Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 103

Thread: Ban on transgender in the military announced.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    CDA
    Posts
    4,815
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)
    I'm okay with people being whoever they feel they need to be, but gender dysphoria is a mental disorder and mental disorders can disqualify you from military service. This seems like a no-brainer to me.
    98% Sarcastic. 100% Overthinking things and making up reasons for buying a new firearm.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    17,382
    Feedback Score
    0
    I think the left saw the military as a great way to publicly fund a lot of dick-ectomies. Sign-up, declare, steal a bunch of diplomatic cables, get your junk snipped, and you are out. Or roughly in that order.

    Where I think this is overall important is that the issue is that the focus isn't on individual snowflakes, but on force readiness. If it comes into an individual rights kind of argument, that isn't a winning battlefield. It needs to be that trans is a such a small fraction of the population that it doesn't make sense to sacrifice effectiveness. In a military sense you can make arguments like this because it isn't like the rest of society. It also isn't like the race or gender issue where you are taking out half or a large percentage of the population.

    Oddly, trans people are about as common as unicorns, but at the same time they are getting their horns snipped.

    Why the hell is having the bathroom match the plumbing such an issue with people?
    The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.

    It's that simple.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Oh, Dah Nord Minnersoda.
    Posts
    1,342
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand View Post
    I think the left saw the military as a great way to publicly fund a lot of dick-ectomies. Sign-up, declare, steal a bunch of diplomatic cables, get your junk snipped, and you are out. Or roughly in that order.

    Where I think this is overall important is that the issue is that the focus isn't on individual snowflakes, but on force readiness. If it comes into an individual rights kind of argument, that isn't a winning battlefield. It needs to be that trans is a such a small fraction of the population that it doesn't make sense to sacrifice effectiveness. In a military sense you can make arguments like this because it isn't like the rest of society. It also isn't like the race or gender issue where you are taking out half or a large percentage of the population.

    Oddly, trans people are about as common as unicorns, but at the same time they are getting their horns snipped.

    Why the hell is having the bathroom match the plumbing such an issue with people?
    I can agree.

    While I do hope there will be some sort of provision in place to allow those who have successfully "transitioned" to enlist and attend, I have mentioned before that I am not one, in any capacity, to determine what dictates effectiveness within any military organization.

    I agreed previously that I did not like the idea of footing the bill in tax dollars for individuals who should be responsible for their change; glad to see that will be avoided. But, at the same time, I do hope that there will be some sort of common ground that can be met rather than "In No Capacity.".

    Either way, a lot of the concerns that had been discussed previously are now moot points. In the interim at least.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,320
    Feedback Score
    9 (91%)
    Quote Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand View Post

    Why the hell is having the bathroom match the plumbing such an issue with people?
    Because they like playing with the wrong peoples parts. And they feel so wrong, they need for everyone else to tell them they're right.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    11,762
    Feedback Score
    0
    Good, about time someone put a stop to the insanity.
    11C2P '83-'87
    Airborne Infantry
    F**k China!

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    A Little Here And A Little There
    Posts
    3,225
    Feedback Score
    82 (100%)
    And.....here comes the ramp-up in impeachment efforts.
    "Boo-hoo that mean ol' Trumpy tried to ban muslims, and deport all the mexicans, now he's trying turn our military into a killing machine full of straight white males, instead of the diverse and accepting bringer of democracy it's supposed to be. Let's get 'im!"

    Last edited by Jellybean; 07-26-17 at 13:22.
    "Once we get some iron in our souls, we'll get some iron in our hands..."

    "...A rapid, aggressive response will let you get away with some pretty audacious things if you are willing to be mean, fast, and naked."-Failure2Stop

    "The Right can meme; the Left can organize. I guess now we know which one is important." - Random internet comment

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    930
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by HeruMew View Post
    I can agree.

    While I do hope there will be some sort of provision in place to allow those who have successfully "transitioned" to enlist and attend, I have mentioned before that I am not one, in any capacity, to determine what dictates effectiveness within any military organization.

    I agreed previously that I did not like the idea of footing the bill in tax dollars for individuals who should be responsible for their change; glad to see that will be avoided. But, at the same time, I do hope that there will be some sort of common ground that can be met rather than "In No Capacity.".

    Either way, a lot of the concerns that had been discussed previously are now moot points. In the interim at least.
    Problem is once they're snipped, the mental disorder still remains which convinced them their DNA was a lie.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    21,835
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    If they serve post gender change, survive the training and do their job, no chits given by me. However, there's no reason the US tax payer should pay for GRS and ongoing costs of it, so policy could be something like they must be 2 years post op to join and medically stable, pass psych evals, etc.

    Yup, will be a lefty estrogen explosion over this.
    - Will

    General Performance/Fitness Advice for all

    www.BrinkZone.com

    LE/Mil specific info:

    https://brinkzone.com/category/swatleomilitary/

    “Those who do not view armed self defense as a basic human right, ignore the mass graves of those who died on their knees at the hands of tyrants.”

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    CDA
    Posts
    4,815
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by WillBrink View Post
    If they serve post gender change, survive the training and do their job, no chits given by me. However, there's no reason the US tax payer should pay for GRS and ongoing costs of it, so policy could be something like they must be 2 years post op to join and medically stable, pass psych evals, etc.

    Yup, will be a lefty estrogen explosion over this.
    Absolutely nailed it.
    98% Sarcastic. 100% Overthinking things and making up reasons for buying a new firearm.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    17,382
    Feedback Score
    0
    What kind of meds do post ops need and on how regular of a basis? How does that compare to other medical conditions and serving?

    Shepherd Smith doesn't seem to like the idea.... says that there are thousands and thousands of trans people in the Military. He's getting pretty snitty about it.
    The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.

    It's that simple.

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •