• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump - No transgender individuals in the military

Ziggurat said:
Seriously?

Is it your position that all transgender troops are held to the male standard? That none of them are held to the female standard? Because if not, then there's your answer.

ETA: But just to make this really explicit:
https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/f...icy/Transgender-Implementation-Fact-Sheet.pdf
"the [transgender] Service member is responsible for meeting all applicable military standards in the preferred gender"
So any male-to-female transgender service members will only have to meet the female physical standards, which in many cases are lower than the male physical standards.

<snip>
Click to expand...


And why would that make them unqualified?
 
quadraginta said:
And why would that make them unqualified?
Click to expand...

That depends.

If the female standards are appropriate for the job, then the male standards are too high, and some men (and transgender female-to-male) candidates are being inappropriately disqualified.

If the male standards are appropriate for the job, then the female standards are too low, and some women (and transgender male-to-female) candidates are being inappropriately qualified.
 
dudalb said:
A little late to the Party,but you win the thread.
(Imhotep's Corporal Klinger reference takes honorable mention).
I am betting that if he saw "Dunkirk" ST was rooting for The Other Side.....
Click to expand...
I was rooting for Mr. Miniver to get home before the German pilot got into the house. Fortunately Mrs. M handled it damn well!!!!!
 
Yep. Military should have a standard set of requirements to do the necessary tasks and anyone who can meet those should be allowed in regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

One of those requirements should be the ability to work with people who are different from you, whether that is race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, favorite football team, etc.

If they can't, then turn them away.
 
The_Animus said:
Yep. Military should have a standard set of requirements to do the necessary tasks and anyone who can meet those should be allowed in regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

One of those requirements should be the ability to work with people who are different from you, whether that is race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, favorite football team, etc.

If they can't, then turn them away.
Click to expand...

I don't totally agree with the first paragraph and agree with the second paragraph. There should be requirements to do the job not necessarily for example to be a soldier as there are many ways to serve. For example, I wouldn't have a problem with a paraplegic serving if it benefits the nation and not too many accommodations were required.
 
Ziggurat said:
That depends.

If the female standards are appropriate for the job, then the male standards are too high, and some men (and transgender female-to-male) candidates are being inappropriately disqualified.

If the male standards are appropriate for the job, then the female standards are too low, and some women (and transgender male-to-female) candidates are being inappropriately qualified.
Click to expand...


By whose standards, the military's, or yours?

Do you feel that they are less competent to establish the standards of fitness they require than you are?

There is more than one job in the military, and no one seems to have any problem with the different standards required of different jobs when there is no gender component.

Do you think that all members of the service should be required to satisfy the same standards. that radar techs be qualified for SEALs?
 
quadraginta said:
There is more than one job in the military, and no one seems to have any problem with the different standards required of different jobs when there is no gender component.
Click to expand...

If that was the case, it would still be discriminatory. Each job should ideally have gender-neutral requirements.

I don't think that is what is happening though. It seems there are different standards for identical jobs.

You can make the case that this unfairness in hiring is for the benefit of gender diversity, but you can't pretend it's not discriminatory. You can argue that the benefits are worth it, or not; that is the only honest argument.
 
Modified said:
If that was the case, it would still be discriminatory. Each job should ideally have gender-neutral requirements.

I don't think that is what is happening though. It seems there are different standards for identical jobs.

You can make the case that this unfairness in hiring is for the benefit of gender diversity, but you can't pretend it's not discriminatory. You can argue that the benefits are worth it, or not; that is the only honest argument.
Click to expand...


Good thing I'm not doing that.
 
I would'nt worry too much about the whole topic. Trump has probably either forgotten that he tweeted it in the first place, or assumes that because he did tweet it, it is happening. So it is written, so it shall be.

And now he has North Korea to play with.


Norm
 
The military isn't age-neutral in job requirements. The requirements get easier the older you get. I don't understand why there is such a big problem for other alternative requirements for the organization to gain experience.
 
Ziggurat said:
That depends.

If the female standards are appropriate for the job, then the male standards are too high, and some men (and transgender female-to-male) candidates are being inappropriately disqualified.

If the male standards are appropriate for the job, then the female standards are too low, and some women (and transgender male-to-female) candidates are being inappropriately qualified.
Click to expand...

Only if the standards are entirely explicit task completion tests, rather than functioning to some degree as proxies for general fitness.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The military isn't age-neutral in job requirements. The requirements get easier the older you get. I don't understand why there is such a big problem for other alternative requirements for the organization to gain experience.
Click to expand...

No one is arguing that.

We are talking the same requirement for the same job. If two people are attempting to get job a, then in an ideal situation both of those people should be required to do the same thing.

If that means some people get cut more than others, so be it, it's about building a fighting force. So on the flip side if someone meets these requirements, there is no logical reason they should be banned.

The comparison between a radar tech and a navy seal makes no sense, as they are two different jobs. If someone cannot make the cut to be a seal of course they may be able to be a tech, but if two people are attempting to pass the requirements for tech (or seal) then no other factors should be considered other than their ability to do the job.

Please explain how anything else makes one iota of sense for a fighting force.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Is there a study which shows straight white guys don't disrupt military efficiency or are we just happy to work in that assumption absent evidence that they do cause a problem?
Click to expand...


All groups composed exclusively of only straight, white (Christian, of course), males always work and live together in perfect harmony.

Everybody knows this.

What other issues could possibly come up?
 
Modified said:
If that was the case, it would still be discriminatory. Each job should ideally have gender-neutral requirements.

I don't think that is what is happening though. It seems there are different standards for identical jobs.

You can make the case that this unfairness in hiring is for the benefit of gender diversity, but you can't pretend it's not discriminatory. You can argue that the benefits are worth it, or not; that is the only honest argument.
Click to expand...

You seem to be conflating a soldier's MOS (or equivalent acronym for the Navy, Air Force, or Marines) with physical requirements.

All soldiers, regardless of gender, must meet a certain set of physical requirements to serve regardless of what their actual job is. For the Army (which I am retired from), this includes being able to qualify on your assigned weapon (usually an M-16, but some are assigned M-249s or M-9s, depending on the weapon complement of the soldier's particular unit), be able to pass a physical fitness test (which, granted, does have different standards for men and women on the pushups and the run, but at least the sit-ups are a single standard now), and be able to carry at least eighty pounds of gear without issue. That has absolutely nothing to do with a soldier's actual job description, which, unless you are in a combat arms MOS, usually does not have many physical requirements attached to it outside of the ones I've already described. Infantry, Armor, Field Artillery, and Air Defense Artillery, the four combat arms branches, often do have some physical requirements involved with the MOS that are unique to that MOS, but again as long as the soldier is able to meet those requirements, there are, currently, no limitations to who can serve in those branches of the Army.

The remaining twelve branches of the Army are either Combat Support or Combat Service Support, which are generally more administrative or logistical, although even there an individual MOS might require more physical capability (being a mechanic, for example); point is, a soldier's MOS often has little to do with the general physical requirements all soldiers in order to serve MUST be able to meet. I don't know as much about the Marines, Navy, or Air Force, but they follow DOD regulations the same as the Army does, and it's a DOD regulation that dictates the physical requirements, so I don't think it's terribly dissimilar.

The long and the short of it is, as long as someone is able to meet the general physical requirements to serve, I don't care if they're male, female, male-to-female, female-to-male, gay, straight, bisexual, or even asexual; they should be allowed to serve their country with the same pride that everyone else who chooses to join the military does. Politicizing the argument, as our idiot in chief has done, has absolutely no benefit for the military and in fact can create unnecessary limitations that will prevent fully capable people from serving if he actually changes policy rather than just tweeting about it. Claiming it saves money is, as has been shown, an incredibly stupid argument when the military still pays for things like Viagra, and spends more on that than they do on transgender surgery. Currently there is no indication that the Joint Chiefs or the SECDEF will be changing the policy without a directive from Trumpy, so at the very least the 15,000-odd transgender members currently serving will not be kicked out any time soon, but I fear that's probably going to happen sooner rather than later, because Trumpy is a knee-jerk reactionist who orders things without thinking about the ultimate consequences. I do hope I'm wrong, though.
 
The only possible explanation: Trump thinks that soldiers pull the triggers on their rifles/push the button on the rocket with their erect penises. Thus the high expenditure on Viagra, and the need to keep soldiers from transitioning from a penis-having role to a non-penis-having role. Can't win bigly if you can't fire that rifle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom