Trump - No transgender individuals in the military

[Meadmaker]

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.

Just to put this in context.....

Someone asked for study of whether or not including transgenders (or was it women, or homosexuals?) in an army would cause problems. Archie asked if we needed a study of straight white male armies.

I noted that such a "study" had already occurred, referring to the beaches of Normandy, but it could have been Gettysburg, or Waterloo, or Hastings, or Cannae, or Kadesh, or any of a zillion battles of history. However, I happened to have chosed a D-Day reference, and Archie was pointing out that the losing side was even straighter and whiter than the winning side that day.

It's a fair point, but it also misses the point, which is that we don't need a scientific study to determine how things will work if we do things the way we've always done them. We can study history for examples of including gays in the armed forces, or making up an army of multiple ethnicities. However, we can't do that with women, and we can't do that with transgenders. We can't do it with women because no army prior to modern times has ever done it, and we can't do it with transgeders because until recently no one had a concept of "transgender".

What I was making fun of with my comments, though, was the idea that we would need some sort of study of women's performance in the armed forces until recently, when modern machines made it possible to engage effectively in warfare if you lacked physical strength. Had women taken the field at the Battle of Hastings, they would have been hacked into little bits, and it is absurd to think there would have been any other outcome.

All right, but what does that have to do with transgenders. Well, declaring yourself to be a male, or even rearranging some skin between your legs, won't change the number of pushups you can do. Also, whether or not everyone likes to admit it, there is a social aspect of military service and even of participating in combat, and people act differently toward men and women, and transgenders are.....one of the above.

So, it's worth asking whether it seems like it would be a good idea to do things differently, because there is more at stake than someone's feelings.

 

[sylvan8798]

So, it's worth asking whether it seems like it would be a good idea to do things differently, because there is more at stake than someone's feelings.

But it's not as if there is ZERO data on whether this is a good idea, right? We have people who have been in the military for years and changed their genders and are still doing their jobs. And other countries have done these things. If there were no data whatsoever, I would agree that study and trials would be necessary before some blanket acceptance, but there IS data, and it most certainly does not support a blanket rejection.

Even many of the generals and other military personnel are saying so. The fact is that this "tweedict" is not likely to stand the test of reality.

 

[HarryHenderson]

...The fact is that this "tweedict" is not likely to stand the test of reality.

A Tweedict™ about the Deedict™.

 

[Ziggurat]

But it's not as if there is ZERO data on whether this is a good idea, right?

Sure, there is. Border Reiver linked to a study quite some time back. But the issue in this little sub-thread is whether my having even asked for data (which Border Reiver kindly provided) was reasonable. It was suggested that my request for data wasn't reasonable. Meadmaker criticized the argument for my request being unreasonable. And surely the existence of data doesn't make the request for data unreasonable, right?

 

[theprestige]

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.

The pattern described in the book you haven't read seems consistent with the pattern described in the book you haven't read? Seems circular to me.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

 

[caveman1917]

The pattern described in the book you haven't read seems consistent with the pattern described in the book you haven't read? Seems circular to me.

No, the pattern described by the synopsis of the book (a queer/drag group) is consistent with the pattern described by the claim (giving blowjobs and photographic evidence for draftees who want to avoid the draft, as a form of anti-military protest), given background knowledge about that being exactly the sort of thing such a queer/drag group could be expected to do. Hence making the claim, that during the Vietnam war there was at least one such group which did that, believable enough as far as I'm concerned.

You want to believe that didn't happen, go right ahead, I ain't stopping you. I don't care all that much, it was just an interesting bit of relevant yet amusing trivia.

 

[quadraginta]

No, the pattern described by the synopsis of the book (a queer/drag group) is consistent with the pattern described by the claim (giving blowjobs and photographic evidence for draftees who want to avoid the draft, as a form of anti-military protest), given background knowledge about that being exactly the sort of thing such a queer/drag group could be expected to do. Hence making the claim, that during the Vietnam war there was at least one such group which did that, believable enough as far as I'm concerned.

You want to believe that didn't happen, go right ahead, I ain't stopping you. I don't care all that much, it was just an interesting bit of relevant yet amusing trivia.

Considering that even as late as 1973, when they quit drafting people for the war, homosexual acts were illegal in most states (including California), generally a felony, usually with harsh sentences (Life, in Idaho. Fifteen years in Michigan, with life for the second conviction.), I have to think that getting out of the draft by providing photographic evidence of having committed a felony while confessing to it to government authorities would have been a less than popular route to take.

It isn't one any of the people I knew would have tried. Even the ones who were gay.

 

[caveman1917]

Considering that even as late as 1973, when they quit drafting people for the war, homosexual acts were illegal in most states (including California), generally a felony, usually with harsh sentences (Life, in Idaho. Fifteen years in Michigan, with life for the second conviction.), I have to think that getting out of the draft by providing photographic evidence of having committed a felony while confessing to it to government authorities would have been a less than popular route to take.

Depends on the odds of prosecution. Just because the law exists doesn't mean you get prosecuted. Plenty of openly gay people and groups existed at the time, after all.

 

[quadraginta]

Depends on the odds of prosecution. Just because the law exists doesn't mean you get prosecuted. Plenty of openly gay people and groups existed at the time, after all.

How old were you then?

Those groups existed because of the legal and social persecution that was standard for the time, not because of lax enforcement and general tolerance.

 

[theprestige]

No, the pattern described by the synopsis of the book (a queer/drag group) is consistent with the pattern described by the claim (giving blowjobs and photographic evidence for draftees who want to avoid the draft, as a form of anti-military protest), given background knowledge about that being exactly the sort of thing such a queer/drag group could be expected to do. Hence making the claim, that during the Vietnam war there was at least one such group which did that, believable enough as far as I'm concerned.

And that's what makes it circular. You don't actually know of any gay activist groups performing documented sex acts *in the 1970s* as a form of political protest. Justice this one claim in this one book you haven't even read.

A claim you presented as fact, for some reason.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

 

[caveman1917]

How old were you then?

Those groups existed because of the legal and social persecution that was standard for the time, not because of lax enforcement and general tolerance.

Well then you should look at the draftees who were refused on grounds of being gay there, and see how many of them then got prosecuted for it as a result. Note how my age in no way comes into it.

 

[caveman1917]

And that's what makes it circular. You don't actually know of any gay activist groups performing documented sex acts *in the 1970s* as a form of political protest. Justice this one claim in this one book you haven't even read.

A claim you presented as fact, for some reason.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

I also don't actually know of any planets around stars in some far-away galaxy, yet I believe they are there. Funny, huh?

 

[quadraginta]

Well then you should look at the draftees who were refused on grounds of being gay there, and see how many of them then got prosecuted for it as a result.

Maybe you should look at how many of them brought in photographic evidence and handed it over to government authorities.

Note how my age in no way comes into it.

It does when it shows clearly that you have no idea of what being labeled as a homosexual meant at that time.

Just a rumor was enough to destroy families and careers. Running to Canada was a far less permanent black mark. Many people understood perfectly well why someone didn't want to get shipped off to some jungle in a country most Americans couldn't find on a map. The draft was never all that popular. Rich kids dodged the draft with college deferments and instant families. If their number came up.

Being labeled as a homosexual was permanent. No employer would look at you. Your family would likely disown you. You would be constantly harassed and occasionally beaten. Sometimes while the cops watched. Sometimes while they helped.

Being shot up in some Asian jungle would have been a preferred fate to most eighteen year olds of the era.

 

[xjx388]

I also don't actually know of any planets around stars in some far-away galaxy, yet I believe they are there. Funny, huh?

I don't know of any actual sand planets where giant worms roam and a valuable spice is mined, yet I believe it's there because I read about it in a book.

Or not.

 

[theprestige]

I also don't actually know of any planets around stars in some far-away galaxy, yet I believe they are there. Funny, huh?

Depends if you're stating a belief, or stating a fact.

 

[Craig B]

The serious thought behind my last post:

Seriously, all male armies have been the norm throughout history, and there's a reason, and it's pretty bloody obvious why. It is only with the changes wrought by modern electronics that we can even seriously talk about women being a part of the armed forces in combat roles.

A significant number of women served as combat pilots in the Soviet Air Force 1941-45. Others fought as snipers and some even in tank crews.

The electronics at their disposal were at that time pretty rudimentary. But the need to fill gaps in the depleted ranks of the Soviet armed forces was overwhelming.

 

[theprestige]

Well then you should look at the draftees who were refused on grounds of being gay there, and see how many of them then got prosecuted for it as a result. Note how my age in no way comes into it.

Your age absolutely comes into it. You appealed to "background knowledge about that being exactly the sort of thing such a queer/drag group could be expected to do" as informing your analysis.

"Background knowledge" is only going to be a proxy for a couple things: Either study of that subculture in that time and place, or experience of that subculture in that time and place.

Asking your age is a proxy for ruling out experience as your source of information. We can easily rule out study: Someone who had studied would probably have more cites than a single book they haven't actually read; and would probably be ready with data on the numbers of draftees who refused on grounds of homosexuality.

This is what happens when you pose personal beliefs as if they were facts.

 

[dudalb]

Well then you should look at the draftees who were refused on grounds of being gay there, and see how many of them then got prosecuted for it as a result. Note how my age in no way comes into it.

Ironically enough, a few people faked being gay as a way of evading the draft.
In fact, Brian De Palma's first film "Greetings" was a comedy about this.

 

[Meadmaker]

A significant number of women served as combat pilots in the Soviet Air Force 1941-45. Others fought as snipers and some even in tank crews.

The electronics at their disposal were at that time pretty rudimentary. But the need to fill gaps in the depleted ranks of the Soviet armed forces was overwhelming.

I'm pretty surprised about tank crews. I was aware of the fighter pilots and an occasional sniper. I've never been in a tank, but my understanding is that they aren't easy to drive and the people not driving are loading ammo.

Even snipers would be pretty rare. The ability to run away quickly is a real enhancement to survivability, but of course, the fighting was so desperate that maybe that wasn't a top priority.

So I decided to say "electronics" to emphasize that even the crude machines of the pre-electronic era required a fair bit of physical ability to operate, such that most women would not be the best choice. I wasn't even sure about airplanes, but apparently the WWII airplanes didn't require peak strength.

The point is that in the days when combat included a fair likelihood of hand to hand combat, which was certainly true at least until the beginning of the 20th century, it is laughable to suggest that women should have been soldiers. In the 20th century, a few positions opened up where women could have been a good choice. Today, there are more, so we should look to where women can be employed. However, the reason we ought to be doing it must not be "fairness" or "equality" or "equal opportunity". Will the military be able to do the job better by employing women, or transgenders, in those roles? That's the only question worth asking. Everything else is a distraction.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Will the military be able to do the job better by employing women, or transgenders, in those roles? That's the only question worth asking. Everything else is a distraction.

There are plenty of other things to consider, relating to the military's role in society. For example, a professional military is usually more effective than a draft-based one with mandatory service (unleds you need a lot of manpower). But a drafted military is also arguably a more integrated part of a democratic society and thus less likely to be used in an undemocratic manner, e.g. protest suppression.

There may well be benefits to a more egalitarian military not directly related to killing people as efficiently as possible.