Trump - No transgender individuals in the military

[snoop_doxie]

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.

Ah, I think I see the problem here.
I am talking about grown women.

Plus, didn't men play girls (really all the parts) in his plays?

Yeah, I understand the confusion now.

 

[Meadmaker]

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

Competing against men? No.

I've hardly watched any Olympic archery. If I recall correctly, women compete at 70 yards, men at 90. I'm not sure about that, but I think that's the way it is. Whatever it is, I'm extremely confident that if you compared the best women to the best men, all of them would have practiced a lot, and it wouldn't even be close.

Now, I haven't looked up those scores or watched the competitions, so this is a golden opportunity if I'm wrong to show the reality of things. I am so prejudiced against women as archers that I am certain they don't do as well as men, and I say that without even looking at the scores. I just think I know, based on what I think I know about men, women, bows, and arrows. I sure would feel stupid (seriously) if I turned out to be wrong.

What I am certain of is that a faster arrow flies straighter, and the only way to make the arrow fly faster is to apply more force. You also have to hold very still, so you have to pull a very heavy weight (i.e. the force required to bend the bow using the string) while not shaking.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

The question here isn't about individual vs en masse firing. The question is low draw weight versus high draw weight. And high draw weight will win. It's not an alternative to en masse firing, it's a force multiplier for en masse firing.

Women cannot draw bows with as high a draw weight as men can. The difference is large. Both the range and the penetrating power will be less. Women archers cannot be as effective as men archers because of that.

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.

The claim that this mindset was the only factor in policy, that biological differences in the physical strength of men and women made no difference, is no less willfully obtuse.

 

[Ziggurat]

Competing against men? No.

I've hardly watched any Olympic archery. If I recall correctly, women compete at 70 yards, men at 90. I'm not sure about that, but I think that's the way it is. Whatever it is, I'm extremely confident that if you compared the best women to the best men, all of them would have practiced a lot, and it wouldn't even be close.

For the olympics, it's all 70 meters, but 90 meters is a standard men's only distance in other venues.

But the thing about competitive archery is that the draw weights aren't actually that large, " roughly 40-48 pounds for the women, and 45-55 pounds for the men". Compare that with something in the 100 pound range for an English longbow, and you'll see that strength just isn't as much of a factor in competitive archery as it is in actual combat. You don't want to be near your limit if you're going for high accuracy, but for en masse firing, you don't need high accuracy, penetrating power and range are more important.

But even at these much lower draw weights, where strength is much less of a factor, men still beat women.

 

[Meadmaker]

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

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.

Seriously?

Why do you think they make bows of different poundage? Why bother with a 50 pound pull when you could use a 25 pound pull? They're different. I get better scores with the 50 pounder, at least until I get too tired to shoot it. I can shoot a 25 pounder all day.

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.

I would love to figure out the origins of these beliefs. Has our pop culture saturated us enough with images of ass-kicking women fighters that we've forgotten that those images are the stuff of fantasy?

 

[theprestige]

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.

Which the women couldn't have done, unless the weight of the bow or the rate of fire were reduced to accommodate them. A group of men have the strength and the stamina to fire more quickly, at greater range and greater penetration, and still have more left in them for the melee that follows.

Men can start firing while the charging enemy is further away, they can get more shots off in the time available until the charge reaches them, and each shot that hits has a greater chance of piercing armor and doing real damage. And even after all that effort, men can still fight harder in hand to hand combat, once the charge reaches them and the time for archery has passed.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Seriously?

Why do you think they make bows of different poundage? Why bother with a 50 pound pull when you could use a 25 pound pull? They're different. I get better scores with the 50 pounder, at least until I get too tired to shoot it. I can shoot a 25 pounder all day.

Whatever tension was used at Agincourt, if a given woman were capable of drawing it, what other objection do you have to their presence?

I would love to figure out the origins of these beliefs. Has our pop culture saturated us enough with images of ass-kicking women fighters that we've forgotten that those images are the stuff of fantasy?

I made no reference to pop-culture images of ass-kicking women fighters.

Could you at least have your refutations bear some resemblance to addressing what I said?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Which the women couldn't have done, unless the weight of the bow or the rate of fire were reduced to accommodate them. A group of men have the strength and the stamina to fire more quickly, at greater range and greater penetration, and still have more left in them for the melee that follows.

I'm noticing that objectors keep rephrasing (and asserting by fiat) the conditions posed to them.

If a given woman is capable of drawing the same bow and being ready when the order is given, what objection is there left to make?

Archers in melee is not a consideration of military strategy at this time, it is either a move of desperation or a rare opportunistic feat that, while impressive to recount, had little to do with achieving the victory.

At Agincourt, they were mopping up what were effectively prone targets after the foot soldiers had moved the line of battle past safe/effective range.

Men can start firing while the charging enemy is further away

The bow tension determines this, if it can be drawn that's that.

they can get more shots off in the time available until the charge reaches them

You fire when the order to loose is given, it's not a competition to get the most shots off because volleys are more effective than a random peppering.

and each shot that hits has a greater chance of piercing armor and doing real damage.

Again, purely a factor of string tension, bigger muscles doesn't mean squat past the point where you're able to draw it.

And even after all that effort, men can still fight harder in hand to hand combat, once the charge reaches them and the time for archery has passed.

If the charge reaches the archers, you already lost.

All you've done here is reveal how little you understand military history.

 

[Sabrina]

And all of this is a moot point.

Women currently serve in combat roles, the same way men currently serve in support roles. Thus far there has been no lowering of the standards required to be able to serve on the front lines in either infantry or armor in the US Army, meaning women who want to serve in those branches must meet the same physical requirements as the men, nor has there been any major change in overall physical requirements. We've allowed women in all parts of the military for a few years now and have yet to see any real drop in combat effectiveness, plus we have the evidence of multiple other countries which allow women in all branches of their military and have suffered no real issues, so clearly the evidence allows that women who are capable of meeting the same standards as men are capable of participating in combat. That's settled; shall we move on?

The issue at hand is regarding transgender soldiers, not women. Transgender soldiers are required to meet the same physical standards to serve no matter which gender they're transitioning to, and while there may be a brief period of limbo for the soldier in question while undergoing the therapy and possible gender reassignment surgery, upon completion there is absolutely nothing to prevent that soldier from serving their country honorably and with a sense of pride. It's not as expensive to handle these soldiers as Trump is trying to make out, given that we spend more than 8.4 million dollars annually on virtually everything else in the military, including Viagra, so the expense is clearly not the issue. So if the soldier, once they complete gender reassignment, is capable of meeting all the required standards to serve, then there should be no objection to their presence. The fact that some people, including our toddler-in-chief, ARE objecting says to me that it is a simple case of bias. And bias is no reason to prevent perfectly capable soldiers who happen to have changed their gender from serving. It's literally that simple. If someone can come up with a logical argument as to why someone changing their gender means they should not be able to serve their country, I'm all ears, but thus far all I have seen in this thread is variations on, "well I don't like the idea, so it should be stopped", and quite frankly that is the absolute STUPIDEST reason to prevent something in existence.

ETA: Incidentally, I served in what is traditionally considered a combat arms branch in the Army, albeit distant combat; I served in Air Defense Artillery on a PATRIOT unit, and let me tell you, I had to meet physical fitness requirements for that role the same as my soldiers. I had multiple women in my platoon while I was a platoon leader, and they all had to be able to get the launchers set up the same as the men did, and they all did perfectly fine; in some cases they even performed better than the men did. Now granted, Air Defense Artillery is not the same thing as Infantry or Armor, or even Field Artillery (which is the fourth combat arms branch in the Army), but it is still considered combat arms, and women proved that they were capable in that branch as well as Field Artillery well before the decision came down to allow women in Infantry and Armor. So I hope that puts the "women in combat" argument to bed so we can focus on the real issue at hand.

 

[PhantomWolf]

If the charge reaches the archers, you already lost.

Yup, this was what the pike wall was for, to stop those nasty armoured dudes breaking up your formations and getting to your archers. If their mounted troops are engaging your archers, you've lost the battle.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

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

So yes, there are some jobs where most men are more suited than most women.

The idea that all of the jobs in the military, even then, were so dependent on upper body strength that only men could do them is ...

... laughable.

 

[Ziggurat]

Whatever tension was used at Agincourt, if a given woman were capable of drawing it, what other objection do you have to their presence?

As far as we can tell, there were no such women available. Even men couldn't do it unless they had spent many years training.

 

[Ziggurat]

So yes, there are some jobs where most men are more suited than most women.

The idea that all of the jobs in the military, even then, were so dependent on upper body strength that only men could do them is ...

... laughable.

Sure there were non-combat jobs which didn't require that much strength.

Btw, men outclass women in lower body strength as well.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Sure there were non-combat jobs which didn't require that much strength.

Btw, men outclass women in lower body strength as well.

Let me fix this claim for you.

Most men outclass most women in physical strength. Some women outclass some men in physical strength. In general around 5-20% of women have the same strength as the average man, which mean that for men below the average strength 5-20% off all women outclass them in physical strength.

With regards

 

[The Don]

Btw, men outclass women in lower body strength as well.

There's a significant degree of overlap between between men and women strengthwise though.

For sure I'm no Charles Atlas but I'm in decent shape. Many of the women in Mrs Don's gym do more reps with bigger weights than I could ever have considered.

 

[Meadmaker]

Whatever tension was used at Agincourt, if a given woman were capable of drawing it, what other objection do you have to their presence?

None....except that a given woman isn't capable of drawing it. If some hypothetical woman could manage it, well just fine and dandy, but real women can't.

And there might be in some corner a truly extraordinary woman who could manage it, but she would be celebrated for her extraordinary achievement, whereas the man standing next to her doing the same thing would just be another guy with a bow.

I made no reference to pop-culture images of ass-kicking women fighters.

Not on purpose, anyway, but you made reference to a situation where women could fill the ranks of English longbowmen and cut down charging French knights with armor piercing arrows. That's a fantasy. I was wondering about the source of that fantasy.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

None....except that a given woman isn't capable of drawing it. If some hypothetical woman could manage it, well just fine and dandy, but real women can't.

You genuinely believe no woman in existence is capable of drawing a bow?

And there might be in some corner a truly extraordinary woman who could manage it, but she would be celebrated for her extraordinary achievement, whereas the man standing next to her doing the same thing would just be another guy with a bow.

Fascinating...

Not on purpose, anyway, but you made reference to a situation where women could fill the ranks of English longbowmen and cut down charging French knights with armor piercing arrows. That's a fantasy. I was wondering about the source of that fantasy.

No, I described why the longbowmen at Agincourt were able to mop up some forces trapped in the muck.

The source of the fantasy was you completely disregarding what I said and inventing your own caricature to belittle because you literally can't process the information I'm giving you without your entire world collapsing.

Once again, is it too much to ask for your response to bear some passing resemblance to my actual statements?

 

[Ziggurat]

There's a significant degree of overlap between between men and women strengthwise though.

In sedentary populations, yes. Not as much in physically active populations.

For sure I'm no Charles Atlas but I'm in decent shape. Many of the women in Mrs Don's gym do more reps with bigger weights than I could ever have considered.

How much are we talking?

 

[Ziggurat]

You genuinely believe no woman in existence is capable of drawing a bow?

There's probably a few woman somewhere with the potential of drawing a 100 lb draw weight bow repeatedly (it's not enough to be able to do it once). But so what? Should people have spent the resources trying to identify and then train women with such rare potential? Should people have wasted resources on trying to train women NOT capable of drawing such bows? Or should they have just stuck with men, since that's more efficient?

 

[uke2se]

This video is clearly fake.