Trump - No transgender individuals in the military

[d4m10n]

Assuming the U.S. military has already solved the problem of integrating women into the armed forces (bit odd that this thread has focused so much on that issue) then what new problems arise from allowing transgender folks to serve openly as such?

 

[quadraginta]

Assuming the U.S. military has already solved the problem of integrating women into the armed forces (bit odd that this thread has focused so much on that issue) then what new problems arise from allowing transgender folks to serve openly as such?

There are none, of course.

But the fact that they are such a small minority combined with the "ick" factor that can be manipulated by conservatives make them a convenient political scapegoat.

And the reason the thread has spent so much time on the integration of women into the military is because the very same old worn out excuses that were tried before when the same sort of bigots were objecting then are being hauled out to use all over again, with a few new little ribbons and bows here and there.

They are still brooding over losing the 'women in the military' debate.

And the 'gays in the military' debate.

And the 'blacks in the military' debate.

But, of course, they have no new arguments. Just the same ones they have tried before.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Base on what I read about Audie Murphy (in his book) he was one of those near the bottom of the scale in physical ability. In fact he was considered too puny to enlist at first. His superiors also tried to make him a cook and keep him off the line.

Which is completely unsurprising. In modern warfare the best soldiers seem to be significantly below average height. The benefit is most obvious for snipers, etc, but presumably having less bulk to move around is beneficial too.

However, I'm not sure how women compare physiologically (endurance-wise) to men of the same size.

 

[quadraginta]

Which is completely unsurprising. In modern warfare the best soldiers seem to be significantly below average height. The benefit is most obvious for snipers, etc, but presumably having less bulk to move around is beneficial too.

<snip>

Bulk isn't an advantage when prolonged physical exertion is the goal. Humans generate body heat as a function of their mass. They lose it as a function of their surface area. Big guys overheat much more quickly than smaller ones, and the trend of the curve gets worse quickly.

It isn't a coincidence that soccer players tend to be smaller and lighter than (American) football players. They have to work the entire time they are on the field. Not just in minute long spurts with rest periods in between.

If someone is worried about their troops being able to hump along with full combat kit for hours at a time then they probably shouldn't be selecting for all the big guys.

 

[Meadmaker]

Assuming the U.S. military has already solved the problem of integrating women into the armed forces (bit odd that this thread has focused so much on that issue) then what new problems arise from allowing transgender folks to serve openly as such?

Sometimes when threads wander a bit, it's best to try and understand how we got here.

My premise has been that we should be cautious about introducing change into the military. We should see what has worked in other modern armies. We should pay attention to problems, if any. We shouldn't proceed based on some egalitarian notion of what ought to be, but we should be careful and above all, our only concern should be whether it makes the military better, or worse.

(Thanks to tubbablubba for pointing out that "better" is not exclusively related to killing ability. On the other hand, that whole killing ability thing really is a big deal.)

My discussion about women in the military was mostly based on a question from a user about whether we had done scientific studies of straight, white, male armies. I noted we had thousands of years of data on that subject, and that led to the questions related to suitability of women in pre-modern armies.

So, back to your question.

My answer is that I don't know, but it's a question worth asking, and proceeding cautiously. From my little bit of reading, I note that the US doesn't accept pre-operative transgenders as new recruits, and the UK discourages them. (I don't know exactly what "discourage" means in this context.) Both militaries seem to define "transgender" as including only those people who are actively participating in a medical program that will result in gender reassignment surgery, or people who have already undergone such procedures. If you "self identify" as a woman, but have male equipment, you're going to be sleeping with the guys.

The one thing I did note in my reading was that at least in the UK military, transgenders undergoing hormone therapy were prohibited from certain deployments. That means, to me, that there is at least a small penalty for including transgenders in the ranks. Suddenly, someone participating in a voluntary program can get out of a deployment. That seems a bit strange in a military perspective. However, the modern military isn't John Wayne and the Marines preparing to land at Iwo Jima. Things are different today, so maybe it isn't a big deal. I'll trust the professionals, which includes people whose lives literally depend on the outcome, to make the decision.

 

[Worm]

whether we had done scientific studies of straight, white, male armies. I noted we had thousands of years of data on that subject

I must have missed that bit.

You think for thousands of years that all the armies of the world were straight, white and male?

Boy oh boy.

 

[Ziggurat]

However, I'm not sure how women compare physiologically (endurance-wise) to men of the same size.

Their endurance is generally lower.

 

[Meadmaker]

I must have missed that bit.

You think for thousands of years that all the armies of the world were straight, white and male?

Boy oh boy.

As I noted in the original exchange, comparing different cultures with different attitudes would tell us lots about straights or gays in armies, and multi-ethnic versus uniform ethnicity, but they would give us no data about women, because until very recently there was never an army where women played a significant role as combattants.

 

[snoop_doxie]

I think there has been a lot of research that is putting that idea to rest.
If you narrow it down to just "endurance" you are generally right.

Please take this link with the humor I intended. Especially the banner
across the top.

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/2016/10/28/Women-have-more-stamina/stories/201610270057

The World Health Organization reports that women are less susceptible to infectious diseases than men. When males and females are exposed to the same amount of infectious agent, females generally recover more quickly. Men also have a higher prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder than women do.

I have to look for the studies that were about women's body fat percentage
being a factor increasing their endurance to survive in the field.

 

[snoop_doxie]

As I noted in the original exchange, comparing different cultures with different attitudes would tell us lots about straights or gays in armies, and multi-ethnic versus uniform ethnicity, but they would give us no data about women, because until very recently there was never an army where women played a significant role as combattants.

I think you have some homework to do.

Any Army is more than its "combatants", and yet you keep repeating this word.

About two days ago, I watched a BBC documentary about the very type of
combatant in your avatar.

I always thought those soldiers would meet on the battlefield and fight to
the death.
LOL, nope. One would be taken "hostage" by the winner and be treated as
as honored guest until the ransom was negotiated.

That hand to hand type of war ended with the invention of the long bow.
I agree that the ONLY reason women were not trained to fight was cultural
or sociological.

How stupid and short sighted. Unless you think women cannot be trained
to pull back and shoot a target. Ridiculous.

I wonder, do you personally know any women in the military?
No, it is not necessary for you to form your opinion, but I think you are missing
a lot of information.

Duty, honor, country. Not just for men.

 

[Garrison]

Darned near zero.

Even back in the days when hand to hand combat was normal, there were, of course, some men who did serve in the military, near the bottom of the physical ability scale, who were no better than some of the more capable women. Do you know what happened to those men? They died.

So I guess a man who was initially rejected by the army, navy and marines partly because he failed to meet the physical requirements would inevitably make a terrible soldier? Like this guy?

Audie Leon Murphy

 

[Meadmaker]

That hand to hand type of war ended with the invention of the long bow.
I agree that the ONLY reason women were not trained to fight was cultural
or sociological.

How stupid and short sighted. Unless you think women cannot be trained
to pull back and shoot a target. Ridiculous.

They can't.

The kinetic energy of the arrow is supplied completely by the archer. A weak archer fires a slower, or lighter weight, arrow. This affects range and the ability to penetrate armor.

If two armies made up entirely of archers met on the field, and one was all women, and the other all men, the women would be slaughtered and the men would barely sustain any losses. If the longbows at Agincourt would have been wielded by women, a much greater number of the French knights would have reached the English lines.

Relating this to the topic, I get nervous about egalitarianism of any form when applied to the military, exactly because of thoughts like the one expressed by snoop-doxie above. It's a fantasy. It lacks any grounding in the actual reality of combat. No, the lack of female longbowmen was not due to sexism.

Is the reluctance to include anyone other than straight males in the armed forces today, where strength and athleticism are not as critical, due to prejudice? Maybe. I'll trust the professionals to sort it out.

 

[Ziggurat]

I always thought those soldiers would meet on the battlefield and fight to
the death.
LOL, nope. One would be taken "hostage" by the winner and be treated as
as honored guest until the ransom was negotiated.

Nobles and knights would be ransomed if captured. Most soldiers would be killed, because most soldiers couldn't afford a ransom.

That hand to hand type of war ended with the invention of the long bow.

No, it didn't. In fact, the Battle of Agincourt (1415) was perhaps the high water mark of the English longbow. In the Battle of Patay (1429), French cavalry basically massacred the English longowmen by attacking before the longbowmen could set up their defensive stakes.

I agree that the ONLY reason women were not trained to fight was cultural or sociological.

That is delusional.

How stupid and short sighted. Unless you think women cannot be trained to pull back and shoot a target. Ridiculous.

Meadmaker already addressed this, but it's worth going into more detail about just how wrong this is. The draw weight of an English longbow could be over 100 lbs. Most men nowdays probably can't do that (though many more could if they trained for it). Brute strength was an absolute requirement for its use, and that high draw weight was critical to its success. A longbow with a low draw weight simply will not pierce armor. The forces involved are large enough that prolonged training and use produced measurable changes in the skeletal structure of longbowmen.

So no, you cannot just train women to use a longbow.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Their endurance is generally lower.

Yes, but I don't know how dramatic the difference is.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

They can't.

The kinetic energy of the arrow is supplied completely by the archer. A weak archer fires a slower, or lighter weight, arrow. This affects range and the ability to penetrate armor.

They release in volleys for maximum effect. So the standard to reach is "knocked, drawn, and ready by the time the order is given to "loose". A bunch of super-buff archers firing at their own personal best speeds would be less effective than weaker archers firing en masse.

If two armies made up entirely of archers met on the field, and one was all women, and the other all men, the women would be slaughtered and the men would barely sustain any losses. If the longbows at Agincourt would have been wielded by women, a much greater number of the French knights would have reached the English lines.

You just revealed that you have only a pop culture understanding of Agincourt. The siting of the battle was a far more determining factor (the bottleneck and the swampy conditions between the lines).

Relating this to the topic, I get nervous about egalitarianism of any form when applied to the military, exactly because of thoughts like the one expressed by snoop-doxie above. It's a fantasy. It lacks any grounding in the actual reality of combat. No, the lack of female longbowmen was not due to sexism.

Women were property and had no agency, presumed inferior in all respects (not just physical), but that mindset in no way contributed to the policy?

That's not just wrong, that's willfully obtuse.

Is the reluctance to include anyone other than straight males in the armed forces today, where strength and athleticism are not as critical, due to prejudice? Maybe. I'll trust the professionals to sort it out.

They've already responded, they conclude you are wrong.

 

[Meadmaker]

They release in volleys for maximum effect. So the standard to reach is "knocked, drawn, and ready by the time the order is given to "loose". A bunch of super-buff archers firing at their own personal best speeds would be less effective than weaker archers firing en masse.

And a bunch of super-buff archers firing en masse would be more effective than a group of weaker archers firing en masse.

You just revealed that you have only a pop culture understanding of Agincourt. The siting of the battle was a far more determining factor (the bottleneck and the swampy conditions between the lines).

No, I revealed that a group of weaker (i.e. women) archers would have meant more French knights reaching the English lines. And it would have.

The rest of the battle also would have been different, because when the French foot (and dismounted horse) attacked the English line, the archers that joined the hand to hand fighting at the time would have been girls, and Shakespeare would have had to write an entirely different play.

They've already responded, they conclude you are wrong.

If I'm deferring to their judgement. How can I be wrong?

 

[Border Reiver]

Professionals in the Canadian, British, Australian, Israeli and 14 other militaries have determined that men, and women CAN make an effective military force and that transgenders and gays don't change that.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Nobles and knights would be ransomed if captured. Most soldiers would be killed, because most soldiers couldn't afford a ransom.

Even common soldiers were ransomed if their families could pay. During the crusades Richard tried to ransom over 2,000 soldiers back as part of a Prisoner exchange, but the other side tried to play for time to get reinforcements, and so instead he had them slaughtered.

No, it didn't. In fact, the Battle of Agincourt (1415) was perhaps the high water mark of the English longbow. In the Battle of Patay (1429), French cavalry basically massacred the English longowmen by attacking before the longbowmen could set up their defensive stakes.

One could say that it really didn't die out until after WWI as guns that could hold and fire multiple shots become more and more common. Previous to that there was still a lot of hand-to-hand using bayonets after the first shots had been fired and there wasn't time to reload.

Of course, even in Medieval times, if you were fighting the enemy hand-to-hand, then you were likely in trouble anyways because it likely meant your formations had collapsed and once that happened and you were engaged in hand-to-hand, you were likely to be out numbered and slaughtered if you didn't run away fast enough.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

And a bunch of super-buff archers firing en masse would be more effective than a group of weaker archers firing en masse.

You don't understand how a bow works, do you?

No, I revealed that a group of weaker (i.e. women) archers would have meant more French knights reaching the English lines. And it would have.

No, because a) you don't understand how Agincourt even went down and b) they only need to have the bow drawn and ready when the order to loose is given, same as the men.

The rest of the battle also would have been different, because when the French foot (and dismounted horse) attacked the English line, the archers that joined the hand to hand fighting at the time would have been girls, and Shakespeare would have had to write an entirely different play.

You don't need a lot of superior strength to stab daggers into the eye holes of people buried up to their hips in mud and incapable of driving force through their hips.

In other words, you keep bringing up the strength factor and using examples that reveal where strength wasn't actually the determining factor.

If I'm deferring to their judgement. How can I be wrong?

Those aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm noticing a pattern here.

 

[snoop_doxie]

https://www.google.com/search?q=wom...ybzVAhVQxCYKHaJOCcwQvwUIJSgA&biw=1280&bih=633

This is the result of one Google search.

I am one that is delusional huh?

Women have the strength to pull a bow.
With practice, I am sure women become champions.

Can't even open your minds even to search up an image?

I know you are wrong.