PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: asechrest on July 26, 2017, 06:45:05 AM
-
Thoughts?
-
Indulge me. I'm missing the news and/or fake news. What's really going on here?
-
Indulge me. I'm missing the news and/or fake news. What's really going on here?
Same here.
-
OK, I think I found the article Adam was alluding to.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/trump-transgender-military.html
I don't see the problem here.
“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,” Mr. Trump wrote. “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.”
-
Good. Now get women out of combat roles.
-
Good. Now get women out of combat roles.
Probably a good idea. But I am not up to date on the current criteria.
Are women required to carry the same pack, run as far and fast and climb the same obstacles? If so, and if a woman can meet the same standards, then I am not sure if I object.
I do know that women have different strengths than men, but I don't know how that translates into combat readiness. Perhaps they make as good a pilot as men and can stand up to the rigorous training as well as a man. I don't know, but if they can't then they shouldn't be allowed to pull down the unit.
And then there are the problems with what happens to women when they get captured. And is it really true that women "get hormonal" periodically? After 65 years, I still don't know how that works or affects combat readiness.
I am still at a point that I could be convinced either way.
-
Women have different standards in the military. Ever see those photos of soldiers/Marines carrying their wounded buddies over their shoulders to safety? Yeah, ain't gonna happen.
-
Did a little digging for facts. Here is the story from the left:
https://thinkprogress.org/ndaa-transgender-military-hartzler-991077b0e689
And from the right:
https://townhall.com/columnists/petersprigg/2017/06/30/trump-congress-should-halt-transgender-military-policy-that-costs-billions-n2349085
Without spending all day trying to nail down which numbers are more accurate, here are my current thoughts. Combat readiness and military efficiency and effectiveness should come before all else. That being said, some reasonable leeway should be made to accommodate various deviations from average, normal and healthy. For example, if you are serving and you develop diabetes, your medical care should be covered. You have deviated from the healthy ideal. Likewise transgenderism is a medical disorder and just by the nature of TG might mean you may not have come to terms with it before joining up with the military. Many TG people deny to themselves well past their teens and early twenties when people typically join up. So to say "decide before you join" is not fair. It's part of the disorder to have this uncertainty and denial.
I think the diabetes analogy is a fair one. Transgenderism should be treated like any medical disorder, such as diabetes. There are severe restrictions for diabetes in the military, including enlistment denial, discharge, or limiting to non-combat roles:
https://www.thediabetescouncil.com/can-you-join-the-military-if-you-have-diabetes/
What I disagree with is either side using this as a political football. The left using it as a hot button civil right issue, and trying to procure special treatment for TG beyond what is reasonable, and the right wanting blanket denial because, "well it's just wrong!", which is simply bigotry and prejudice.
I have known several TG people in my lifetime. My anecdotal opinion is that these people are highly traumatized. Not because there is anything wrong with their brains other than gender dysphoria, but because of the external treatment they suffer from everyone else. It's a form of PTSD. The "sissy" boy was beaten up and bullied from childhood. I knew an African American TG that was a total mess - the black lower classes are not very progressively accepting of such things. It is heartbreaking, but cold hard reality is that our military cannot abide such dysfunction in the field.
That being said, some TG do not suffer from these problems. If you can pass thorough psychological testing, I see no reason TGs cannot continue to serve in many military positions, although continuing need for hormone therapy might be reason to exclude them from combat, just like the insulin dependent diabetic.
Continuing the diabetes analogy, I'd support enlistment denial for the disorder, but application for waivers if developed while already enlisted, although a high chance for discharge should apply. You don't want people purposely denying it just to get a foot in the door. I would also agree with disqualification for combat. HOWEVER BUT... a pathway for appeal, waiver and exception should be available, much like the SI for FAA medical certification. There are cases where such a person is completely functional and not a risk.
Combat situations are a special case. By evolution, our species functions similar to the common chimpanzee, where males bond together to form hunting and raiding parties. It is NOT natural for females to be in these groups with only the lone occasional exception. Likewise for human war parties to include women and other non-male gender types goes against 2 million years of evolutionary social behavior. There is the occasional masculine female who can be accepted in such packs, which is why I agree with allowing an exception pathway, but not opening the doors to all by lowering standards.
If a woman or TG can pass all the same male standards, physical and psychological, and can be accepted by the group as a team member, they should be allowed to serve in combat. But combat is NOT the appropriate place to try the social experiment of trying to dilute war parties with a lot of estrogen.
-
Before we say that women should once again be removed from combat roles, it would need to be established that it reduces efficacy and readiness, right? Is that a given?
Obviously, women are different than men. And on the average, women are significantly less strong than men. But I do not think this fact means that adding eligibility to combat roles for half the population automatically reduces efficacy and readiness. It's a common comparison to make (women vs. men) for combat roles, but I think the conclusion is misplaced. I believe there is plenty for a woman to offer in combat, if they so desire to be involved, despite the fact they may not be able to lift as much as the dude next to them.
-
I wouldn't have a problem with trans in the military with one giant, glaring exception: NO elective surgery paid by the govt/armed forces budget. If a trans wants to get snipped, or tucked, or rounded, or shaped, or anything else as a member of the military, take it to a civilian MD, and also no federal funding for elective gender work. If you get shot, we will plug the hole(where you are shot), if you get blown up, we will repair what we can, if you get injured we will treat the injury. If a trans 'injures' themselves in a specific area of the body, then you are discharged for medical, and on your own.
As long as that UCMJ law is cast in stone, they can serve, and wear the appropriate uniform gender they choose.
-
...transgenderism is a medical disorder...
So, doctor, can you go into more detail on the nature of the physical impairments associated with transgenderism?
What studies exist that measured or otherwise confirmed these impairments?
If a person doesn't tell anyone their own sense of gender does not match their birth sex, what medical tests could be used to identify them as transgender?
-
Before we say that women should once again be removed from combat roles, it would need to be established that it reduces efficacy and readiness, right? Is that a given?
Obviously, women are different than men. And on the average, women are significantly less strong than men. But I do not think this fact means that adding eligibility to combat roles for half the population automatically reduces efficacy and readiness. It's a common comparison to make (women vs. men) for combat roles, but I think the conclusion is misplaced. I believe there is plenty for a woman to offer in combat, if they so desire to be involved, despite the fact they may not be able to lift as much as the dude next to them.
The limitations on women in combat have less to do with their strength and much more to do with chemistry. All the following are generalizations, and please don't bring on an exception to prove my point.
Women are far more likely to question or refuse, or argue, or hesitate an order. In the armed forces, in combat you can't have a situation develop where the chain of command is constantly or even regularly questioned. This leads to real problems under fire.
Women are also much more likely to fold in the face of relentless directed violence. In fact, we have classes to teach women to fight back in the face of force by men. Can this natural tendency be trained out of women? I'm not sure how much aggression and fighting spirit can be applied. I'm sure that the natural tendency toward timidity can be changed, but is that a reason to allow women in place of men for the purpose of equal rights/powers.
I've served with women, and found most of them to be great at staff, intel, and strategy implementation. Most women excel in other areas than combat. they tend to take a longer look at problems, and provide better contextual tactics based on the overall strategy of winning a war, by flexibility in tactics. Retaking hill 586 might sound like a great idea on the ground, in the mud, but when looked at from a larger picture, hill 586 may be meaningless, or if it is well occupied, going around, or past it, and mopping up later when they are cut off might be suitable. Men would just order another assault on hill 586, women would take a few more looks, and discover something that a man would typically miss.
-
Before we say that women should once again be removed from combat roles, it would need to be established that it reduces efficacy and readiness, right? Is that a given?
Obviously, women are different than men. And on the average, women are significantly less strong than men. But I do not think this fact means that adding eligibility to combat roles for half the population automatically reduces efficacy and readiness. It's a common comparison to make (women vs. men) for combat roles, but I think the conclusion is misplaced. I believe there is plenty for a woman to offer in combat, if they so desire to be involved, despite the fact they may not be able to lift as much as the dude next to them.
Please tell us more about your military experience and more importantly, your experience in a combat role?
-
Please tell us more about your military experience and more importantly, your experience in a combat role?
I played Doom a couple times....
-
Thoughts?
One time you made a case that I couldn't really argue with.
I think it was regarding was regarding abortions, or contraception or some other sexual issue.
Your point was that since we couldn't legislate nature (ie, young people are going to have sex) so we may as well deal with it.
How do we deal that in a combat situation? The kids in Mr. Rogers Neighborhood don't win wars. Aggressive, macho, testosterone laden soldiers win wars. This isn't summer camp.
-
The limitations on women in combat have less to do with their strength and much more to do with chemistry. All the following are generalizations, and please don't bring on an exception to prove my point.
Women are far more likely to question or refuse, or argue, or hesitate an order. In the armed forces, in combat you can't have a situation develop where the chain of command is constantly or even regularly questioned. This leads to real problems under fire.
Women are also much more likely to fold in the face of relentless directed violence. In fact, we have classes to teach women to fight back in the face of force by men. Can this natural tendency be trained out of women? I'm not sure how much aggression and fighting spirit can be applied. I'm sure that the natural tendency toward timidity can be changed, but is that a reason to allow women in place of men for the purpose of equal rights/powers.
I've served with women, and found most of them to be great at staff, intel, and strategy implementation. Most women excel in other areas than combat. they tend to take a longer look at problems, and provide better contextual tactics based on the overall strategy of winning a war, by flexibility in tactics. Retaking hill 586 might sound like a great idea on the ground, in the mud, but when looked at from a larger picture, hill 586 may be meaningless, or if it is well occupied, going around, or past it, and mopping up later when they are cut off might be suitable. Men would just order another assault on hill 586, women would take a few more looks, and discover something that a man would typically miss.
I don't know where you pulled that confusion from. It sounds more like idiots vs non-idiots making decisions, not gender superiority. BTW, this is one reason I didn't sign up for military service; I'd ask too many Socratic questions.
-
I played Doom a couple times....
Well, this puts you on equal footing with all the Dem candidates from 2016, and almost all the Rep candidates in 2016 prez election. Because, sure as hell, Clinton learned nothing as sec of state.
-
How do we deal that in a combat situation? The kids in Mr. Rogers Neighborhood don't win wars. Aggressive, macho, testosterone laden soldiers win wars. This isn't summer camp.
I'm sure he's got some "trigger time" on his Xbox......... :o
-
Well, this puts you on equal footing with all the Dem candidates from 2016, and almost all the Rep candidates in 2016 prez election. Because, sure as hell, Clinton learned nothing as sec of state.
She learned she could take money from the Saudi's, and China, in return for favors, and put it into the Clinton Foundation.
-
I don't know where you pulled that confusion from. It sounds more like idiots vs non-idiots making decisions, not gender superiority. BTW, this is one reason I didn't sign up for military service; I'd ask too many Socratic questions.
All my comments on any forum are my own thinking and come from experience, and reason. If you inferred 'gender superiority' from what I wrote you are sadly, and completely mistaken. Sorry it confused you. However, there is gender superiority in strength which I refuted as reasoning for women in combat roles from the post which I quoted. I would say, gender differentiation would be accurate, or perhaps alternative gender strengths and weaknesses, but I doubt you could ever find me referring to gender superiority.
I also asked a lot of socratic questions in the armed forces. There are two parts to Warrant Officer Candidate school. One part thrived on those questions, and the other part was dedicated to beating them out of the candidate. WFO? is a common acronym today. When I was in the military it stood for something entirely different; We Follow Orders.
Lastly, idiocy is not gender specific.
-
The limitations on women in combat have less to do with their strength and much more to do with chemistry. All the following are generalizations, and please don't bring on an exception to prove my point.
Women are far more likely to question or refuse, or argue, or hesitate an order. In the armed forces, in combat you can't have a situation develop where the chain of command is constantly or even regularly questioned. This leads to real problems under fire.
Women are also much more likely to fold in the face of relentless directed violence. In fact, we have classes to teach women to fight back in the face of force by men. Can this natural tendency be trained out of women? I'm not sure how much aggression and fighting spirit can be applied. I'm sure that the natural tendency toward timidity can be changed, but is that a reason to allow women in place of men for the purpose of equal rights/powers.
I've served with women, and found most of them to be great at staff, intel, and strategy implementation. Most women excel in other areas than combat. they tend to take a longer look at problems, and provide better contextual tactics based on the overall strategy of winning a war, by flexibility in tactics. Retaking hill 586 might sound like a great idea on the ground, in the mud, but when looked at from a larger picture, hill 586 may be meaningless, or if it is well occupied, going around, or past it, and mopping up later when they are cut off might be suitable. Men would just order another assault on hill 586, women would take a few more looks, and discover something that a man would typically miss.
I guess I would first ask whether you have sources for some of these assertions whether this is your anecdotal evidence?
Your point that women are naturally different from men is of course accurate. But then again, many men are different from other men, Including in areas such as strength, mental toughness, etc. We expect men entering the military to meet or exceed some minimum standard. If they don't, they are washed out.
So I think we should not be making a decision based on a comparison with men, but rather understanding whether women can meet a minimum standard that increases efficacy and readiness of the combat unit.
Since women are now allowed in combat roles, we should have some data from which to base our decisions. I am not however familiar with that data
-
I'm sure he's got some "trigger time" on his Xbox......... :o
Good one, gramps!
-
The military isn't for everyone, whether male, female, white, black, blue, straight or "mixed". That being said, it is true that the same mix of people have proved completely capable in one, or more, of the very different roles required in the military.
I am puzzled by the complete ban for transgender folks in the military, I can understand that certain people may or may not be suited to a particular role in the military, not at all clear why a complete ban is justified. If one wishes to serve, I think they should be given the chance so long as they meet the qualifications of the job.
Do agree that having the military pay for a sex change operation is out of bounds.
-
I guess I would first ask whether you have sources for some of these assertions whether this is your anecdotal evidence?
Already asked and answered. If I wanted to supplement my self-evidence based thoughts I guess I could, but a story will be better. Grab an armchair.
As a wee lad teen I found myself in the green uni with black boots, at a dusty spot in central TX with about 40 other just like me. Except, 4 were not just like me, they were of the female variety. As a new group usually does, we intermix into cliques with similar backgrounds and tastes, and generally made 'friends'. I was rather put-off that the four females kind of gathered together as a united front against the remaining male candidates, so I took an offensive position and barged into one of their coffee klatches. As we got to chatting, it turned out THEY had similar off-puttedness thinking that the males were excluding them, and making their own exclusive cliques without them in it. There was some truth to that, but being that I liked women, and I was perpetually horny as a teen, I saw it as my duty to, ahem - 'storm the beachhead'.
We progressed as all cadets do into training and as was typical we had washouts. About 20-25% of each group would wash out along the way for various reasons. We had a 'probation list' published each Tue which listed those who were not up to Military Standards, and I was on the list pretty regular. One of the women I befriended was a lot like me. We even had the same birthdate, however she was 2 years old than me. She also had some college behind her, and I barely had a few credits. Anyway, we both were somewhat bereft of military theory, but hey - we could fly, and we could shoot. We both got called in to the commander one day for a particularly lousy scores on some exam having to do with enfilade, or defilade, or mortar placement, or BS regurgitation from the Jr Officer Guide to Effective Use of Company Firepower. After the butt-chewing, he asked if either of us had anything to say. And she spoke words that could just as easily come out of my mouth, but she got to it first: "Sir - with all due respect, when it comes down to it, and you need some ordinance delivered, who do you want on the stick? Us, or Jeremy?" Now, this begs the question - who was Jeremy?
As I said, we had our washouts. Then we had a couple in the class who couldn't be washed out, and couldn't quite get the hang of things, and was all around a wothless POS, but no one knew what to do with them. Jeremy had already screwed up several times and several ways, just enough to stay in the program, but his pilotage, was horrible. He was sent back to a later flight several times, and always managed to work his way back to us, and he was the whipping boy for everyone. In spite of his giant head(his nickname was headly), he wasn't smart, he wasn't clever, he wasn't skilled, and he wasn't friendly. How he never washed out no one could understand, but what Becky said was sure as hell accurate. Our commander had no good comeback for that, and shooed us out of there with a warning that 'next time, your flight and training scores won't save you'. It was a hollow threat. We could bag it, and phone in the Military Theory from the Jr Officer Guide to Advancement Against a Fixed Position, as long as we could do the stick and rudder. And boy, could she fly! I soloed #5 in the class and she soloed #2(the 1 guy had civilian pilot experience). She was like a little machine behind the stick, it was - poetic.
We became fast friends, always platonic, but as we got to the end, I could see the differences emerging in our style, and outlook. Of course, the military always prided those who were aggressive, and always gung-ho. She was neither of these things. Two of the four women washed out, but one of them was allowed to join a class behind us, and eventually got through. Jeremy actually graduated, and went on to kill himself in a track vehicle about 3 years later. I have no idea what he was doing in a tracked vehicle, and where he got it, but there's some scuttlebutt he was helped under the tracks. Which is not a bad thing overall, because we all knew eventually he would wind up killing someone else, or himself and a group, or some other massive suffering. Becks told be about him in a letter as we were separated in different units.
Becks was a fine asset to every command she was in. She and I left the service a few months apart, and she's gone on to a great career in finance. We were so much the same, but so completely different at the same time. Similar attitudes, aptitudes, outlook, ideals, and history, but her approach to doing our job was completely different. Not better, not worse, not superior, not inferior, just with a different way of doing things.
Much later in my career, I worked for a women for about 9 years. She was a fine supervisor, she had some great ideas, and we got along famously. But - she did things just,,, different than how a man would do things. These two long term associations plus knowing a fair amount about the opposite gender provided the insight into what I described as differentiation by gender(or bio-chemistry), and how it shapes combat situations. We can't have indecision, socratic branch theory, and/or questioning authority in combat. This goes way back to Ghengis Khan, and possibly before. I would say it's part of genetic coding bias from male to female, but I don't know. I am sure that an army with women in combat roles would not be as effective unless they were in senior positions. But - getting to a senior combat command, requires that one go through jr combat first. Because there are surely unwritten lessons(a plan of battle never survives first contact with the enemy) that need to be experienced before senior command is reached.
-
So, doctor, can you go into more detail on the nature of the physical impairments associated with transgenderism?
What studies exist that measured or otherwise confirmed these impairments?
If a person doesn't tell anyone their own sense of gender does not match their birth sex, what medical tests could be used to identify them as transgender?
What in hell are you talking about? It is coded as a medical disorder everywhere except Denmark as far as I know. If you want to change that and make it not a medical disorder, then good luck with insurance paying for treatment. I wouldn't have a problem with that, but you can't have it both ways.
-
The gay mafia has weaponized transgender disorder because they got the homo wedding thing through the courts and needed a new made up outrage to keep the angry, unfulfilled, and delusional queer money flowing at previous amounts.
It's all,about money and because they have to have an outrage to keep the gay mafia lobby flush with cash, transgender is the current it.
Look no deeper.
It's all about the bucks.
-
The gay mafia has weaponized transgender disorder because they got the homo wedding thing through the courts and needed a new made up outrage to keep the angry, unfulfilled, and delusional queer money flowing at previous amounts.
It's all,about money and because they have to have an outrage to keep the gay mafia lobby flush with cash, transgender is the current it.
Look no deeper.
It's all about the bucks.
The media loves this stuff. They live to promote things that are really very small issues, and have no meaning to the vast majority of Americans. I don't even think most gays care about this crap.
-
The media loves this stuff. They live to promote things that are really very small issues, and have no meaning to the vast majority of Americans. I don't even think most gays care about this crap.
Correct.
Again, the alt left progressive movement is a very small group. The only reason we hear anything from them is the MSM is their mouthpiece.
-
Correct.
Again, the alt left progressive movement is a very small group. The only reason we hear anything from them is the MSM is their mouthpiece.
Yes, the media makes it seem like most of the country is liberal/progressive while the opposite is actually true. Hence, the Trump election. They want people to feel guilty for being conservative, or libertarian.
-
Yes, the media makes it seem like most of the country is liberal/progressive while the opposite is actually true. Hence, the Trump election. They want people to feel guilty for being conservative, or libertarian.
Exactly. It's a huge propaganda effort by the alt left progressives.
-
I enjoyed your story, and I thank you for your service.
I'm going to hold to my opinion. If women can meet or exceed a minimum military standard that we determine would allow value-added to combat regiments (and I believe such minimum standard can be found), then I see no problem allowing them in combat roles. This is no different than we expect of men, to meet or exceed a minimum standard to adequately function in the military unit.
Already asked and answered. If I wanted to supplement my self-evidence based thoughts I guess I could, but a story will be better. Grab an armchair.
As a wee lad teen I found myself in the green uni with black boots, at a dusty spot in central TX with about 40 other just like me. Except, 4 were not just like me, they were of the female variety. As a new group usually does, we intermix into cliques with similar backgrounds and tastes, and generally made 'friends'. I was rather put-off that the four females kind of gathered together as a united front against the remaining male candidates, so I took an offensive position and barged into one of their coffee klatches. As we got to chatting, it turned out THEY had similar off-puttedness thinking that the males were excluding them, and making their own exclusive cliques without them in it. There was some truth to that, but being that I liked women, and I was perpetually horny as a teen, I saw it as my duty to, ahem - 'storm the beachhead'.
We progressed as all cadets do into training and as was typical we had washouts. About 20-25% of each group would wash out along the way for various reasons. We had a 'probation list' published each Tue which listed those who were not up to Military Standards, and I was on the list pretty regular. One of the women I befriended was a lot like me. We even had the same birthdate, however she was 2 years old than me. She also had some college behind her, and I barely had a few credits. Anyway, we both were somewhat bereft of military theory, but hey - we could fly, and we could shoot. We both got called in to the commander one day for a particularly lousy scores on some exam having to do with enfilade, or defilade, or mortar placement, or BS regurgitation from the Jr Officer Guide to Effective Use of Company Firepower. After the butt-chewing, he asked if either of us had anything to say. And she spoke words that could just as easily come out of my mouth, but she got to it first: "Sir - with all due respect, when it comes down to it, and you need some ordinance delivered, who do you want on the stick? Us, or Jeremy?" Now, this begs the question - who was Jeremy?
As I said, we had our washouts. Then we had a couple in the class who couldn't be washed out, and couldn't quite get the hang of things, and was all around a wothless POS, but no one knew what to do with them. Jeremy had already screwed up several times and several ways, just enough to stay in the program, but his pilotage, was horrible. He was sent back to a later flight several times, and always managed to work his way back to us, and he was the whipping boy for everyone. In spite of his giant head(his nickname was headly), he wasn't smart, he wasn't clever, he wasn't skilled, and he wasn't friendly. How he never washed out no one could understand, but what Becky said was sure as hell accurate. Our commander had no good comeback for that, and shooed us out of there with a warning that 'next time, your flight and training scores won't save you'. It was a hollow threat. We could bag it, and phone in the Military Theory from the Jr Officer Guide to Advancement Against a Fixed Position, as long as we could do the stick and rudder. And boy, could she fly! I soloed #5 in the class and she soloed #2(the 1 guy had civilian pilot experience). She was like a little machine behind the stick, it was - poetic.
We became fast friends, always platonic, but as we got to the end, I could see the differences emerging in our style, and outlook. Of course, the military always prided those who were aggressive, and always gung-ho. She was neither of these things. Two of the four women washed out, but one of them was allowed to join a class behind us, and eventually got through. Jeremy actually graduated, and went on to kill himself in a track vehicle about 3 years later. I have no idea what he was doing in a tracked vehicle, and where he got it, but there's some scuttlebutt he was helped under the tracks. Which is not a bad thing overall, because we all knew eventually he would wind up killing someone else, or himself and a group, or some other massive suffering. Becks told be about him in a letter as we were separated in different units.
Becks was a fine asset to every command she was in. She and I left the service a few months apart, and she's gone on to a great career in finance. We were so much the same, but so completely different at the same time. Similar attitudes, aptitudes, outlook, ideals, and history, but her approach to doing our job was completely different. Not better, not worse, not superior, not inferior, just with a different way of doing things.
Much later in my career, I worked for a women for about 9 years. She was a fine supervisor, she had some great ideas, and we got along famously. But - she did things just,,, different than how a man would do things. These two long term associations plus knowing a fair amount about the opposite gender provided the insight into what I described as differentiation by gender(or bio-chemistry), and how it shapes combat situations. We can't have indecision, socratic branch theory, and/or questioning authority in combat. This goes way back to Ghengis Khan, and possibly before. I would say it's part of genetic coding bias from male to female, but I don't know. I am sure that an army with women in combat roles would not be as effective unless they were in senior positions. But - getting to a senior combat command, requires that one go through jr combat first. Because there are surely unwritten lessons(a plan of battle never survives first contact with the enemy) that need to be experienced before senior command is reached.
-
It's the generalizations that make this all a moot point. Every one of us knows incompetent people of every race and gender who could never be fit for combat. To disqualify all women from combat because some can't meet the same physical standards is ridiculous. But this thread isn't about that, it's about transgender.
I don't get the whole idea and never have nor will I ever be able to comprehend it. But again, that's not the topic. Really, the topic isn't even of having them in combat, but in the military at all. I had no idea there were 15000 already actively serving. Who'dathunk? I had no idea there were that many world-wide. If they're currently doing their jobs admirably I think it's just one more stupid action from an idiot president.
-
I had no idea there were that many world-wide. If they're currently doing their jobs admirably I think it's just one more stupid action from an idiot president.
Let's get more specific, it's just one more stupid action by the previous idiot president that is being undone. This came about because Hussein Obama wanted to burden our military with social experimentation. An ignorant and stupid policy that has no place within the military.
And let's be specific in this: The Alt Left Progressives could give a flying fuck less about our men and women in the military, and they could give a fuck less about trans gender. This is yet another faux outrage in a lame attempt to keep the progressives relative.
-
I agree that the military is NOT the place for social engineering experimentation, and it is also not the place to lower standards to get women into combat roles. That's not the mission at all. The mission is to defend the U.S, and blow up, and break things, and the enemy. That's it.
-
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
-
It's the generalizations that make this all a moot point. Every one of us knows incompetent people of every race and gender who could never be fit for combat. To disqualify all women from combat because some can't meet the same physical standards is ridiculous. But this thread isn't about that, it's about transgender.
I don't get the whole idea and never have nor will I ever be able to comprehend it. But again, that's not the topic. Really, the topic isn't even of having them in combat, but in the military at all. I had no idea there were 15000 already actively serving. Who'dathunk? I had no idea there were that many world-wide. If they're currently doing their jobs admirably I think it's just one more stupid action from an idiot president.
Believe it or not we have always had transgenders among us and it was never a big deal until the left grabbed it to use as a another victimized minority for their own power grabbing agenda. I have known transgenders living and working at any normal job and using any bathroom they want and after a little initial "that woman is a bit tall and has an Adam's apple" gossip everybody gets over it and life goes on. Yes there is genuine bigotry and persecution but it is a minority of individuals who cannot eventually accept a TG person and work with them. I'm disgusted with both the right and the left for even making this into a front page issue. The left forcing private businesses to bake cakes and the right trying to outlaw people from certain bathrooms. My god I'm a female who has been known to duck into the men's room when the ladies had a long line and now you want to criminalize using the wrong restroom?
Transgenderism is a small minority disorder and yes it is a disorder. Homosexuality is NOT a disorder. Humans are hard wired to love other humans and it is very unlikely anyone is 100% heterosexual or homo, just about everyone has at least a crumb of capacity to be attracted to the other side. Gays just have reverse proportions but it results in no impairment. TGs on the other hand have a mismatch between their chromosomal and hormonal gender and their psychological identification which results in massive problems and is associated with multiple co-morbidities.
One of the issues I have with the whole LBGT movement is that it lumps these all together and they are completely different, have nothing really to do with each other except they run in the same social circles because of same gender attraction. A male--->female TG desiring a man is NOT a gay man. It's a heterosexual woman in a body with a penis but they go to the gay bars because that's where they find acceptance.
I spent a good part of my youth in the LBGT culture (by happenstance because of a job but also because of a TG childhood friend.) To a man/woman, I found gays just ordinary people, no less mentally healthy or functional than anyone else. They had challenges yes such as family disowning them etc. but could handle them like anyone else handles such things. They'd get AIDS and die but handled it like anyone else dying young from a terminal disease. They are normal people because they are comfortable inside their own skin.
TGs on the other hand are not comfortable within their own skin and never were from earliest memory. This messes you up in ways nothing else does except severe and sustained childhood abuse (the only category of human I've known more screwed up than TGs.) It has no fix except medical intervention. I have never known a TG to come to peace except through reassignment surgery or suicide.
So it should be treated completely differently by the military than gays, who do not need medical treatment for their homosexuality. Transgenderism needs a whole lot more research to improve the reassignment process, it is still way too much in its infancy. TG needs to be treated compassionately as a disorder the person did not ask for and medicine still is not doing a great job of treating. The surgeries need a lot of improvement as well as the hormone therapies. A lot of research needs to be done to identify true TGs early and guard against pseudo transgenders. That is one of the biggest reasons the left and the LBGT activists really piss me off. By turning it into a popular news item the risk of very young non-TGs gaining attention by claiming gender confusion is high. This in turn hurts the TRUE child TG where early identification and intervention could make an incredibly better lifelong outcome.
-
According to a news report I just heard, trannies medical cost, as opposed to normal people, in the military is astronomical.
That cost is borne by producers and we should have a voice in how much more it costs to keep a tranny soldier as opposed to a normal person.
The mission of the military is not to coddle mentally ill trannies.
It is to kill the enemy and break their things as efficiently as possible.
-
I agree that the military is NOT the place for social engineering experimentation, and it is also not the place to lower standards to get women into combat roles. That's not the mission at all. The mission is to defend the U.S, and blow up, and break things, and the enemy. That's it.
Again, I think the comparison you're making is misplaced. Let me try an analogy to explain.
There will be a tug-of-war contest. The initial rules state that each side may choose 10 men from a group of 20 men. Each side decides to have a "boot camp" in order to whittle the group of 20 down to the 10 best for their team. The final 10 are likely the strongest, or sturdiest, or have a knack for pulling with leverage, etc. Now I surprise you with a new rule. Each side will be now be allowed to choose 5 women for their team from a group of 10 women.
Do you refuse to accept any women, with the reasoning that they're weaker than the men and that would be "lowering the standards of your team"? I don't think you would. You'd choose the best 5 women and have them join the team, because they add overall value despite having less brute strength than the men.
My thought process vis-à-vis women in combat roles is similar. You're telling me that we shouldn't allow women in combat roles because it would be "lowering the standards". And in comparison to the men, many women may very well be unable to meet or exceed the standards of the men at least as it relates to areas for which men are more biologically suited. But to proclaim that as the reason that women should be banned from combat roles would also be to suggest that women actually REDUCE the efficacy and readiness of the combat unit below that of a male-only group.
It's that latter contention that I do not believe to be the case.
-
Again, I think the comparison you're making is misplaced. Let me try an analogy to explain.
There will be a tug-of-war contest. The initial rules state that each side may choose 10 men from a group of 20 men. Each side decides to have a "boot camp" in order to whittle the group of 20 down to the 10 best for their team. The final 10 are likely the strongest, or sturdiest, or have a knack for pulling with leverage, etc. Now I surprise you with a new rule. Each side will be now be allowed to choose 5 women for their team from a group of 10 women.
Do you refuse to accept any women, with the reasoning that they're weaker than the men and that would be "lowering the standards of your team"? I don't think you would. You'd choose the best 5 women and have them join the team, because they add overall value despite having less brute strength than the men.
My thought process vis-à-vis women in combat roles is similar. You're telling me that we shouldn't allow women in combat roles because it would be "lowering the standards". And in comparison to the men, many women may very well be unable to meet or exceed the standards of the men at least as it relates to areas for which men are more biologically suited. But to proclaim that as the reason that women should be banned from combat roles would also be to suggest that women actually REDUCE the efficacy and readiness of the combat unit below that of a male-only group.
It's that latter contention that I do not believe to be the case.
I would choose the 5 best women, if they were in the top 10 of all 30 people. (20 men and 10 women).
My poor, unenlightened, old fashioned stereotypical gut tells me that there will never be 5 women in the top 10.
My guess is that if you had a pool of 1,000 men and 500, women, you "MAY" find one woman that would place in the to 10. And I don't think the cost of culling them is worth the value the small percentage will bring.
How about this? I would propose a "women's service" where women are trained for various duties. They undergo physical training and other appropriate skills training, like pilot, navigator, intelligence officer, technical specialties etc.
IF some of them stand out in a "man's" specialty (eg infantry or artillery), they can be encouraged to pursue further training in that area. (I suspect some, but not many will qualify).
That way, women are not put at a an immediate disadvantage or automatically disqualified.
But also, it will not be the waste of time that it is to accept a politically correct number of women and lower standards for them, only to have most of them wash out.
-
I would choose the 5 best women, if they were in the top 10 of all 30 people. (20 men and 10 women).
These are my rules, damnit! You don't get that choice. You get 10 men, and then you get to add 5 women unless you think staying with the 10 men is better than 15 total people including 5 women.
But I do get your point. I tend to look at the scenario as I have above, saying to myself - "we get access to the entire second half of the population in order to supplement our combat forces, and as long as that supplement of forces doesn't bring down the pre-supplement efficacy of the group, then hell yes I'll take the supplement".
Admittedly to your point, that's probably a simplistic view of it. We don't have unlimited combat slots or unlimited resources in the peacetime military.
-
These are my rules, damnit! You don't get that choice. You get 10 men, and then you get to add 5 women unless you think staying with the 10 men is better than 15 total people including 5 women.
Ok, I misunderstood your rules. But I have a question:
Does the other team have to abide by your rules?
If you say "yes" can you name any of our national adversaries that would abide by those rules? Or would they act like lions and just select the weakest of the enemy to capture and rape at will?
I don't like your rules.
-
If the President came out tomorrow in favor of mandatory military service for everyone I bet you would see an about face really fast from our progressive friends.
-
Ok, I misunderstood your rules. But I have a question:
Does the other team have to abide by your rules?
If you say "yes" can you name any of our national adversaries that would abide by those rules? Or would they act like lions and just select the weakest of the enemy to capture and rape at will?
I don't like your rules.
I don't like YOUR rules. If the next world war hits, I'll take all the best combat dudes PLUS the best combat dudettes, thank you very much.
-
If the President came out tomorrow in favor of mandatory military service for everyone I bet you would see an about face really fast from our progressive friends.
I don't see how it would be an about face since conscription is a different issue than allowing women in combat roles of a volunteer force.
-
If the President came out tomorrow in favor of mandatory military service for everyone I bet you would see an about face really fast from our progressive friends.
If I were King,
We would:
. Take care of the lame the sick and the infirm, including the elderly.
. Execute violent criminals
. Administer corporal punishment to "white collar" type crimes.
. Eliminate most laws against non violent, victimless crimes.
. Make quality education financially cheap, but academically rigorous
. Enhance apprenticeship type programs for skilled labor
Everyone (except the sick, infirm and elderly) would
. provide a couple of years of mandatory military service.
. pay taxes
Voting would be a privilege that would have to be earned by:
. paying taxes (any amount)
. demonstrating a knowledge of current issues and candidates.
-
I don't see how it would be an about face since conscription is a different issue than allowing women in combat roles of a volunteer force.
What would happen would be that liberals would all of a suddenly create a new class of victims that identify as non-military.
-
I don't see how it would be an about face since conscription is a different issue than allowing women in combat roles of a volunteer force.
You don't get it......so what else is new?
-
You don't get it......so what else is new?
Definitely not your propensity toward condescension and penis measuring contests!
-
Definitely not your propensity toward condescension and penis measuring contests!
Awww.............how clever! ;D
-
Awww.............how clever! ;D
I try.
-
Substituting "transgender" for "gay" in the following speech would seem to me would not upset Goldwater, were he still around:
From:http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/bulgarians/barry-goldwater.html (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/bulgarians/barry-goldwater.html)
Ban on Gays is Senseless Attempt to Stall the Inevitable
By Barry M. Goldwater
The following is a transcript of Barry Goldwater's commentary on the military gay ban that appeared this week in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.
After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn't exactly nothing, but it's pretty damned close
Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They'll still be serving long after we're all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.
But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country's economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services.
It's no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there's no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crasy, but then found that wasn't true. then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn't so-in fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan's man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, secretary of defense under President Bush, called it "a bit of an old chestnut"
When the facts lead to one conlusion, I say it's time to act, not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable.
Some in congress think I'm wrong. They say we absolutely must continue to discriminate, or all hell will break loose. Who knows, they say, perhaps our soldiers may even take up arms against each other.
Well, that's just stupid.
Years ago, I was a lieutenant in charge of an all-black unit. Military leaders at the time believed that blacks lacked leadership potential - period. That seems ridiculous now, as it should. Now, each and every man and woman who serves this nation takes orders from a black man - our own Gen. Colin Powell.
Nobody thought that blacks or women could ever be integrated into the military. Many thought that an all-volunteer force could never protect our national interest. Well, it has, and despite those who feared the worst - I among them - we are still the best and will continue to be.
The point is that decisions are always a lot easier to make in hindsight. but we seldom have that luxury. That's why the future of our country depends on leadership, and that's what we need now.
I served in the armed forces. I have flown more than 150 of the best fighter planes and bombers this country manufactured. I founded the Arizona National Guard. I chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I think it's high time to pull the curtains on this charade of policy.
What should undermine our readiness would be a compromise policy like "Don't ask, don't tell." That compromise doesn't deal with the issue - it tries to hide it.
We have wasted enough precious time, money and talent trying to persecute and pretend. It's time to stop burying our heads in the sand and denying reality for the sake of politics. It's time to deal with this straight on and be done with it. It's time to get on with more important business.
The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people's private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.
When you get down to it, no American able to serve should be allowed, much less given an excuse, not to serve his or her country. We need all our talent.
If I were in the Senate today, I would rise on the Senate floor in support of our commander in chief. He may be a Democrat, but he happens to be right on this question.
(Arizona Republican Barry M. Goldwater retired from the Senate in 1987)
-
Yes, the media makes it seem like most of the country is liberal/progressive while the opposite is actually true. Hence, the Trump election. They want people to feel guilty for being conservative, or libertarian.
Question: Why hasn't the invisible hand of the market taken care of the media bias?
-
Another question: Is it true that Russian women snipers in World War Two were VERY effective?
-
I enjoyed your story, and I thank you for your service.
I'm going to hold to my opinion. If women can meet or exceed a minimum military standard that we determine would allow value-added to combat regiments (and I believe such minimum standard can be found), then I see no problem allowing them in combat roles. This is no different than we expect of men, to meet or exceed a minimum standard to adequately function in the military unit.
No prob. I'm not a 'meets minimum standards' kind of guy. We can lower standards so that women will by physically strong enough to 'do the job' in most cases. There is still the physical limitations to deal with, but more important is the psychological makeup of women v men, where one isn't tested until they are actually 'tested'. Combat is a very, very poor place to work on our social conscience issues. If even one man in a squad dies as a result of a woman not carrying the weight(figuratively), that's one too many losses. What price progressive advancement? Your son? Not mine, no sir.
-
Question: Why hasn't the invisible hand of the market taken care of the media bias?
Because you have rich owners that supersede the market. AKA Jeff Bezos, Comcast, etc.
-
Question: Why hasn't the invisible hand of the market taken care of the media bias?
First, consider how dumb the average citizen is, and then remember that half the country is dumber than that. (Yeah, that is a joke, but I think it fits here).
Most of the citizenry, and thus the "invisible hand of the market" knows only what the media tells them. Can you honestly make the claim that the media is fair, honest and non-partisan? And can you make the claim that the media is evenly balanced in it's support of both political parties?
And even more importantly, do you agree with me that the media "should not" be partisan in either direction? I know all about "freedom of the press" and I am firmly in support of it. But that doesn't mean I think it is right when the media takes a strong partisan stand.
-
No prob. I'm not a 'meets minimum standards' kind of guy.
I'm confident that you are a "meet or exceed minimum standards" (which is what I said) kind of guy. This is what we ask of all members of the military. Some just barely meet it. Others rise far above it. But we would be unable to evaluate and wash out when appropriate without setting a minimum standard.
We can lower standards so that women will by physically strong enough to 'do the job' in most cases. There is still the physical limitations to deal with, but more important is the psychological makeup of women v men, where one isn't tested until they are actually 'tested'. Combat is a very, very poor place to work on our social conscience issues. If even one man in a squad dies as a result of a woman not carrying the weight(figuratively), that's one too many losses. What price progressive advancement? Your son? Not mine, no sir.
With deference to the fact that you served and I didn't, your anecdotes have not convinced me that adding women to combat forces is a detriment. Many men entering the military have limitations that are not conducive to combat. The process is designed to train those limitations away, or harden them to overcome those limitations, or to wash them out if it is determined they are not able to surmount those limitations. Why is a similar process suddenly unable to be successful for evaluating women for a combat role? And further, what if the addition of man-power (woman-power?) would have saved the life of another in combat? What price for refusing to allow women to contribute? Your son?
Like I said before, if we go to war, I'll take the best male AND female warriors.
-
Question: Why hasn't the invisible hand of the market taken care of the media bias?
Because corporations are willing to continue to subsidize the progressive media at the expense of stckholders, at least for the tie being. ABC, CBS, NBC and Time Warner all carry the weight to promote the lame stream agenda..
-
So the free market should prevail when it comes to healthcare. But not for running media companies?
I say that half in jest. I really don't care about media companies being part of a free market. It's not like a person of any intelligence doesn't know bias when they see it. No one here complains about foxnews's bias, but it's as obvious as huffpo's bias the other direction. For the most part I avoid minor political stuff. I'll glance at the headlines for major things, like this and may read a few. The thing is, I read a number of news sites with slants every which direction and figure the major points they all have in common come somewhere close to reality.
I don't read articles about Clinton or Obama because it's history. They haven't been relevant for some time now, so I'm looking for articles germane to today's situations and what's likely to happen tomorrow. I don't want much in the way of politics either. I want to know what's going on across the globe in business, in crime, in interesting trivial news too, things like the football player who's quitting to finish his Phd in math. It's fun to know the world is telling Kaepernick he's irrelevant.
Yahoo news is one of my favorites because the articles are so diverse, but I know almost all the articles are written by people with no credentials and little education. There are brain-dead people here who clamor for pure and unbiased news, as if it ever existed. It's all slanted to some degree.
-
deleted
-
^^^^You're just a far left loon.
Eh, you and your jerk-off buddy luci are transgender morons, so I figure it evens out.
-
Eh, you and your jerk-off buddy luci are transgender morons, so I figure it evens out.
Oh wow, so the secret is out?
;D
-
Oh wow, so the secret is out?
Wait a minute, I thought you liberal progressives were all for the LGBT and transgender types, that you now view them as your new minority that needs your understanding and protection?
-
I'm confident that you are a "meet or exceed minimum standards" (which is what I said) kind of guy. This is what we ask of all members of the military. Some just barely meet it. Others rise far above it. But we would be unable to evaluate and wash out when appropriate without setting a minimum standard.
With deference to the fact that you served and I didn't, your anecdotes have not convinced me that adding women to combat forces is a detriment.
Your confidence is misplaced. As for service, I don't dismiss your POV just because of our difference in background. Anyway, it never mattered what I wrote, you have your position, badly mistaken as it is, nothing is going to sway you from it. Progressivism will be advanced, sacrifices will be made, and as long as you aren't doing the sacrificing, it's all good.
-
Your confidence is misplaced. As for service, I don't dismiss your POV just because of our difference in background. Anyway, it never mattered what I wrote, you have your position, badly mistaken as it is, nothing is going to sway you from it. Progressivism will be advanced, sacrifices will be made, and as long as you aren't doing the sacrificing, it's all good.
Don't feel bad. Anecdote often fails to sway my position. And your last sentence is out of line.
PS - I will search for some studies on women in combat roles and see what I find.
-
. And your last sentence is out of line.
No it's not. It follows the progressive mantra.
-
Not saying this about anyone here, but I do think that many liberal/progressives are of a mindset of do as I say, not as I do. Also, they are quick to commit other people's money for their pet, feel good causes, especially when they don't have any skin in the game. So, I think invflatspin's sentence is valid.
-
No it's not. It follows the progressive mantra.
Yes it is. I am not a Progressive, and the post specifically mentions me, and that I'm ok with sacrifice as long as it's not mine. Bullshit.
-
Yes it is. I am not a Progressive, and the post specifically mentions me, and that I'm ok with sacrifice as long as it's not mine. Bullshit.
Here's your playdough and here's your coloring book. We'll bring a puppy in for you later. ;)
-
Here's your playdough and here's your coloring book. We'll bring a puppy in for you later. ;)
I already have a puppy:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/89/0b/c2/890bc2930bd4145c06cf713b85f67095.jpg)
-
I find a plethora of articles on Yahoo news that come from huffpo, which is nothing but a link driving site. Their far left agenda is used to drive web traffic at the expense of journalism.
I pretty much ignore FOXNEWS on the web because their site is ugly.
Drudge is often my first stop. I like the diversity of submissions and can ignore the ones that are clearly progressive pablum and stupidity. Having a one-stop for all those columnists is a great feature on Drudge.
-
Copied verbatim from my other trans thread. If you read it there, no need to read it here:
While the topic got derailed with women in the military, I had some more thoughts on trans in the military.
One of the bigger problems with military life is the level of constant stress, not from any combat situation, as most of the armed forces life style is sitting around waiting for the bubble to burst. There is a lot of down time, a lot of training, a lot of competition, a lot of knicky-nack stuff like backstabbing and game-playing with people's heads. If you ever read East of Eden, you kinda know what I mean.
It's common for those in the armed forces to form weird bonds. It's also common for soldiers, sailors and Marines to pick on people with an obvious outlier. I mentioned Jeremy in the prev thread, and in this thread I will mention another guy. In fact, I think it was the progeny for a character in a later TV show called the A-team. We had this guy in our unit, and he was the best looking man I had ever seen. I mean, he was movie-star knockout pretty. Of course, we called him 'face'. We called him 'face' right to his face, and he took it in stride, and was fine with it. No one made a stink over it, he was good looking, he knew it, we knew it, and more than once I'd say, "hey face, lets go down to the club this friday, I'll take your leftovers". He'd roll his eyes and grin and tell me to 'fuck off, sparks'(I was an electronics tech briefly before flying), which is exactly what he was supposed to say, and no one minded a bit.
Into this camaraderie, and far more-so in a combat company, where everyone who is a bit out of the ordinary gets a pseudonym, or nickname with their character flaw, we want to inject a trans person. They are forever going to be know, either behind their back, or to their face as 'tranny' or 'gears' or 'skirt' or 'dyke'(yes, I know) or 'butch' or a billion other derivations. The command can't and won't stop it for once simple reason; In its typical iteration, this stuff enhances esprit de corps and advances the concept of a tight fighting unit.
Should the situation ever arise, when I had to protect, and defend 'face' I was more than willing to step up, and I know for a fact he would do the same for me. I don't want to use the trite 'band of brothers' but in a very unique way, it fits. This is the reality of a small band of men, in a situation where lives are at stake.
As I said, most of the time the armed forces are sitting around, doing very little. The infantry does field drills, the arty does sim drills to lob shells, the pilots do practice approaches, and dummy fire, and live fire exercises. The cooks cook, the motor pool fixes trucks, and there's plenty of time for what is euphemistically called 'grab-ass'. Very little time is spent with a rifle full of real bullets. But -- and it's a big however, when the guys get locked and loaded, we don't want, and can't have someone in ranks that is more likely a powder-keg of emotions.
It's a fact that the trans community suffers a far, far greater level of mental health issues. This is proofed by the sky high incidence of suicide in the trans community. Even ignoring the suicide risk, there are the other risks involved in a microcosm of guys who have been blowing off steam for weeks, months maybe years who now have a loaded rifle. Is it payback time? Are there scores to be settled? Are we going to hand a high powered rifle, or a clutch of grenades to someone who has a perpetual chip on their shoulder?
More than likely, it won't amount to anything. In most cases, I'm sure the trans will do the job, take care of biz, protect his unit and his fellows in the trench. But - adding to the stress level of combat, we want to now place social outcasts into that mix?
There's the other side of the equation as well. Suppose some of the men are not as 'enlightened' as our erstwhile progressive? It may come as a bit of a shock, but by and large the armed forces are a pretty socially and morally conservative lot. If 'tranny' is given a task to blow a bridge, lead a platoon to take a hill, to effectively provide covering arty for an advance, and people are relying on them - are the people around, or below going to have the same level of trust and duty and honor? Surely hypothetical but this is the reasoning behind the generals advising Trump. Our best effort does not include risking the objective(or the ultimate goal) with social misfits leading men into battle, or even commanding men in non-battle.
Finally, I have to ask myself, if it were 'face' who was promoted to captain, or if it was 'tranny' promoted to captain, and they were to lead my company - which would I respect, and follow orders from with greater zeal? Better spirit? Higher code of honor? I have to think on it some more, but it's one of those socratic questions that we can't afford to ask in the armed forces. We have a job to do, and anything that diverges from that goal might put US armed forces in jeopardy is something I can't abide.
-
Yes it is. I am not a Progressive, and the post specifically mentions me, and that I'm ok with sacrifice as long as it's not mine. Bullshit.
For a non-progressive, you have the ideology and viewpoint of every prog ever born in the world. It's like a non-conformist saying they are a non-conformist, which conforms to the norm of non-conformity. If you haven't been able to follow the logic, suffice to say that an actual non-conformist would never state they were such. Ergo one who defines them-self as a non-progressive...
-
I find a plethora of articles on Yahoo news that come from huffpo, which is nothing but a link driving site. Their far left agenda is used to drive web traffic at the expense of journalism.
I pretty much ignore FOXNEWS on the web because their site is ugly.
Drudge is often my first stop. I like the diversity of submissions and can ignore the ones that are clearly progressive pablum and stupidity. Having a one-stop for all those columnists is a great feature on Drudge.
That's the ugliest damn dog I have ever seen.
And your kid there on the left is just as ugly.
-
For a non-progressive, you have the ideology and viewpoint of every prog ever born in the world. It's like a non-conformist saying they are a non-conformist, which conforms to the norm of non-conformity. If you haven't been able to follow the logic, suffice to say that an actual non-conformist would never state they were such. Ergo one who defines them-self as a non-progressive...
I have a great idea. Instead of pretending you know me, despite your relative youth in this forum and your scant exposure to my viewpoints, why don't you actually get to know me? I use my real name here. I live in Oldsmar, FL. I've got a spare room. You're welcome to come over. We'll work on the bike, or the jet ski. The beer is on me. And I know a great restaurant in Tampa.
-
That's the ugliest damn dog I have ever seen.
And your kid there on the left is just as ugly.
I think your forum quoting skills have failed. But anyway, you're damn right my dog is ugly!
-
I think your forum quoting skills have failed. But anyway, you're damn right my dog is ugly!
Sometimes I accidentally quote or delete things I didn't mean to and didn't know I did and wonder how they got that way.
-
Here's an idea for those that want both women and transgender's in the military:
Only women that have undergoing transgender surgery, and can meet all other minimum standards, can be admitted. That would be a "two-fer". And it would fix a lot of other problems too, like separate bathrooms and unwanted pregnancies.
-
Here's an idea for those that want both women and transgender's in the military:
Only women that have undergoing transgender surgery, and can meet all other minimum standards, can be admitted. That would be a "two-fer". And it would fix a lot of other problems too, like separate bathrooms and unwanted pregnancies.
The military does a pretty good job of hiding the problems women cause in the armed forces. There are lots of pregnancies, and other issues created that they cover up. From what I have heard from some guys, it is a total freak show.
-
I have a great idea. Instead of pretending you know me, despite your relative youth in this forum and your scant exposure to my viewpoints, why don't you actually get to know me? I use my real name here. I live in Oldsmar, FL. I've got a spare room. You're welcome to come over. We'll work on the bike, or the jet ski. The beer is on me. And I know a great restaurant in Tampa.
I"m lucky to be able to search and read more than 1.5 years of your posts, and I took the liberty before posting my opinion in your thread. It was - enlightening. I don't get down to FL often, been more than 6 years, but if I find myself passing by, I'll let you know. Beer is my siren song. As for being a progressive, it's not a pejorative, it's just a label. I'm more or less an anarchist, or I don't mind so much an alt-right(although not sure I know what that really is). I think it you looked at your op-ed in the past 1.5 years of posts, and then looked at the idiomatic theme going on, it would be pretty self-evident.
-
The military does a pretty good job of hiding the problems women cause in the armed forces. There are lots of pregnancies, and other issues created that they cover up. From what I have heard from some guys, it is a total freak show.
It depends on the command. I don't know if you are old enough but if not you can google 'tail-hook scandal'. Might be an extreme example, but some commands are loose, and some are tight. There are also plenty of women in the military who are looking for a husband. The ones who are motivated by the same thing as the men, are fine. The ones who are motivated by other interests, thinking that they will find their calling in uniform, typically don't fare well.
-
I"m lucky to be able to search and read more than 1.5 years of your posts, and I took the liberty before posting my opinion in your thread. It was - enlightening. I don't get down to FL often, been more than 6 years, but if I find myself passing by, I'll let you know. Beer is my siren song. As for being a progressive, it's not a pejorative, it's just a label. I'm more or less an anarchist, or I don't mind so much an alt-right(although not sure I know what that really is). I think it you looked at your op-ed in the past 1.5 years of posts, and then looked at the idiomatic theme going on, it would be pretty self-evident.
I have my doubts that you reviewed a year and a half of my posts (and a bummer than the old POA SpinZone posts went poof). But let's just take some specific issues. How many Progressives do you know who want significant welfare reform; who are willing to implement voter ID if it's part of a compromise; who didn't vote for Bernie in the primaries or Hillary in the general; who do not believe we need more gun control?
I certainly have my far-left views, substantially on social issues, but suffice it to say your simplistic labeling doesn't work in the instant case.
-
I have my doubts that you reviewed a year and a half of my posts (and a bummer than the old POA SpinZone posts went poof). But let's just take some specific issues. How many Progressives do you know who want significant welfare reform; who are willing to implement voter ID if it's part of a compromise; who didn't vote for Bernie in the primaries or Hillary in the general; who do not believe we need more gun control?
I certainly have my far-left views, substantially on social issues, but suffice it to say your simplistic labeling doesn't work in the instant case.
I think he was trying to pay you a compliment.
Maybe I'm wrong.
-
I certainly have my far-left views, substantially on social issues, but suffice it to say your simplistic labeling doesn't work in the instant case.
I didn't come up with the label description or ideology, I'm just calling a spade a fucking shovel. So you might not be a Huey Long, Alinsky, or Marg Sanger. If you like, I'll amend it: prog-lite? Mini-prog? psuedo-prog? You can call me a neo-con, or racist, misogynist if you like.
-
I didn't come up with the label description or ideology, I'm just calling a spade a fucking shovel. So you might not be a Huey Long, Alinsky, or Marg Sanger. If you like, I'll amend it: prog-lite? Mini-prog? psuedo-prog? You can call me a neo-con, or racist, misogynist if you like.
I try to stay away from labeling those I debate with. Because labels fucking suck. Since you don't use your real name here, I'll call you invflatspin. You can label me whatever you'd like, but I'm not afraid to run my mouth if I don't like it. So at least we'll have something to keep it lively.
-
It has come to my attention that the DOD spends about $40 mil on Viagra every year. While this might seem like a serious double standard, vis-a-vis the cost of trans gender surgery, I can say that a doze of Viagra helps all parties(if they are doing it right). Further, I would prefer to stop spending the $40 mil on viagra for the DOD, and put that money somewhere else, rather than increase DOD med spending for the trans folk.
-
It has come to my attention that the DOD spends about $40 mil on Viagra every year. While this might seem like a serious double standard, vis-a-vis the cost of trans gender surgery, I can say that a doze of Viagra helps all parties(if they are doing it right). Further, I would prefer to stop spending the $40 mil on viagra for the DOD, and put that money somewhere else, rather than increase DOD med spending for the trans folk.
$42 million on Viagra and another $23 million annually on Cialis. The estimated DOD medical costs for transgendered folks is between $2.4 and $8.4 million annually. Military annual health care budget is $48 billion a year. The so-called "tremendous medical cost" of allowing transgendered folks is practically a rounding error.
Source: http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/28/there-arent-tremendous-medical-costs-for (http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/28/there-arent-tremendous-medical-costs-for)
By the way - how many here have actually met someone who identifies as transgendered?
Most of you are unlikely to, since they are few in number.
I've met openly gay and lesbian - but no openly transgendered.
-
$42 million on Viagra and another $23 million annually on Cialis. The estimated DOD medical costs for transgendered folks is between $2.4 and $8.4 million annually. Military annual health care budget is $48 billion a year. The so-called "tremendous medical cost" of allowing transgendered folks is practically a rounding error.
Source: http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/28/there-arent-tremendous-medical-costs-for (http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/28/there-arent-tremendous-medical-costs-for)
By the way - how many here have actually met someone who identifies as transgendered?
Most of you are unlikely to, since they are few in number.
I've met openly gay and lesbian - but no openly transgendered.
20-30 years ago I heard the same thing about gays. Nobody could believe the reports that greater than 10% of the population is gay because NOBODY knew any gays. Then someone opened the closet door.
The medical cost of transgenders may be low today, but open the door to routine tranny surgery and think what might happen? Those surgeries are a lot more expensive than routine stuff lie birthing and separate toilets.
-
So we open the door for transgender in the military. Bobby decides to join, then after basic training he decides he wants to be a woman and starts the process. He goes through the whole gender reassignment procedure, paid for by the government (big $$$).
Again, can someone please explain why the military, better yet, the tax payers, should be stuck with this bill?
-
Because.... racism.
-
$42 million on Viagra and another $23 million annually on Cialis.
Do we know why Viagra is being prescribed? It has other uses such as treating pulmonary hypertension, altitude sickness, heart disease, and stroke. It was originally developed to treat hypertension and angina. Cialis is also used for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia and hypertension. While we know how much is being spent on the drugs, we don't know what they are being prescribed for.
-
$42 million on Viagra and another $23 million annually on Cialis. The estimated DOD medical costs for transgendered folks is between $2.4 and $8.4 million annually. Military annual health care budget is $48 billion a year. The so-called "tremendous medical cost" of allowing transgendered folks is practically a rounding error.
Source: http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/28/there-arent-tremendous-medical-costs-for (http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/28/there-arent-tremendous-medical-costs-for)
By the way - how many here have actually met someone who identifies as transgendered?
Most of you are unlikely to, since they are few in number.
I've met openly gay and lesbian - but no openly transgendered.
Thank you for the more accurate numbers. As for the cost of gender reassignment, why don't we go the other way, and not include these non-essential costs, like viagra and gender bending? If your numbers are accurate, what I see is a way to save $70-80 mil, rather than start spending more for something completely unnecessary to the effective fighting force. This is the kind of stuff that drives me crazy, and why we have a multi-trillion dollar debt. Cut, cut, cut.
Yes, I have known a trans before. We were not good friends, but then again I'm not good friends with many folks anyway. Nice enough person, but he/she certainly had some issues. Would I want to give them a loaded rifle, and 6 grenades? Oh - hell - no.
-
When we sign a contract to military service health care is a part of that contract. I can see Viagra as something covered under that contract but have a hard time seeing gender reassignment as a necessity.
-
So we open the door for transgender in the military. Bobby decides to join, then after basic training he decides he wants to be a woman and starts the process. He goes through the whole gender reassignment procedure, paid for by the government (big $$$).
Again, can someone please explain why the military, better yet, the tax payers, should be stuck with this bill?
Think of the chillllllldrennnnn.
-
When we sign a contract to military service health care is a part of that contract. I can see Viagra as something covered under that contract but have a hard time seeing gender reassignment as a necessity.
Think of the people that will sign up for military service for no other reason than to get several hundred thousands of dollars of free "gender reassignment" surgeries.
-
I decided to revive this thread because an interesting tidbit of data has come our way. It's not getting a lot of attention.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/candidate-to-be-first-female-navy-seal-officer-quits-after-a-week-report/article/2631205
Never having been through SEAL training, I can't imagine how tough it is. Certainly men wash out of it as well.