Trump - No transgender individuals in the military

[Trebuchet]

In the early 90s I saw the transition where many more women entered traditionally male roles in the UK military. It seemed to split into three camps - the utterly useless and couldn't be trusted in trade, those that pandered to their sexuality to succeed, and the 20% that could be respected to reliably conform to the job.

Thankfully, over the years I think the emphasis has changed, there are far more in the third camp, depressingly there are still a significant number in the second camp. The first has been pretty ruthlessly eliminated, tolerance for baggage is virtually zero, irrespective of gender.

That's about double the number of male soldiers who could be relied upon when I was in the US Army in the early 1970's. And pretty much NONE of the NCO's could be relied upon to be anything other than drunken ********.

 

[quadraginta]

It is possible that sopwith camel pilot was not physically demanding. The others definitely were.

So physically demanding that it is inconceivable that any woman could ever be capable of doing it?

 

[Meadmaker]

So physically demanding that it is inconceivable that any woman could ever be capable of doing it?

So physically demanding that the very best woman could always be bested by a ready, willing, and able man.

Moreover, even if you were in a situation where you could find a job where a rare woman could manage to be the best available candidate, the difficulty associated with employing that woman for the task really would outweigh the marginal benefit of choosing her over the next best qualified man.

Your question betrays a mode of thought very common in modern circles, that the decision about who should get a job should be based on who is best for the job. However, that's wrong, and dangerously so. In the military, it should be based on what is the best team that can be assembled, not on the individual capabilities of a given candidate.

But paragraphs like the one above often give people some opportunity to insist that the real problem here is the bigotry of the other members, so I want to emphasize the nature of my objection. When it comes to physically demanding jobs, like eighteenth century infantryman or WWII era tank driver, it is conceivable that you might find a woman who can meet the minimum requirements, but there would always be a better qualified man. For slightly less physically demanding jobs, you might find a case where the best qualified available candidate really is a woman, but that woman would be only slightly more qualified than a male candidate that was available, so the tiny benefit that could be gained from giving the job to the woman in that role would be offset by the disadvantages of employing one woman out of hundreds in that role. The good of the unit must take precedence in that case over what's best for one individual.


In the modern military, there are undoubtedly many things that are not traditionally women's' roles, but which no longer require the physical strength the corresponding role once did, and so it seems reasonable to believe that the quality of the unit could be improved by employing women. If so, it should be done.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You might be surprised at the numbers of women involved in combat roles in ancient armies....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare

Of course one of the reasons that women didn't get more involved was that they were often seen as property of men and protected from such things to ensure that they were available to reproduce for the next line of males. You didn't want your breeding stock to be killed off in a war. Males are less of an issue as one can impregnate many women.

 

[Brainster]

You might be surprised at the numbers of women involved in combat roles in ancient armies....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare

Of course one of the reasons that women didn't get more involved was that they were often seen as property of men and protected from such things to ensure that they were available to reproduce for the next line of males. You didn't want your breeding stock to be killed off in a war. Males are less of an issue as one can impregnate many women.

Play any virtually any RTS game and you will see that this is indeed crucial. Your military units are expendable; the units that gather resources and produce more units are invaluable. This is also why the tradition of saving the women and children first arose. IIRC first class passengers on the Titanic were more likely to survive than second class than third class than steerage. But, interestingly the women in steerage were more likely to survive than the first class men. John Jacob Astor, one of the richest men in the world, died on the Titanic.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think there was a study conducted in Normandy some time around the middle of the last century.

And the losers were straight white males. Seems like evidence that there's a problem?

 

[Tolls]

So physically demanding that it is inconceivable that any woman could ever be capable of doing it?

Since a lot of pilots died in their first couple of flights in the thing (it was something of a killer) I doubt you'd see a huge difference either way.

 

[Border Reiver]

And the losers were straight white males. Seems like evidence that there's a problem?

Assumes facts not in evidence. I've spoken with several vets on both sides - not everyone was straight, or white.

 

[Hellbound]

That's about double the number of male soldiers who could be relied upon when I was in the US Army in the early 1970's. And pretty much NONE of the NCO's could be relied upon to be anything other than drunken ********.

It's gotten better; that 20% figure seems about on-track across the board form my experience (was in from 91 to 2015, mostly reserve or guard, but active for about 6 years or that (3 year active enlistment plus two different deployments).

As they say, you always have 20% of the people doing 80% of the work.

 

[caveman1917]

This is awesome.

I agree.

I only wish he'd reverse allowing homosexuals, nonwhites and women* to serve as well.

Definitely. And everybody else as well.

During my time in the military, I had the opportunity to see how much better an almost entirely white male unit functions than any other kind.

Better at getting their asses handed back to them by Vietnamese farmers?

No sane society would even need to have a discussion about whether transsexuals can serve.

No sane society would have the need to have a discussion about anyone "serving" some ruling class by going around shooting people. But then again, of all the qualifiers one could use for this society, sane ain't one of them.

 

[Belz...]

You might be surprised at the numbers of women involved in combat roles in ancient armies....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare

Of course one of the reasons that women didn't get more involved was that they were often seen as property of men and protected from such things to ensure that they were available to reproduce for the next line of males. You didn't want your breeding stock to be killed off in a war. Males are less of an issue as one can impregnate many women.

One could instead say that men valued women far more than property or even themselves, and didn't want to send them to war to get killed, or that female babies are kind of important, too. It's amazing how we can spin something just by using the right words.

On the upside, women in general didn't want to go to war either.

 

[caveman1917]

I wonder how a transgender people feel being told discrimination against them is a distraction.

I wonder how transgender people feel being bombed, shot, or otherwise maimed by the US military, or being tortured by dictatorships propped up by the US or something like that. You know, as such a distraction to the distraction that it would hardly even seem worth mentioning.

If transgender people - or anyone else for that matter - feel such need to go and shoot people, but feel discriminated against by not being allowed to do it in the context of some specific organization, then there's nothing stopping them from going for non-discriminating alternatives. Such as going on a shooting spree in their own neighbourhood or something.

 

[caveman1917]

At least there's a new way to avoid being drafted, if it comes to that.

Finally, an actually useful comment. During the Vietnam war, back when gays weren't allowed in the military, there were queer groups in Oakland who drove their bus to the local draft station and gave free blowjobs and photographs of it to draftees who wanted to use it to get out of being drafted.

 

[quadraginta]

Finally, an actually useful comment. During the Vietnam war, back when gays weren't allowed in the military, there were queer groups in Oakland who drove their bus to the local draft station and gave free blowjobs and photographs of it to draftees who wanted to use it to get out of being drafted.

Would have been more convincing if the draftees had been the ones giving the blowjobs.

 

[caveman1917]

Would have been more convincing if the draftees had been the ones giving the blowjobs.

Well apparently it was convincing enough.

 

[Giordano]

Finally, an actually useful comment. During the Vietnam war, back when gays weren't allowed in the military, there were queer groups in Oakland who drove their bus to the local draft station and gave free blowjobs and photographs of it to draftees who wanted to use it to get out of being drafted.

Sounds like an urban legend. Is there really any evidence for this?

Having been eligible for the draft during the Vietnam War (luckily I finally received a very high lottery number that barred my service) I now look back in wonder at the alternatives I believed at the time were worse than being drafted. These included getting married and having children and being identified as gay. In retrospect these options appear to me now as highly preferable to being forced to shoot people and be shot at. And that is even recalling the extraordinary prejudice at the time against and the risks of appearing to be gay. To be gay (or even appear to be gay) was to be subjected to awful discrimination, taunts, and physical abuse (still is in some places). But compared to being dead?? And as for having kids? I later found that was a wonderful experience. But at 18, it seems dreadful (admittedly too young, but again, compared to being dead)?

 

[sylvan8798]

^Not just being dead - being maimed, coming home with PTSD to a country that wanted to forget you existed, people spitting on you, homelessness, alcohol or drug addiction...Why anyone would WANT to be risking all that is up for debate. Why the rest of us wouldn't be more than happy to let any willing volunteers take up the available spots until they need more than are volunteering shouldn't be.

 

[Modified]

Sounds like an urban legend. Is there really any evidence for this?

Having been eligible for the draft during the Vietnam War (luckily I finally received a very high lottery number that barred my service) I now look back in wonder at the alternatives I believed at the time were worse than being drafted. These included getting married and having children and being identified as gay.

Or you could have pooped your pants and did meth like Nugent.

 

[caveman1917]

Sounds like an urban legend. Is there really any evidence for this?

Apparently sourced from this book: https://www.amazon.com/Midnight-Palace-Life-Fabulous-Cockette/dp/B007K5349M

Haven't read it, don't intend to, but seems consistent and believable enough to me.

 

[Hercules56]

$50 says able-bodied transgender soldiers will NOT be kicked out of the military or prevented from re-enlistment.

Regardless of Trump's stupid Tweet.