opinion or can you back that statement up with stats?
     
  8. Asmodean

    Asmodean Slo motion rider

    Messages:
    50,556
    Likes Received:
    10,126
    https://youtu.be/VqFuXL1dwKA


     
    1 person likes this.
  9. jpdonleavy

    jpdonleavy Members

    Messages:
    1,443
    Likes Received:
    378
    From FOREIGN POLICY's morning briefing:

    Trump policy fallout. There was stunned silence in the Pentagon Wednesday after President Trump overturned military policy in three quick Tweets during morning rush hour. Civilian and military officials refused comment on the president’s decision to ban transgender personnel from military service, as they heard about President’s plan just like everyone else, and had no plan how to move forward.

    Both the White House and Pentagon referred reporters to the other throughout the day as the lead on the issue. But some military officials said privately that the abrupt decision puts currently serving transgender troops in a tough spot, since just a year ago the Pentagon said they can serve openly and receive medical services for gender reassignment procedures. Those who came out are now left wondering if they were duped into torpedoing their careers to serve the political whim of the Commander in Chief.

    This might get ugly. If there’s one thing for certain, this is going to court. One transgender Marine who served two combat deployments told the Air Force Times, “I have never described myself as trans; I’m a mother----ing Marine...That‘s all that matters. Don’t tarnish my title with your bigotry and fear of the unknown.”

    Another, Staff Sgt. Logan Ireland, said, “I would like to see them try to kick me out of my military. ”I would challenge them [in court]. You are not going to deny me my right to serve my country when I am fully qualified and able and willing to give my life.”

    Known unknowns. One person who did know about the President’s plan was Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. "When Trump made this decision [Tuesday], the secretary of defense was immediately informed," White House spokeswoman Huckabee-Sanders said Wednesday. Mattis is out of town on vacation this week.

    Politico got the tick tock on Trump’s decision-making, and it appears the ban announcement was his way to settle an internal House Republican fight over transgender troops that threatened funding for his border wall.

    Line of the day. From the same story: “This is like someone told the White House to light a candle on the table and the WH set the whole table on fire,” a senior House Republican aide told Politico. The source reportedly added that although GOP leaders asked the White House for help on a few issues, they weren’t expecting — and got no heads up on — Trump’s ban decision.

    This is how we live now. The British and Canadian militaries tweeted out unequivocal support for their own transgender troops on Wednesday in the hours after Trump’s bombshell.

    Numbers for context. The transgender issue is being pushed by Republicans as a cost-saving measure, but the Defense Department spends 10 times as much on Viagra than it spends on healthcare services for transgender troops.

    NOTE THAT LAST STATISTIC:

    The Defense Dept spends 10X as much giving the lads good boners, as it does on TG reassignment. That shatters the argument that TG reassignment costs are the reason for the so-called 'ban' (those costs = about $8 million, by the way.

    Not that I'm any fan of political correctness, or the whinging left either but these folks are already in the field kickin' ass, so . . .

    I'm a gonna go clear some bush on my 40 now - the sun is out but it's not too hot
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. Noserider

    Noserider Goofy-Footed Member

    Messages:
    9,578
    Likes Received:
    6,215
    I know a few ;-)
     
  11. Meliai

    Meliai Banned

    Messages:
    25,868
    Likes Received:
    18,279
    I'm not sure anyone is advocating to change the physical requirements

    But if a person does meet the physical requirements for any given role then they should be allowed to fulfill that role
     
  12. unfocusedanakin

    unfocusedanakin The Archaic Revival Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    11,308
    Likes Received:
    3,598
    There have always been strict physical requirements for any gender in the military. Some jobs you just can not do as well as they need to be done. But there is a place for you. I am told the phrase "that's OK we will teach you" is said a lot at recruiting offices. Not everyone can be a SEAL or a F-16 pilot but someone needs to assist those guys.

    And it is very true women by nature are weaker and smaller. That's why their sports have to be separated. And why the Australian women's soccer team looses to amateur boys. So in hand to hand combat a man will probably win. Which for most of history means women are no good in war.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3609949/Matildas-lose-7-0-Newcastle-Jets-15s-Rio-Olympics-warm-up.html

    But as many pro NRA women have told me a gun is an equalizer. They can aim as well as any man and do many other jobs. I don't know anyone who was actuly in the military who cares about what sex you are or are not. It's all about the bond of trust. It's a bit dishonest to cite the high rate of suicide among transgender as mental illness making them unfit to serve. These people are happy with who they are it's debates like this and the society as a whole that makes them feel inadequate with prejudice. I would say that is probably the reason for lots of those suicides.
     
  13. Meliai

    Meliai Banned

    Messages:
    25,868
    Likes Received:
    18,279
    Transgender people with a strong support system are less likely to commit suicide which indicates the issue isn't mental illness but societal alienation
     
  14. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    Apparently minor temporary bone spurs in the heel will get you out of the military, although you can still play squash and tennis at the varsity level and be scouted by the Phillies and Red Sox.
     
  15. Noserider

    Noserider Goofy-Footed Member

    Messages:
    9,578
    Likes Received:
    6,215
    *shakes head*

    Oh, Shaman, Shaman, Shaman....No! Bad Republican!

    We pretend the focus of this issue is the military, while ignoring something much larger and problematic. This isn't about military spending. This isn't about unit cohesion, or the overall effectiveness of the military, or changing the physical fitness standards. This is about Civil Rights. We're not talking about banning transgendered people who are unfit for military service; we're talking about banning transgendered people. This is about allowing the federal government to deny a certain group of Americans. This is federal overreach, and the butting-in in the daily lives of the American people. You're championing allowing big bad government to tell us how to live. As a conservative, that should frighten you.

    However, it seems that conservatism has gone social, and people who call themselves "conservative" or "Republican" are now supporting big government efforts to legislate the morality they themselves embrace on a social level. No one's talking about this as a Civil Rights issue; they're talking about this a socially conservative issue. I suppose when big government supports you, you're apt to embrace it. But true conservatives are always weary of this.

    The arguments from those who support the ban include, among other things, the refusal to have to pay out for gender reassignment surgery. This I agree with. So if there was a proposed bill that said that the US government would not pay for gender reassignment surgery for transgendered soldiers, I would support it. There isn't; there is only the ban of transgenders.

    Another argument is that an inclusive military is somehow, contrary to evidence that suggests otherwise, inherently weaker. During the Second World War, the United States military fought a war against the world's greatest racist, and they did so with Japanese and Black Americans serving in segregated units. This was done because of the belief that an inclusive military was weaker. Studies done after the war showed that the shortcomings of Black troops were the result of discriminatory policies and institutionalized racism in the Army. So Truman desegregated the military, and during the Korean War, soldiers of all races served together, thus making societal integration easier for returning veterans to accept. The point being, inclusion not only strengthened our military, our strengthened our society as a whole.

    Another argument is that people will be joining the military just to get the surgery done. Again, that would be problematic and I support prevention of that. But there's no ban on surgeries being discussed; only a ban on an entire group of people.

    Another argument is that transgendered people aren't as physically capable as cisgendered people. Not only have I seen absolutely zero data to back this up, but the military as physical fitness standards. And you either meet those qualifications or you don't. And if you don't, you can't join. If you do meet those requirements, you can. It's pretty simple really. But we're not talking about the military's standards that are already in place; we're talking about banning trans-people.

    So when you step back and look at all this, you see that this not about "social experimenting" or weakening the military or the costs of gender reassignment surgery. This is about allowing discrimination by the federal government, allowing them to disregard the 14th Amendment and make up the rules as they go along.

    Isn't that what we as conservatives were upset about during the Obama Administration? I'm sorry, to me, this is about government and principals. Either you like big government making choices for us and mandating their version of the status quo or you don't. It is unfair to pick and choose only when it benefits your own socially conservative agenda.

    Support of this ban is to support federal overreach as well as bigotry. And I, in good conscience, cannot do that.

    And I would urge all supporters of a small, conservative government to join me an imposing this decidedly un-American attempt at government-sanctioned discrimination.
     
    4 people like this.
  16. jpdonleavy

    jpdonleavy Members

    Messages:
    1,443
    Likes Received:
    378
    women rate highly as sonar operators and watch officers
     
  17. deleted

    deleted Visitor

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG] ... [​IMG] ..
     
  18. morrow

    morrow Visitor

    This made me think... Lol

    https://youtu.be/Yii6eepBZVc
     
  19. Vanilla Gorilla

    Vanilla Gorilla Go Ape

    Messages:
    30,289
    Likes Received:
    8,560
    Even if that were true, so what nowadays?

    Who doesnt have some friggin anxiety / depressive disorder nowadays

    Anyone that has some kind of classified disorder is forever banned from military service, bullshit
     
    2 people like this.
  20. Meliai

    Meliai Banned

    Messages:
    25,868
    Likes Received:
    18,279
    No offense but I write off most of your posts as "Ehhh, typical VG logic"

    But nail on the head on this one
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice