• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump - No transgender individuals in the military

It seems stupid to reject talented people from possibly useful military roles based on this issue. Stupid and perhaps illegally discriminatory (The Blade article says plaintiffs are itching to sue). IMO we need people of virtually all shapes and sizes in the role of defending the U.S. That doesn't mean the military is obligated to admit every transgendered person. Just treat people as individuals. Some people will be too fat, too old, or too neurotic to be part of a fighting force.

I see a lot of androgynous young people. I'm not always sure of their genders, but they seem fit. Small, wiry types have special roles to play, just like big beefy people. Statistically the biggest upside cis-gender men have is probably upper body strength. I don't know, statistically, how that compares to an ex-female on steroids.

In the field, sometimes endurance and flexibility will be more valuable than upper-body strength. It depends on the situation. They should all be as physically fit as possible.
 
Minoosh said:
It seems stupid to reject talented people from possibly useful military roles based on this issue. Stupid and perhaps illegally discriminatory (The Blade article says plaintiffs are itching to sue). IMO we need people of virtually all shapes and sizes in the role of defending the U.S. That doesn't mean the military is obligated to admit every transgendered person. Just treat people as individuals. Some people will be too fat, too old, or too neurotic to be part of a fighting force.

I see a lot of androgynous young people. I'm not always sure of their genders, but they seem fit. Small, wiry types have special roles to play, just like big beefy people. Statistically the biggest upside cis-gender men have is probably upper body strength. I don't know, statistically, how that compares to an ex-female on steroids.

In the field, sometimes endurance and flexibility will be more valuable than upper-body strength. It depends on the situation. They should all be as physically fit as possible.
Click to expand...


You definitely won't find people like me crawling into wing fuel tanks to clean and maintain them. It boggles my mind when people bring up men's greater general strength as if it were the only physical asset a soldier could have in the modern military. Those tank rats are tough, and usually small women.
 
Ball turret gunner in WW 2?

In fact- aren't there studies showing women can endure more g-forces than men? Given the latest fighter jets are fly by wire, doesn't this give women an advantage as pilots?

Less food and oxygen consumption by smaller people on subs?
 
Giordano said:
In fact- aren't there studies showing women can endure more g-forces than men?
Click to expand...

I've never heard that. Nor does it even make much sense.

Less food and oxygen consumption by smaller people on subs?
Click to expand...

How important a factor is lower food consumption on a modern sub? Oxygen isn't an issue for nuclear subs, they can make their own using reactor power and sea water.
 
bobdroege7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the relevance of long bows in today's military.
 
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/p...sgender-military-pentagon-study-20170727.html

Here are its key findings:

• There are an estimated 1,320 to 6,630 active duty personnel, out of a total of 1.1 million, who are transgender.

• Only a smaller subset of these military members would actually seek gender change medical treatment, the study estimates. Rand projects that 30 to 40 new hormone treatments would occur each year; there would be an additional 25 to 140 new gender change surgeries. Additional health care costs for the military would range between $2.4 million a year to $8.4 million

• Some 10 to 130 active military members who are transgender would be unable to deploy as a result. Rand describes this as a “negligible” number given that there were 50,000 Army soldiers alone in 2015 who were unable to deploy for varying reasons.

• Eighteen countries already permit transgenders to openly serve in their militaries. The Rand study said it could find no evidence that the policy affected operational readiness or cohesion.

• But, added the study’s lead author, Agnes Gereben Schaefer, “The foreign militaries we have studied have reported harassment and bullying incidents, but these effects have been mitigated by having clear policies and comprehensive training across their militaries.”
 
thaiboxerken said:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/p...sgender-military-pentagon-study-20170727.html

Here are its key findings:

• There are an estimated 1,320 to 6,630 active duty personnel, out of a total of 1.1 million, who are transgender.

• Only a smaller subset of these military members would actually seek gender change medical treatment, the study estimates. Rand projects that 30 to 40 new hormone treatments would occur each year; there would be an additional 25 to 140 new gender change surgeries. Additional health care costs for the military would range between $2.4 million a year to $8.4 million

• Some 10 to 130 active military members who are transgender would be unable to deploy as a result. Rand describes this as a “negligible” number given that there were 50,000 Army soldiers alone in 2015 who were unable to deploy for varying reasons.

• Eighteen countries already permit transgenders to openly serve in their militaries. The Rand study said it could find no evidence that the policy affected operational readiness or cohesion.

• But, added the study’s lead author, Agnes Gereben Schaefer, “The foreign militaries we have studied have reported harassment and bullying incidents, but these effects have been mitigated by having clear policies and comprehensive training across their militaries.”
Click to expand...

So,we would save under 2.4 million, that is still a lot of money.
 
tyr_13 said:
You definitely won't find people like me crawling into wing fuel tanks to clean and maintain them. It boggles my mind when people bring up men's greater general strength as if it were the only physical asset a soldier could have in the modern military. Those tank rats are tough, and usually small women.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I didn't know such a job existed. I was thinking of tunnel rats in Vietnam.

Giordano said:
Less food and oxygen consumption by smaller people on subs?
Click to expand...
Another thing I thought about when someone mentioned subs.
 
From the Young British soldier, by Rudyard Kipling:

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!
Click to expand...

Not too germane to the transgender situation but women can be pretty damn tough.
 
Ziggurat said:
I didn't ask for evidence showing that excluding transgender people from the military aids its effectiveness. Nor did I ask for evidence showing that excluding transgender people from the military hurts its effectiveness. I asked for evidence of what the effect of including them was, positive OR negative. The effect of excluding them is logically just the inverse of that, and need not be asked as a separate question.
Click to expand...

Well I can't find where you did anything except ask for evidence that including them didn't cause problems. But happy to be corrected with a link.

But if you are happy to conclude that the default should be that everyone is allowed unless there is good reason to exclude them then we are in agreement and all is good.
 
BobTheCoward said:
So,we would save under 2.4 million, that is still a lot of money.
Click to expand...

We'd save a hell of a lot more by eliminating paying for Viagra, which is a frivolous expense at best. $41.6 million dollars is a hell of a lot more than $2.4 million.

The annual budget for the military as a whole is over $500 BILLION. That's with a B. $2.4 million, while a lot to the average American, is a drop in the bucket compared to what the military spends each year. So unless you can point out some thing that costs around the same as the $2.4 million that the military would be better off spending that money on, I say pay for the hormone treatments and gender replacement therapy, and let them serve their country.

I'm predicting right now that you will be utterly unable to find anything we don't already have in the military that the $2.4 million would be better spent on.
 
There is billions of dollars worth of waste, fraud and abuse in the military. This crusade against transgenders is ideological bigotry and is not motivated by frugality.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am just trying to figure out what branch of the US military uses longbows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom