Donald Trump Says US Military Will Not Allow Transgender People To Serve (theguardian.com) 904
Donald Trump said on Wednesday he would not allow transgender individuals to serve in the US military in any capacity. From a report: The US president tweeted: "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." He added: "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." Trump's decision marks a sharp reversal of a policy initiated under Barack Obama, in which the Pentagon ended a longtime ban on transgender people from serving openly in the military. As a candidate, Trump cast himself as a supporter of LGBT rights and indicated he would uphold certain Obama-era policies designed to protect transgender people.
After consultation with "my Generals"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:After consultation with "my Generals"... (Score:5, Funny)
Nahh, it's OK, just think of it as "mit meinen Generalen".
Oh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Nahh, it's OK, just think of it as "mit meinen Generalen".
Oh.
More like "s moimi generalami"
Re:After consultation with "my Generals"... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps he's promoted Steve Bannon to General. After all, we know this is where it's coming from.
Re:After consultation with "my Generals"... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:After consultation with "my Generals"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Full body shiver.
Huh? The president is the commander in chief, and the military generals are in a real sense "his". This is civilian control of the military. The military is not some 4th branch of government on a par with the legislative and judicial branches.
If Obama had ever said that, Lou Dobbs would have driven a car bomb through the White House gates
Re:After consultation with "my Generals"... (Score:5, Informative)
Even Franklin Fucking Delano Roosevelt never had the balls to refer to them as "my Generals".
A little history would be apropos, here.
FDR likely referred to the SCOTUS as "his court" after threatening to expand the number of justices and pack the court with "his justices" because the SCOTUS initially viewed provisions of Social Security as unconstitutional. At least the Republicans aren't talking about raising the number of SCOTUS justices and packing the bench to advance their agendas.
Oh, and just as an additional FYI, Woodrow Wilson racially-segregated the US military when it was not racially segregated at that time.
And both POTUS's sent ethnic Germans, Japanese, and more living in the US to camps during WW1 & WW2 and forced them to surrender all their property.
Strat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For a president to call a supreme court stacked with his own picked justices "his court" is a perfectly logical expression. To call the generals "my generals" is an expression of a delusional man hoping to impress his power upon the credulous and naive.
So you'd have us believe that calling supposedly unbiased and independent justices in **another freaking separate branch of government** "his court" because he did an end-run around separation of powers is okey-dokey, A-OK, but a POTUS you happen to disagree with is wrong to call the generals **directly under his freaking command as Commander In Chief** "his generals"!?
0_o
The actions of Wilson and Roosevelt in response to the political climate of their day...
You mean being Oath of Office/Constitution-violating racist and bigoted Progressive Democrats as history clearly shows they were?
Strat
Woosh.... (Score:3, Insightful)
He is commander in chief.
Yup, and I think that's what causes most people to "full body shiver" :
phrasings such as "my generals" make painfully aware that your orange troll with a twitter account *is* "the commander in chief" and "*his* generals" are indeed under *his* command.
sad~
Re:After consultation with "my Generals"... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, yes it is. From a scientific perspective, it offers ultimate control. The average serviceperson's (less than E-5 in my experience anyway) life is so regimented that you could run experiments as dumb as "does starting brushing ones teeth on the left side improve hygiene?" completely possible. You could view seperate units as premade control and test groupings. The setup is practically begging for it.
Of course, you mean "forcing" people to interact with people that they find strange as a social experiment, which is weird because that is the basis of a civil society.
Re:After consultation with "my Generals"... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, yes it is.
No, no it is not. The military has a job already, and "testbed for social policy" is not it.
you could run experiments as dumb as "does starting brushing ones teeth on the left side improve hygiene?"
That's not a social experiment, nimrod.
Of course, you mean "forcing" people to interact with people that they find strange as a social experiment,
That's a much better example than yours, but no, the experiment is "does allowing non-traditional gender identities in a military force improve the efficiency of that force".
which is weird because that is the basis of a civil society.
Civil society is a much better place to conduct social experiments than a non-civilian military force, the membership in which is a privilege and not a right.
What absolutely flabbergasted me was the report I heard where some military officials said that trans members already in service would continue to serve despite the President's policy change. I don't care if you think the policy itself it bad or good, the policy that the military has a Commander in Chief who makes the ultimate decisions needs to be inviolate. This decision is not illegal or unconstitutional, so the military officials need to shut up and execute the orders of the commander appointed over them.
Re:After consultation with "my Generals"... (Score:4, Informative)
Like desegregation [wikipedia.org], for example?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, in very recent news it has been stated that the military will be doing so: http://www.washingtontimes.com... [washingtontimes.com]
It makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do yourself a favor -
Spend a minute and look into the literally THOUSANDS of military jobs that are not in combat zones or areas of scarcity.
This is not a logistical move - if it was, it would come from the pentagon and not from a loudmouth on Twitter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
But what do you think is going to happen if in an emergency they miss their hormones? It might be undesirable for them, but it's not going to put anyone's life in danger, it's not going to be a problem for anyone other than them.
They should be free to decide whether that risk is worthwhile for them or not.
Re:It makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
I can speak further about this because I was discharged from the Army for having a condition called Congenital Stationary Night Blindness. The way the military works is that no matter what job you have, combat or not, you still have to have a wartime duty, which applies to ANY military occupation. For example, the Army (music) band functions as enemy POW prison guards during time of war. All service members, including cooks, are expected to be able to fire weapons and throw grenades, because every single one of them are expected to be either in or very close to the combat zone.
In my particular case, the logic is that if I was out in the combat zone (my MOS was 19D) or anywhere near it, and night came around, I would be ineffective and would end up being a liability to my battle buddies. Sure, there are night vision goggles, but what if they are damaged, batteries run out, etc? Doesn't work, hence discharge.
In the case of a transgender, if the combat situation caused them to ever separated from their unit for a long period of time (something that happens often) they'd become a liability to their battle buddies. MtF trans would also have to carry other gear around if they've had bottom surgery, which also presents a logistical problem.
At least, this applies to the Army, the same would definitely apply to the Marines, so those two would be right out. It would also likely apply to the Navy as well since they are out at sea for years at a time (definite logistical issues there,) and can and do approach combat zones. Air Force personnel are rarely in the combat zone (except for pilots) but they are typically near the combat zone where they can and do make contact with the enemy.
Furthermore, in any service branch, they don't position you based on your military occupation, rather they position you based on wherever your unit is deployed to, and your unit has many different occupations within it. They aren't going to say "well, our unit can't deploy here because we have a transgender person in it."
Re: (Score:3)
someone else says yeah, you get two pairs, and if you can correct to 20/20, but are blind as a bat probably not. but it also depends on how friggin desperate they are for bodies. also, colorblindness is limiting for certain roles.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From your sexist point of view, shouldn't the army be actively encouraging all women soldiers to become transmen to strengthen themselves?
Re: (Score:2)
and? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't think you can be medically discharged for an inability to perform duties for _any_ reason in the Military? You don't know jack about the Military. I'm a US Army vet, and have zero problems with this ruling but not simply because of the medication. I'll give two easy examples.
First, as GP stated above, the Military has to be a very cohesive bunch. In back line situations you have communal showers and bathrooms with little privacy. In front line situations, you have a canteen and hole that you dig. You put the majority of the military at a very compromising position with transgender soldiers. The twig and berries don't vanish because a person believes they are a woman, any more than breasts and bush vanish when a women believes they are man. So should the women in the military be forced to look at a twig and berries in the showers? Do you think it's fair to the men to stick a naked women who thinks they are man into a shower with them? Not that people want things to happen in either of those circumstances, but you are providing a very high risk and completely unnecessary situation for soldiers.
Next, you have PT rules by gender because _biology_ differences give us different limitations and abilities. The military loses effectiveness due to some of those differences already but has learned to cope. What they can't cope with is a completely arbitrary set of restrictions for every potential soldier. How do you cope with a guy who claims to be a woman? Do they get to do PT based on woman's rules or men's rules? Can the woman be medically discharged because the believe they are a man but can't do 80 pushups in under 2 minutes? Don't you believe more and more soldiers would not just try to drop out medically, but claim to be a more convenient gender for things like PT testing and promotion consideration?
The Military is not about "me", it's about "the force". Since we do not force service people who want "me" don't have to serve.
For the person who claimed not all jobs in the Military are combat, I say bullshit! Every soldier is trained on how to kill the enemy and defend against attacks. Even if your job isn't going out on patrol looking for enemies, you are at risk simply by being a soldier. Your first job and first responsibility in the Military is to be a Soldier. Your secondary job is to be a medic, mechanic, etc... (See Jessica Lynch, or any of the other people attacked, wounded, killed, or captured away from the front lines.)
Re:and? (Score:4, Insightful)
"First, as GP stated above, the Military has to be a very cohesive bunch. In back line situations you have communal showers and bathrooms with little privacy."
Isn't that the same argument that was once used against mix-race units?
Re:and? (Score:5, Informative)
And women. And gays.
The pattern is so predictable we can all basically sing along to it.
Re: (Score:3)
I always find it odd when vets bring up the shower argument. After boot camp, when were you ever subjected to group showers? I was a Marine '02-'07. I was stationed a couple places and I was deployed to Iraq. After boot camp, I never had to deal with communal showers. Occasionally, there was no water for showers, but never a time where everybody had to shower together. In Iraq, on a tiny FOB in the middle of nowhere, my unit cobbled a shower together with a pallet, a tarp, and one of those camp shower bags.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are unable to deploy because of a medical issue, then you have no business being in the Military.
Fair enough. In which case, presumably this should be a case-by-case thing, rather than a blanket ban. Pretty sure that different trans people will have different medical needs, whereas a blanket ban doesn't address that at all. What it does do is play well to the fundamental Trump base that think trans people are morally wrong and should be punished.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
If a soldier has to take Hormone replacement pills every day, and then they are suddenly unavailable, I could see it causing some issues.
So are you suggesting an event like this:
Sgt. Bigman: Pvt Wassman, go shoot those Ruskies over there or the whole unit will perish.
Pvt Wassmann: Sorry Sarge! I ran out of hormone pills today, I can't carry out my orders.
* BOOM * - Entire US army wiped out because Wassmann ran out of hormone pills
I can see that being a legitimate concern. Just like people who normally take migraine medicine might run out of that- and then they will kill everyone and not follow orders rather than have a migraine.
Or ho
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, diabetics are more likely to go into shock due to lack of sugar than insulin. Every day I take the amount of insulin appropriate for my scheduled (or proposed) physical activity and diet. So if I get some unanticipated stress or physical activity I am in danger of making my insulin dose an overdose as my body will burn more sugar for fuel than expected. If I do not notice and immediately consume glucose (sugar) within seconds to minutes I will pass out and die unless rescued by someone with a s
Re:It makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
The military doesn't need to be at the forefront of social change. There is nothing wrong with the military lagging, and by doing so in minimizes internal disruption. Heck, greater society is still fighting bathroom policy, the military has other stuff to occupy its time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
The military is already, apparently, the largest employer of transgender people in the USA. This is a political decision, not a practical one. How do we know? The DoD is telling reporters to go talk to the WH about this policy change, AND the Secretary of Defence is currently ON VACATION.
This decision has nothing to do with whether the military can handle it or not; they have been.
Re:It makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
The military is already, apparently, the largest employer of transgender people in the USA. This is a political decision, not a practical one.
This also WAS a political decision, not a practical one. Political decisions get changed when the politicians change. Did you complain when Obama made his political decision? Then "it's a political decision" is a very unconvincing argument for you to make.
This decision has nothing to do with whether the military can handle it or not; they have been.
They were forced to handle it, now they are not being forced to handle it anymore. Just because they were forced to handle it before doesn't mean it was an optimal situation.
Re:It makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
but it needs to be at the forefront of equality:
No it needs to be the forefront of lethality. Everything the military does is in service to killing the enemy. The point of Sun Tzu "moral law" isn't that the army needs be moral but to be a "cohesive fighting force" which demonstrably increases the lethality of that fighting force. Everything is secondary to killing the enemy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FWIW There are time release options available that are implanted under the skin. I don't know how long they last and how often they're replaced, but I did want to just point that out.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In what way? If you define being male as having a set of chromosomes (XY) and being a female as another (XX) there are several variations that aren't male and/or female. Then if you extend the definition to cover the unusual cases (=intersex) you will begin to realize (I hope) that the situation is much more complex, XX males and XY females exist. The (non-transsexual) man or women you know and have seen naked may actually not fit into your binary view of the world.
Hormonal levels, diseases and external fac
Contentious issue (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, Trump... that genie is already out of the bottle. Legislation is probably necessary to roll it back at this point.
My feeling is this is bound to wind up in the 9th circuit district court with an injunctive order issued against this change in policy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hopefully that happens right before an election so people have a chance to decide whether transgendered issues matter more than issues that affect the other 99+% of people.
Re:Contentious issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
How does the military treat people with other medical problems, like needing glasses or getting cancer or suffering from PTSD?
In many cases they are forced to leave the military or given other tasks if possible. And in some cases, those that leave the military now get a good paycheck for the rest of their lives if the military is shown to to have any cause for the reasons of their disabilities.
I know of several people that have fallen into such categories.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What legislation? The ban on transgenders in the military was lifted by an executive order from the Obama administration [wikipedia.org]; there was never any legislation of the kind. Trump is reversing an EO not a law. EOs are not laws, the separation clause reserves that power to the legislative branch, the judicial branch will not interpret EOs as laws, penalties cannot be levied against violators, and most federal agencies not under executive control w
Why do you bother adding this... (Score:2, Troll)
"As a candidate, Trump cast himself as a supporter of LGBT rights and indicated he would uphold certain Obama-era policies designed to protect transgender people."
Why do reporters continue to bother with this... Clearly his supporters don't care what he said he would do and what he IS doing, and even more clearly, his non-supporters don't need anymore ammunition to dislike him.
Yea it's fun to call him out on lying/not holding onto campaign promises, but seriously, this is NOT new at all with any politician,
Re: (Score:2)
He is protecting them! Now they won't be faced with bullets, or coopted into the embarrassment that is this administration's international politics and military decisions.
and if we have a draft will this last? (Score:2)
and if we have a draft will this last?
Re: (Score:2)
and if we have a draft will this last?
That could be rather amusing if we have a new Vietnam. Suddenly everyone's a transsexual to avoid being drafted. I'm probably too old to be drafted but in 5 years my son will be of age. I'll start suggesting he consider becoming a woman if war breaks out immediately.
BBC's Article (Score:3)
Medication Issues (Score:2)
PC (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally know a former Marine. He loved serving. He was an NCO, a sargeant. He's one of these disciplined and athletic guys who actually likes all the running and training. He spoke so fondly of it that I asked him why he would have left. He told me that the political correctness was just becoming ridiculous. The female Marines just didn't have the physical performance capabilities of the males (the best among them were about equal to the average male, and those were exceptional) - this is the same reason sports and the Olympics have Men's and Women's events. It's just the nature of the sexes and beyond our control. The top brass kept trying to ignore these differences, to the point that it was harming combat effectiveness in many situations. Of course, in a military environment you do what you're told and you shut your mouth about it, so he and other NCOs had no voice and no ability to protest. Eventually he got tired of it so when his term of service was up, he got out. He told me he was not the only one, not by far. Politics was not why he signed up.
People already generally have a hard time being rational about real, measurable physical strength/performance differences between men and women. And those can easily be demonstrated and proven. The whole LGBT topic tends to cause even more extreme irrational reactions and controversy. You really don't want this kind of bickering in a military unit where distractions and small mistakes get people killed. It's the one place you can't afford it.
There's plenty of things Trump has said and done that I don't like. This time though, I think he's making the right call and probably knows he's going to take a lot of outrage for it. I can respect that whether I like the guy or not.
Re:PC (Score:5, Interesting)
Its an interesting question. Women are on average not as strong as men and they are on average smaller. so fighter planes designed for women pilots would be more efficient. Should our next generation military aircraft and other roles that don't require physical strength be optimized for women, while roles that require physical strength are optimized for men.
Re: (Score:3)
Its an interesting question. Women are on average not as strong as men and they are on average smaller. so fighter planes designed for women pilots would be more efficient. Should our next generation military aircraft and other roles that don't require physical strength be optimized for women, while roles that require physical strength are optimized for men.
Careful, you're perilously close to suggesting that men aren't superior to women in every single way imaginable, therefore likely to come foul of the /. "common sense" brigade.
Re: (Score:3)
Next generation aircraft will likely be designed for AIs, not men or women. But yeah, if there are other roles for which small body size is an advantage, then we should look into filling those roles with women.
Re: (Score:3)
You would have to train more pilots, but we don't have that many ultra-expensive planes like the F35, B1, F22. The cost of training more women is probably small compared to the multi-hundred billion cost of the development programs. There is no reason I know of that it would cost more to train female pilots than male ones.
Development of these planes takes many years, plenty of time to fill the pipeline with new pilots.
The performance advantage is small, but these planes operate very near the technology l
Re:PC (Score:4, Funny)
I can't decide between "Citation needed" or "That's what she said."
Re: (Score:3)
Are women's necks weaker relative to the mass of their heads and helmets? An ejection system that requires a very strong neck to avoid death seems like a poor design and one that would limit the number of qualified pilots.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I understand that part completely as well.
I mean how much would it suck to be in a deadly situation during combat that the strength of a man would get you out of and all you have is a woman who doesn't quite cut it?
Granted, if you lack the numbers, having women bolster them makes sense. But only then.
For all the other jobs in the armed forces though, this does not apply. So banning women and transgenders from those jobs as well is... questionable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You really don't want this kind of bickering in a military unit where distractions and small mistakes get people killed. It's the one place you can't afford it.
This same justification was used for years to keep blacks out of the military. And women. And gay people. And on and on.
Maybe instead the military could train people how to avoid "distractions and small mistakes," instead of thinking that those issues could be avoided by excluding certain 'undesirable' people.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Those in non-fighting roles sometimes fight ... (Score:3)
The large majority of jobs in the U.S. armed forces are not fighting or even physical roles.
A great-uncle, a WW2 paratrooper, shared his frozen hole in the ground on the font lines of Bastogne with a truck driver who had not fired a weapon since basic training.
Another great-uncle, brother of the previous, was a clerk aboard a Navy destroyer in the Pacific during WW2. His primary job involving logs, ledgers and typewriters but during combat these were put aside and his secondary job came into play, anti-aircraft gun crew member. His tertiary job was Browning Automatic Rifleman (he did well in Ba
Social Experiments (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't belong in the Military. They have a job to do.
Re:Social Experiments (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just a distraction (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is just a distraction (Score:4, Insightful)
They've found something even worse with the healthcare vote, too. A partial measure? That's not a plan; it's ridiculous. Either repeal it all and put down a structured, planned bill; leave it in place; or improve upon it. Just clipping pieces for politics will cause destabilization of the healthcare industry and severe economic fall-out with worse consequences than even rolling back Obamacare in full!
It's ludicrous that we have people who aren't trying to improve the situation, but rather are just fucking around with healthcare. This isn't even a policy issue; it's plain reckless behavior and puts the American people at risk.
Not quite.. (Score:2)
"Trump cast himself as a supporter of LGBT rights"
No, if I recall he was a supporter of LG BTQ...whatever that is, maybe a type of sandwich, or some new device from LG?
Playing leftists like a violin (Score:2)
When the Dems and the left are talking about transgendered issues, they're forgetting the needs of 99+% of Americans. But they can't help themselves, because if every year isn't always 1964, then leftism is just bullying.
Re:Playing leftists like a violin (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly how does demonstrating some tolerance for transgender individuals go against the 'needs' of the rest of Americans? It does not affect them at all.
2 reason why (Score:4, Insightful)
There are two reasons for this:
* Physiological - There's enough issues with men and women serving together in high stress situations. This would be another distraction.
* Political - Just like his attacks on his attorney general this is a distraction from the fact that the Republicans could not get Repeal and/or Replace of ObamaCare through again.
Re:2 reason why (Score:5, Insightful)
Ridiculous (Score:2)
I couldn't join...why should they? (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump never said he supported LGBT... (Score:2)
I am sorry? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this in any way relevant for a tech site?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know, ask the 350 posts actively discussing this. Based on site participation this is currently the most interesting and relevant thing on this page.
DoD already studied this (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.rand.org/content/da... [rand.org]
Re:No surprise. (Score:5, Funny)
You want to know why Trump one?
I suspect it is because there are people who aren't intelligent enough to know how to spell "won", a three-letter word?
Re: (Score:2)
With a name like Oswald McWeany, the whole point is snark, no? Yer a special kind of troll. Don't ever change.
The name comes from a kids show, "Oswald". Oswald had a dog named Weanie.
The show was on in the background when I signed up for this account. (I actually have a much older account, but I've long since forgotten the name I used, or the old throw-away e-mail account I signed up for it with- so it can't be retrieved- I use a different name on every site and often they have no specific relation to my life)
Re: No surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No surprise. (Score:4, Informative)
Modern sensibilities? By not giving in to people with a mental disorder and not allowing them to enter the army
It hasn't been considered a mental disorder by the sciences for decades. However, to humor you, so what if it is? What would the harm be?
Do you prevent people with high-functioning autism in the army? Do you think people with minor anxiety are prevent from joining? What about ADD? Get PTSD you should be kicked out?
Even if were a mental disorder- it's far less harmful than any of the above, and the above won't get you barred from the military.
Re:No surprise. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No surprise. (Score:5, Interesting)
Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.
(2015, not decades ago)
A german study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12832250) results state "In 270 (75%) of these 359 patients, cross-gender identification was interpreted as an epiphenomenon of other psychiatric illnesses, notably personality, mood, dissociative, and psychotic disorders. Major mood disorders, dissociative disorders and psychotic disorders reported in 79% of transgenders."
(2003, not decades ago)
Even if you argue that transgenderism isn't in itself a mental disorder, a transgender individual is far more likely to have multiple other mental disorders, a much higher risk of suicide, etc. It then becomes fair to say that if you are transgender, you personally might be mentally stable enough to be in the military but there is a very high statistical chance that you are nuts in ways that are prohibitively not conducive to the purpose of the military and the stresses that occur due to that purpose.
Cart before the horse (Score:3)
What I'm saying is, in the environment our society has created for them, not shit they got some issues. The correct response isn't to shit on
Re:No surprise. (Score:5, Informative)
"Modern sensibilities" is just a way of referring to the preferences of a small minority of self-appointed elite moralists. It can never make intuitive sense because if it did, the elite club wouldn't be special. For the same reason, it can never be a majority -- if it ever becomes a majority, they shift it so they're special again. They always need to know they're better than you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is what WINNING looks like! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Amen!
We need to disallow gays in the military also. It's important that our enemies fear our military and they are not afraid of a bunch of girly men.
By the way, the Spartans (well, actually the Sacred Band of Thebes) were gay, a fact conveniently left out of the movie "300". And they were quite feared on the battlefield for a number of decades.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re:This is what WINNING looks like! (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen!
We need to disallow gays in the military also. It's important that our enemies fear our military and they are not afraid of a bunch of girly men.
The US military should make their uniforms as girly as possible. Imagine the humiliation of having your ass handed to you by a bunch of guys in pink taffeta
Re:Well, that is support (Score:5, Insightful)
Can 0.3-0.6% of the population really do anything "in droves"?
LK
Re: (Score:3)
A hefty percentage of the population knows somebody in the 0.3-0.6% and may no longer wish to serve a military which casts out their friends/family.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:GOOD! (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of the military, is to break things and kill people. It needs to be a tight cohesive bunch, not with a bunch of "my gender of the week" types.
I don't know why you think someone having a different gender identity than their assigned at birth identity somehow must make them "weak." Heck, for that matter, even if you did have someone whose gender identity changed every week as you suggest, I don't see why that would them have trouble killing people or being part of a cohesive fighting force.
The military should be EXEMPT from all of this political correctness garbage, which, is set up on purpose, to reduce morality, and destroy the best fighting force in the world.
Or this is about people who genuinely want the right to fight for their country. You appear to be jumping from the fact that you disagree with other people to concluding that they must have nefarious goals. Incidentally, it is worth noting that the exact same arguments you are making now have now been made twice before. They were first made when we desegregated the military to have black and white people in the same units. This argument was again made only a few years ago when we let gays and lesbians openly serve. Why is it different this time?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The purpose of the military, is to break things and kill people. It needs to be a tight cohesive bunch, not with a bunch of "my gender of the week" types. The military should be EXEMPT from all of this political correctness garbage, which, is set up on purpose, to reduce morality, and destroy the best fighting force in the world. (I have thick skin /. types, fire away)
You don't have a thick skin if your hang-ups about other people's bodies requires everyone who is not like you to have their rights restricted. You are the most delicate snowflake of all.
It's your attitude that needs to be drummed out of the service. It smacks of poor discipline and a fragile psyche.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
Even though it's sort of backwards due to PTSD and all that, people fighting and supporting each other need to be mentally steady at all times. I say "steady" because I mean that someone who is manically depressed, wetting themselves and crying uncontrollably whenever they hear gunfire, fighting the voices, etc, have no business being depended upon by the rest of the military and our country. So if someone is mentally struggling with anything that keeps their concentration from being fully engaged
Re: (Score:3)
If this "male" then becomes pregnant
You realize that MtF transgendered people stop ovulating due to hormone treatments, right?
And how do the females respond to a "female" that is using the communal showers?
So soldiers are such delicate flowers that they can not handle seeing genitalia? If that's the case, we've got much, much larger problems than showers.