Trump - No transgender individuals in the military

[Tommy Jeppesen]

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?

How do you know, that it would be inefficient to search for these women?
Further what do you mean by "more efficient"?
How did they find and train archers?

 

[Meadmaker]

And all of this is a moot point.

Although engaging heavily in the conversation, I mostly agree.

I say "mostly" because I just wonder how far these strange notions of equality of the sexes, and in the case of transgender people, interchangeability, go in driving the demand for change. When I see the most vocal proponents of change expressing some utterly mistaken notions about the sexes, it makes me wonder if they are turning a blind eye to the very real differences that exist.

 

[Ziggurat]

This video is clearly fake.

Fake? No. But does it have a high draw weight? Also, no. So what's this supposed to demonstrate?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Although engaging heavily in the conversation, I mostly agree.

I say "mostly" because I just wonder how far these strange notions of equality of the sexes, and in the case of transgender people, interchangeability, go in driving the demand for change. When I see the most vocal proponents of change expressing some utterly mistaken notions about the sexes, it makes me wonder if they are turning a blind eye to the very real differences that exist.

Here is what I believe in: We are equal as humans.
Here is what I know: We are different as individuals.
The moment we start debating how to treat humans, we have to account for relevant differences, but not all differences are relevant.
If you cut a transgender person, she/he still bleeds. I.e. we are not different there.
BTW sex and gender are not the same.
https://search.proquest.com/openvie...e4033fdb652a/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=40569

 

[Worm]

I only wonder how we managed to drift from institutional bigotry in the United States Armed forces all the way to the use of the longbow in Agincourt.

Men, women, black, white, gay, bi, straight, trans, whatever. They all, currently, serve their country with honour and courage. There is no logical reason why they should not.

Let them do it.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I only wonder how we managed to drift from institutional bigotry in the United States Armed forces all the way to the use of the longbow in Agincourt.

Men, women, black, white, gay, bi, straight, trans, whatever. They all, currently, serve their country with honour and courage. There is no logical reason why they should not.

Let them do it.

Seeing how far they have to tie themselves in knots to cling to their absurdities.

Reasoned replies to supposed rate-of-fire and armor penetration concerns have actually resulted in further reversion. Now women are not only slower (and their arrows less powerful?), apparently only a precious few in existence can draw a bow at all!

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Seeing how far they have to tie themselves in knots to cling to their absurdities.

Reasoned replies to supposed rate-of-fire and armor penetration concerns have actually resulted in further reversion. Now women are not only slower (and their arrows less powerful?), apparently only a precious few in existence can draw a bow at all!

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

I wish you could get your facts straight. Only a few women can repeatedly draw a 100 lbs longbow.
From there doesn't follow the clap trap that only men can serve, but for specific jobs in the military more men than women would qualify. That is how reality works. Not that only men can serve, but that more men than women would qualify based on physical strength.

 

[uke2se]

I wish you could get your facts straight. Only a few women can repeatedly draw a 100 lbs longbow.
From there doesn't follow the clap trap that only men can serve, but for specific jobs in the military more men than women would qualify. That is how reality works. Not that only men can serve, but that more men than women would qualify based on physical strength.

There's probably even an inverse. The point is, disallowing either sex, or for that matter, trans people from service based on gender physical averages is simply irrational. It should be about individual merit.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

There's probably even an inverse. The point is, disallowing either sex, or for that matter, trans people from service based on gender physical averages is simply irrational. It should be about individual merit.

We agree

 

[Border Reiver]

Discussions of combat in the 15th century are fine - for the History section. The idea that we should be basing our selection criteria for soldiers in the 21st century based on one type of soldier used in the 15th century is approaching lunacy. The actual issue for this thread is "Are transgender soldiers capable of carrying out their duties?"

The short answer is "Yes."

The long answer is also "Yes", but involves some Broadway show tunes and a dance number.

The military - be it the US, Canadian, British, or the Imperial Guard of the God-Emperor have set of physical, mental and training standards that the people serving in them are required to meet. Provided a soldier, sailor or airman meets those standards what is the logical basis for denying them the opportunity to serve? Denying a person the ability to serve based on criteria that are unrelated to the job they are supposed to do is wrong and should not be allowed in any society that gives even lipservice to the idea of equality.

 

[Ziggurat]

Discussions of combat in the 15th century are fine - for the History section. The idea that we should be basing our selection criteria for soldiers in the 21st century based on one type of soldier used in the 15th century is approaching lunacy.

Good thing, then, that nobody suggested that.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

And for clarity my comment was highlighting the prejudice in the standards of evidence demanded. It wasn't enough that other countries do it with no obvious ill effects there had to be scientific studies proving the point. If there were studies no doubt there would need to be more studies as there was still debate. It's the time honoured way to appear to be reasonable while maintaining the status quo at all costs. Because the status quo never has to be justified. It just is

 

[quadraginta]

And for clarity my comment was highlighting the prejudice in the standards of evidence demanded. It wasn't enough that other countries do it with no obvious ill effects there had to be scientific studies proving the point. If there were studies no doubt there would need to be more studies as there was still debate. It's the time honoured way to appear to be reasonable while maintaining the status quo at all costs. Because the status quo never has to be justified. It just is

Eighteen other countries (as well as our own) doing it without any problems is not evidence. It's just hearsay.

 

[Meadmaker]

The military - be it the US, Canadian, British, or the Imperial Guard of the God-Emperor have set of physical, mental and training standards that the people serving in them are required to meet. Provided a soldier, sailor or airman meets those standards what is the logical basis for denying them the opportunity to serve? Denying a person the ability to serve based on criteria that are unrelated to the job they are supposed to do is wrong and should not be allowed in any society that gives even lipservice to the idea of equality.

The only thing I would quibble with is that what matters is not the ability of a soldier, but the ability of the unit of which that soldier plays a part. If a given soldier's presence in a unit makes that unit better, he, she, or it (robots) should be part of the unit.

If not, too bad.

 

[Ziggurat]

And for clarity my comment was highlighting the prejudice in the standards of evidence demanded. It wasn't enough that other countries do it with no obvious ill effects there had to be scientific studies proving the point. If there were studies no doubt there would need to be more studies as there was still debate. It's the time honoured way to appear to be reasonable while maintaining the status quo at all costs. Because the status quo never has to be justified. It just is

You are inventing a false history of the debate. I asked for evidence, I didn't demand it. Furthermore, the evidence I asked for cut both ways: it was for evidence for ether side. And there was a study produced, and I accepted that study.

Yet somehow, that has been twisted so that even wanting evidence is wrong. It's a time honored way of advancing a position without regard to its merits.

 

[Ziggurat]

Eighteen other countries (as well as our own) doing it without any problems is not evidence. It's just hearsay.

Lying about the conversation that took place isn't bad faith argument. It's just how the forum operates.

 

[bobdroege7]

I find it strange that in an argument for whether or not women and transgendered can serve in the military, the discussion turns to the longbow, one of the most demanding physical tasks ever required.

A raw recruit can't shoot a longbow effectively, male, female or trans. It takes years of training.

I remember a documentary and forgive me for not having a cite, but what struck me about it was the physique of this guy who could shoot a longbow effectively. Give me 10 calvin kline style pictures of able bodied soldiers and I'll pick the longbowman out of the lineup.

 

[Worm]

The only thing I would quibble with is that what matters is not the ability of a soldier, but the ability of the unit of which that soldier plays a part. If a given soldier's presence in a unit makes that unit better, he, she, or it (robots) should be part of the unit.

If not, too bad.

This assumes the unit is incapable of change.
Yeah, the unit might struggle, but the unit will change, the unit will get over it. Always has, always will.

In passing, why would a capable, qualified, trans soldier not improve their unit? Other than challenging the bigotry of idiots who struggle to accept the diversity of life in the modern world? If a unit is full of straight white men who struggle to accept any diversity, then I don't think we want that unit to continue.

It also assumes that all straight white male soldiers improve their units. I strongly doubt that is the case.

I also think you might be underestimating the number of soldiers in history who were not straight. Long before 'don't ask, don't tell' was a thing, there were gay men. Lots of them.

 

[Meadmaker]

This assumes the unit is incapable of change.

Sort of. Timing is a factor here.

I think we would all agree that the racially segregated military of the past was an injustice, and also hurt the effectiveness of the military. However, December 8, 1941 would have been a very bad time to demand desegregation.

It may be that phasing in a new situation is the best way to do things. Yeah, it kind of sucks for people who have to wait, but it would also suck if an ineffective unit went into combat because someone decided that it would have been unfair to keep one of their members out.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You are inventing a false history of the debate. I asked for evidence, I didn't demand it. Furthermore, the evidence I asked for cut both ways: it was for evidence for ether side. And there was a study produced, and I accepted that study.

Yet somehow, that has been twisted so that even wanting evidence is wrong. It's a time honored way of advancing a position without regard to its merits.

Cool. The great thing about the internet is we don't need to speculate on the history of the conversation. Can you link me to the post where you asked for a scientific study that showed evidence that excluding transgender people from the military aids its effectiveness? Cos I can't see it.