Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Dark_Grey

US SC Approves Ban on Trans in Military

210 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Earl.Of.Trumps
8 hours ago, and then said:

That's how he rolls.  Most people who serve don't throw it up in other's faces as much as he tends to do.  I sincerely respect anyone who serves honorably but that doesn't give their opinions added weight for me.

What can I tell ya, and then?   I guess some people want to "strut their stuff". The guy was military...? Good, I thank him for serving.  And no, his opinion gets equal weight...

Unless he's a she :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

I think when you're talking about a community with a 40% suicide rate wanting to enter a job that ends with a higher than average suicide rate then at the very least they should have to undergo a more rigorous psychological evaluation before being allowed in.  I'm not necessarily for outright banning them, they should be taken at a case by case basis.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
19 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

He (trump) totally blindsided the Joint Chiefs of Staff with his transgender ban.

Do you think that Obama did that when he made the decision to allow them in?  As I recall the military were not jumping for joy at the time.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Do you think that Obama did that when he made the decision to allow them in?  As I recall the military were not jumping for joy at the time.

He may have, but to his credit he didn't do it via Twitter. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
28 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I think when you're talking about a community with a 40% suicide rate wanting to enter a job that ends with a higher than average suicide rate then at the very least they should have to undergo a more rigorous psychological evaluation before being allowed in.  I'm not necessarily for outright banning them, they should be taken at a case by case basis.

+1
The desire to drastically alter your physical appearance through surgery is usually indicative of deeper issues. Whether we are talking about heavy cosmetic surgery or trans surgery. Couple that with a high stress, high consequence environment...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Careful_perspective

I think Trey Gowdy put it very well:

Nobody has a “right” to serve in the Military. Nobody. What makes people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer? Very far from it.

The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short. Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers. Poor eyesight will disqualify you, as well as bad teeth. Malnourished? Drug addiction? Bad back? Criminal history? Low IQ? Anxiety? Phobias? Hearing damage? Six arms? Hear voices in your head? Self-identify as a Unicorn? Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair? Can’t run the required course in the required time? Can’t do the required number of pushups? Not really a “morning person” and refuse to get out of bed before noon? All can be reasons for denial. The Military has one job. War. Anything else is a distraction and a liability. Did someone just scream “That isn’t Fair”? War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful. YOU change yourself to meet Military standards.. Not the other way around. I say again: You don’t change the Military… you must change yourself. The Military doesn’t need to accommodate anyone with special issues. The Military needs to Win Wars. If any of your personal issues are a liability that detract from readiness or lethality… Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors. Who’s next in line?

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, Careful_perspective said:

I think Trey Gowdy put it very well:

Nobody has a “right” to serve in the Military. Nobody. What makes people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer? Very far from it.

The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short. Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers. Poor eyesight will disqualify you, as well as bad teeth. Malnourished? Drug addiction? Bad back? Criminal history? Low IQ? Anxiety? Phobias? Hearing damage? Six arms? Hear voices in your head? Self-identify as a Unicorn? Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair? Can’t run the required course in the required time? Can’t do the required number of pushups? Not really a “morning person” and refuse to get out of bed before noon? All can be reasons for denial. The Military has one job. War. Anything else is a distraction and a liability. Did someone just scream “That isn’t Fair”? War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful. YOU change yourself to meet Military standards.. Not the other way around. I say again: You don’t change the Military… you must change yourself. The Military doesn’t need to accommodate anyone with special issues. The Military needs to Win Wars. If any of your personal issues are a liability that detract from readiness or lethality… Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors. Who’s next in line?

Your point would be more relevant if the military were the ones who had made the decision to not allow trans folks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Careful_perspective

 

 

8 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Your point would be more relevant if the military were the ones who had made the decision to not allow trans folks.

 

The Military Serves the people and the nation. The nation and its people are served by the three branches of government. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
28 minutes ago, Careful_perspective said:

I think Trey Gowdy put it very well:

Nobody has a “right” to serve in the Military. Nobody. What makes people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer? Very far from it.

The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short. Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers. Poor eyesight will disqualify you, as well as bad teeth. Malnourished? Drug addiction? Bad back? Criminal history? Low IQ? Anxiety? Phobias? Hearing damage? Six arms? Hear voices in your head? Self-identify as a Unicorn? Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair? Can’t run the required course in the required time? Can’t do the required number of pushups? Not really a “morning person” and refuse to get out of bed before noon? All can be reasons for denial. The Military has one job. War. Anything else is a distraction and a liability. Did someone just scream “That isn’t Fair”? War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful. YOU change yourself to meet Military standards.. Not the other way around. I say again: You don’t change the Military… you must change yourself. The Military doesn’t need to accommodate anyone with special issues. The Military needs to Win Wars. If any of your personal issues are a liability that detract from readiness or lethality… Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors. Who’s next in line?

I think I may have a small crush on you at the moment.  :wub:  You're kind of a reasonable baddass.

Edited by OverSword
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
14 hours ago, aztek said:

 

so when it is about diabetics, it is fine, when another person brings same point about trans, you attack him, and question his degree of being an american, (he was not even talking about trans being unamerican, why the hell did you even bring it up?  lamo. a desperate laughable attempt of s shill, to throw some more sht around, 

You don't have insulin, you die.  You miss a hormone injection, you don't die.  That is NOWHERE near the same point.  It is disrespectful for him to assume how someone who volunteered to go to war would react to such a scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
12 hours ago, and then said:

That's how he rolls.  Most people who serve don't throw it up in other's faces as much as he tends to do.  I sincerely respect anyone who serves honorably but that doesn't give their opinions added weight for me.

LOL, nowhere in my post did I even say I served in the military...so yea.  That's how I roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Your point would be more relevant if the military were the ones who had made the decision to not allow trans folks.

 

And who leads the military?  The Commander in Chief.   THat was Commander Obama that let the transes in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MWoo7

Well-- that's a wrap, I might have a crush on the Earl except he's a bigfoot.

I don't get why the BRIT twits jump on the mighty orange trumpet so much-- if Canada or some country started constantly ragging on the Queen they'd never hear the end of it- might even be all out war.

Liked this bit : D 

3 hours ago, OverSword said:

 . . . crush on you at the moment.  :wub:  You're kind of a reasonable baddass.

Edited by MWoo7
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
2 hours ago, Careful_perspective said:

I think Trey Gowdy put it very well:

Nobody has a “right” to serve in the Military. Nobody. What makes people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer? Very far from it.

The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short. Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers. Poor eyesight will disqualify you, as well as bad teeth. Malnourished? Drug addiction? Bad back? Criminal history? Low IQ? Anxiety? Phobias? Hearing damage? Six arms? Hear voices in your head? Self-identify as a Unicorn? Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair? Can’t run the required course in the required time? Can’t do the required number of pushups? Not really a “morning person” and refuse to get out of bed before noon? All can be reasons for denial. The Military has one job. War. Anything else is a distraction and a liability. Did someone just scream “That isn’t Fair”? War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful. YOU change yourself to meet Military standards.. Not the other way around. I say again: You don’t change the Military… you must change yourself. The Military doesn’t need to accommodate anyone with special issues. The Military needs to Win Wars. If any of your personal issues are a liability that detract from readiness or lethality… Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors. Who’s next in line?

You're confusing prejudice with criteria. There's a difference.

It's once thing to reject an individual for not meeting qualification criteria, another to reject them for who they are. Furthermore, studies have shown that transgender military personnel report few mental and physical health problems, so any presumption that they are unfit to serve due to their mental or physical health, is ill-informed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim

I heard a routine story about this on the local network news today. I was barely paying attention until the news reader used the phrase "assigned gender" to describe the way a person is born.  It brought to mind the image of the doctor arbitrarily stamping the baby's bottom with either an M or an F.  I was no more "assigned" a gender than I was assigned 10 toes.  People are born male or female or in rare cases, hermaphrodite.  How you feel about that later in life is all in your head, the same as any other feelings.  But this subtle corruption of the language is a deliberate attempt to blur physical reality.  By verbally equating it with "assigned seating" they are condoning and trying to persuade the masses that changing one's gender is simple and normal, like requesting a different table in a restaurant.  The way we are born is simple and normal.  There are physical qualities and social expectations that are intrinsic in either one.  Changing your mind doesn't change your innate physical abilities or years of social conditioning.  A few year stint in the military, possibly under extreme duress, is not the time or place to be dealing with such intimate personal issues.  If you're not satisfied with the way you were born you will probably find a lot about military life that you're not satisfied with either.  Who needs the hassle?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'Walt' E. Kurtz

Trump is not being very tactical here, I think they should be allowed in the US army. I would definitely run if i saw an army of trans !!!! That is indeed a very scary tought  but hey what ever rows your boat . OK now im going to be serious anyone who has the physical and psycological plus the intelligense which they require should be able to join even if you like to dress up in drag...

Edited by Impedancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
1 hour ago, Big Jim said:

I heard a routine story about this on the local network news today. I was barely paying attention until the news reader used the phrase "assigned gender" to describe the way a person is born.  It brought to mind the image of the doctor arbitrarily stamping the baby's bottom with either an M or an F.  I was no more "assigned" a gender than I was assigned 10 toes.  People are born male or female or in rare cases, hermaphrodite.  How you feel about that later in life is all in your head, the same as any other feelings.  But this subtle corruption of the language is a deliberate attempt to blur physical reality.  By verbally equating it with "assigned seating" they are condoning and trying to persuade the masses that changing one's gender is simple and normal, like requesting a different table in a restaurant.  The way we are born is simple and normal.  There are physical qualities and social expectations that are intrinsic in either one.  Changing your mind doesn't change your innate physical abilities or years of social conditioning.  A few year stint in the military, possibly under extreme duress, is not the time or place to be dealing with such intimate personal issues.  If you're not satisfied with the way you were born you will probably find a lot about military life that you're not satisfied with either.  Who needs the hassle?

And yet thousands of transgender individuals have served, or are serving, in the military without problem. Go figure.

The American Medical Association, by the way, states there is no medical rationale for excluding transgender people from openly serving in the military. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
16 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

And yet thousands of transgender individuals have served, or are serving, in the military without problem. Go figure.

The American Medical Association, by the way, states there is no medical rationale for excluding transgender people from openly serving in the military. 

That may be, but as others have pointed out there may be military reasons for not allowing them.  The military is not like the Boy Scouts, where one joins to benefit oneself.  A person joins to benefit the military, and by extension, the country.  So the military gets to decide who suits their purpose, not the other way around.  As Commander in Chief, the President can direct the military as he sees fit, with neither explanation or apology.  I've never been in the military but I've had bosses I haven't agreed with.  My choice was to conform or find another job.  This is no different.  An old saying kept me on track. "The boss isn't always right, but he's always the boss".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
2 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

 

It's once thing to reject an individual for not meeting qualification criteria, another to reject them for who they are

Kittens, it has been explained, they are being rejected by criteria.

Did you know at one time flat feet would keep you out of the military? Might be that way today, too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
Just now, Big Jim said:

That may be, but as others have pointed out there may be military reasons for not allowing them.  The military is not like the Boy Scouts, where one joins to benefit oneself.  A person joins to benefit the military, and by extension, the country.  So the military gets to decide who suits their purpose, not the other way around.  As Commander in Chief, the President can direct the military as he sees fit, with neither explanation or apology.  I've never been in the military but I've had bosses I haven't agreed with.  My choice was to conform or find another job.  This is no different.  An old saying kept me on track. "The boss isn't always right, but he's always the boss".  

There are no military reasons whatsoever for not allowing them. As already mentioned, thousands have served for years, and continue to serve. The decision to ban them is not based on any rational reason whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
19 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Kittens, it has been explained, they are being rejected by criteria.

Did you know at one time flat feet would keep you out of the military? Might be that way today, too. 

Trump's reasons for banning them was financial. I've already shown (with evidence) that the cost is minuscule. If he's really concerned about costs, then he should ban all personnel with erectile dysfunction, as they cost the taxpayers more than transgenders do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MWoo7

Well, its a good thing bigfeet don't keep you out eh?!?!?!?

re:

 . . . at one time flat feet would keep you out of the military? Might be that way today, too

Edited by MWoo7
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
28 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

There are no military reasons whatsoever for not allowing them. As already mentioned, thousands have served for years, and continue to serve. The decision to ban them is not based on any rational reason whatsoever.

There doesn't have to be.  Just because you don't know the reason doesn't mean there isn't one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
30 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

There are no military reasons whatsoever for not allowing them. As already mentioned, thousands have served for years, and continue to serve. The decision to ban them is not based on any rational reason whatsoever.

Big money and constant medical care to keep them active.   THat's enough right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
15 minutes ago, MWoo7 said:

Well, its a good thing bigfeet don't keep you out eh?!?!?!?

re:

A BigFoot saying is, "Make Woo,  not War" ;    :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.