View Full Version : Army: Females must shower with Trans Women
The parts in bold are truly "WTF?" and the title most unfortunate. Those are not trans women. If they were fully trans, I could at least fathom the policy (whether I agree or not with trans people in the mil), but as is, well, so much potential fail.
Army Training: Females Have To Suck It Up When Trans Women Shower Naked With Them
Mandatory Army training materials state that females will have to accept transgender women showering with them.
The Army has been rolling out a series of training materials entitled “Tier Three Transgender Training” to prepare soldiers to accept transgenders in their ranks, and one of the bullet points states that soldiers will have to accept austere, primitive conditions, which entails acceptance of trans women showering with other female soldiers.
The Federalist obtained the materials from an active-duty officer who completed the training last week.
According to the training, soldiers will be allowed to switch their gender markets without undergoing any kind of transition surgeries or physical changes. There are two crucial elements needed for transition.
First, a doctor must state that the soldier is stable in their new gender, and second, the soldier has to change their gender designation on a passport or birth certificate. Once that’s done, the soldier must “use the billeting, bathroom and shower facilities” associated with their new gender identity.
That means males transitioning to females without any transition surgery can shower naked in the same room with other females.
These female soldiers, instead of protesting, “must accepting living and working conditions that are often austere, primitive, and characterized by little or no privacy.”
An additional bullet point notes that females need to prepare themselves for encountering individuals who are listed as female, but still have the physical genitalia of males. The same applies for men who encounter women transitioning to men.
Cont:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/06/army-training-females-have-to-suck-it-up-when-trans-women-shower-naked-with-them/
http://38.media.tumblr.com/aa7b6ef0501ff26a2a9692fed96ea108/tumblr_nrq8nzqdXe1ua2qalo1_400.gif
Then can I just call myself a pre-surg tranny and shower with them?? Suh-weet!!
Then can I just call myself a pre-surg tranny and shower with them?? Suh-weet!!
I feel bad for the women in the mil who can't even take a freakin' shower without some dude there. Now, we all know what will happen should they be dumb enough to have pre trans F->M showering with the boys. End very badly that will.
Which genius came up with that?
Maybe Gen. Mattis will fix this mess.
skywalkrNCSU
07-07-17, 09:14
Just go full Starship Troopers mode
Or they could just dictate what to use based on sex, not gender.
That pretty much eliminates any "confusion". Unreal.
I wish this shit was around when I was in HS. I would have been in the girl's locker room every gym class...
Gee, sounds like really evil and stupid people run the Army. Only a deluded and evil person would think that a mutilated man was a woman or a man that says he's a woman is a woman......and then force others to be a part of it.
It's almost as if someone is trying to degrade military morale to the point of nobody wanting to serve. Hmmmm
Wasn't it just a short while ago where women had to have separate facilities from men cause it was degrading to be forced into austere and primitive conditions. Must suck to realize feminism got a kick in the vag in favor of the next more protected class.
Just showed this to my wife, as she is an Army veteran too. She just threw up in her mouth. Thank goodness we were discharged years ago. F this chit.
Something tells me this is'nt going to help recruitment with females... I figure those females that can, will leave..in droves.. And who could blame them?
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-07-17, 12:40
And that gentlemen, is the end of any possibility of a draft. Why take the trouble of running to Canada, and being gay doesn't get you out anymore. Just say that you are feeling female.
And that gentlemen, is the end of any possibility of a draft. Why take the trouble of running to Canada, and being gay doesn't get you out anymore. Just say that you are feeling female.
Didn't you hear? They are planning on adding females to the selective service.
Just go full Starship Troopers mode
My first thoughts. Get dirty together, get clean together. It's a brave new world.
So if a lesbian feels like a man I assume they can shower with men then, correct? Why is that not an issue or subject of an article? Nah, double standards don't exist in today's enlightened society......
There is a very small percentage of folks this will impact. The negative impact on folks will heavily outweigh any positive. This actually may be the first step in the path back to common sense.
On the other hand, maybe I should have chopped of my pee pee and cried when they told me I couldn't fly because of my vision.
So if a lesbian feels like a man I assume they can shower with men then, correct? Why is that not an issue or subject of an article? Nah, double standards don't exist in today's enlightened society......
I know you are being funny, but, In talking with some of the women that I have converted to lesbianism (LOL) it isn't so much they feel like men, they are just attracted to other women, some of my convertees explained to me that they are actually repelled by men (I have that effect on women).
Yep, there are butches but just as often lesbians are as feminine as heterosexual females.
With no military experience, I can't truly input the best ideology here, as I don't understand all the dynamics, relationships, hazing, etc that may/or may not happen.
But, are we really back at the: "Men will use it to get into girls restrooms to see their privates."?
For real? Has this discussion not been hashed out a thousand times? Just because we have some pervs who would've used that to their advantage doesn't speak for the people who this will benefit.
If people are gunna peeping tom, they're gunna peeping tom. I don't doubt it already happens in many many ways within the military and many more outside.
But, comon. Someone is going to go get a Dr. statement, come out publicly to your unit, and claim they're their new gender on a legal document just to see a vag?
I mean, what the hell is the internet for?
It just really freaks me out how radical some of you are over this. Going as far to state: because "I Woulda Done It."
That's not entertaining, that's not flattering, and not something you should be bragging about to justify the way you feel about something...
I will leave it at that. I know I am one of the Minority, but some of these borderline phobic comments are ridiculous at best.
With no military experience, I can't truly input the best ideology here, as I don't understand all the dynamics, relationships, hazing, etc that may/or may not happen.
But, are we really back at the: "Men will use it to get into girls restrooms to see their privates."?
For real? Has this discussion not been hashed out a thousand times? Just because we have some pervs who would've used that to their advantage doesn't speak for the people who this will benefit.
If people are gunna peeping tom, they're gunna peeping tom. I don't doubt it already happens in many many ways within the military and many more outside.
But, comon. Someone is going to go get a Dr. statement, come out publicly to your unit, and claim they're their new gender on a legal document just to see a vag?
I mean, what the hell is the internet for?
It just really freaks me out how radical some of you are over this. Going as far to state: because "I Woulda Done It."
That's not entertaining, that's not flattering, and not something you should be bragging about to justify the way you feel about something...
I will leave it at that. I know I am one of the Minority, but some of these borderline phobic comments are ridiculous at best.
So, do the ACTUAL women involved get a vote as to whether or not they must shower with an unwanted penis present?
Or would you consider them "radical" as well?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So, do the ACTUAL women involved get a vote as to whether or not they must shower with an unwanted penis present?
Or would you consider them "radical" as well?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They can discharge or not enlist.
I don't know about you, but if any enlisted member can't get beyond those personal preferences, they can elect their own future.
To clarify though, no one here commenting, to my knowledge, is in that position.
Please don't try to manipulate my statement into something like calling our service members radicals for having a preference. Im not pointing to those people, I am pointing to the groups of people here, within OUR community, making statements that are extreme.
Kinda like the one I am replying to.
I know you are being funny, but, In talking with some of the women that I have converted to lesbianism (LOL) it isn't so much they feel like men, they are just attracted to other women, some of my convertees explained to me that they are actually repelled by men (I have that effect on women).
Yep, there are butches but just as often lesbians are as feminine as heterosexual females.
The L word is a great insight into the majority of lesbian's chosen lifestyle. The diesel mechanic, bulldagger lesbians are pretty much confined to Germany and led by Angela Merkel. :D
I have no problem with other people's choices of who they want to bump uglies with; the flamboyant people are pushing their equality back to 'Don't ask-Don't tell" territory and that's the best thing that can happen to the military.
They can discharge or not enlist.
I don't know about you, but if any enlisted member can't get beyond those personal preferences, they can elect their own future.
To clarify though, no one here commenting, to my knowledge, is in that position.
Please don't try to manipulate my statement into something like calling our service members radicals for having a preference. Im not pointing to those people, I am pointing to the groups of people here, within OUR community, making statements that are extreme.
Kinda like the one I am replying to.
While I agree with your original premise, I and many others will consider your first two sentences here to be "extreme". Simply put, YOU and DoD don't have a right to tell women whether they have to be OK with a mandate to shower with a pre-op tranny. You also don't have a right to exclude them from military service or punish them because they don't want to shower with a pre-op tranny.
Simply put, a tranny is going to feel fearful showering with actual men and women are going to be mostly uncomfortable to actually fearful showering with one. Since austere condition postings aren't going to allow for multiple segregated facilities ,they should not be allowed to serve anywhere those conditions can't be met.
We can discuss whether they should be in the military at all somewhere else, but all this feel-good BS is not conducive to good military discipline or force readiness. :(
Averageman
07-07-17, 16:43
I'm thinking that if you are too fat to enlist you lose weight.
If you don't pass the ASVAB you study for it.
If you have a record you get it expunged and get a waiver.
But...
If you have Man parts and want Lady parts, well, just come on in...
Really?
And a potential service member placing their own personal preferences ahead of chain of command is Military Discipline? Again, no one is being restricted.
If you don't like something enough to refuse to look past it, that's a personal issue.
Like economic growth, if this is a true issue, the lack of enlistment will speak for itself.
Anyone who wants to be a part of that higher calling has higher standards.
Service Members priority should be serving our nation. They can be political, have preferences, and voice their concerns. But if they cannot put their baggage on hold to serve our nation and the orders from chain of command, they don't have to enlist. No one is forcing them either way.
Military Discipline is more than just that statement. It's many things, many more than I will ever understand, but an important piece is setting your personal baggage to the side while serving your country.
Keep in mind, I don't say this to say people are *wrong* that's merely opinion. But the fear mongering from our own community, my original point before words were put in my mouth, was that we should focus on legitimate concerns, not something that our service members should have enough discipline to be mature about.
My two cents. I know its not popular, but its still a valid opine.
Nonetheless, I can understand how my rapport about not enlisting can be extreme, to many, but that's america. Free to make your choice, or not. DoD may mandate it, and if it's not something you agree with, you either deal with it within the change, or get out and try to change it from the outside.
They can discharge or not enlist.
I don't know about you, but if any enlisted member can't get beyond those personal preferences, they can elect their own future.
To clarify though, no one here commenting, to my knowledge, is in that position.
Please don't try to manipulate my statement into something like calling our service members radicals for having a preference. Im not pointing to those people, I am pointing to the groups of people here, within OUR community, making statements that are extreme.
Kinda like the one I am replying to.
Actually, I was asking a question. I never implied anything beyond your actual statement.
And I was unaware that...
"any enlisted member can't get beyond those personal preferences, they can elect their own future."
...was a possibility.
It's odd to me that "non transitioning" males would ever be allowed to be naked in front of female (some as young as 18) service members.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quoted wrong post
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And a potential service member placing their own personal preferences ahead of chain of command is Military Discipline? Again, no one is being restricted.
If you don't like something enough to refuse to look past it, that's a personal issue.
Like economic growth, if this is a true issue, the lack of enlistment will speak for itself.
Anyone who wants to be a part of that higher calling has higher standards.
Service Members priority should be serving our nation. They can be political, have preferences, and voice their concerns. But if they cannot put their baggage on hold to serve our nation and the orders from chain of command, they don't have to enlist. No one is forcing them either way.
Military Discipline is more than just that statement. It's many things, many more than I will ever understand, but an important piece is setting your personal baggage to the side while serving your country.
Keep in mind, I don't say this to say people are *wrong* that's merely opinion. But the fear mongering from our own community, my original point before words were put in my mouth, was that we should focus on legitimate concerns, not something that our service members should have enough discipline to be mature about.
My two cents. I know its not popular, but its still a valid opine.
Nonetheless, I can understand how my rapport about not enlisting can be extreme, to many, but that's america. Free to make your choice, or not. DoD may mandate it, and if it's not something you agree with, you either deal with it within the change, or get out and try to change it from the outside.
Ironically, I agree with most of this...just from the other side.
And nobody is putting words in your mouth. It's just a discussion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ironically, I agree with most of this...just from the other side.
And nobody is putting words in your mouth. It's just a discussion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I will secede on the words in my mouth statements.
Apologies for insinuating such, I hope you can see why I would have thought that, but still no reason to retaliate with my passive agressive statements.
I do appreciate the conversation.
I will secede on the words in my mouth statements.
Apologies for insinuating such, I hope you can see why I would have thought that, but still no reason to retaliate with my passive agressive statements.
I do appreciate the conversation.
No biggie. I've had my moments as well...it IS the Internet after all
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RetroRevolver77
07-07-17, 17:34
So you're saying all I have to do is strap on a manzier bro and I can go shower with some 18 year old females?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS8nXc3X-6k
So, do the ACTUAL women involved get a vote as to whether or not they must shower with an unwanted penis present?
As goofy and potentially problematic as that policy will be, I'd say the answer to your Q is no. The mil is not a democracy. Mil members here can correct me of that's off base.
As goofy and potentially problematic as that policy will be, I'd say the answer to your Q is no. The mil is not a democracy. Mil members here can correct me of that's off base.
I would assume you to be correct.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With no military experience, I can't truly input the best ideology here, as I don't understand all the dynamics, relationships, hazing, etc that may/or may not happen.
But, are we really back at the: "Men will use it to get into girls restrooms to see their privates."?
For real? Has this discussion not been hashed out a thousand times? Just because we have some pervs who would've used that to their advantage doesn't speak for the people who this will benefit.
If people are gunna peeping tom, they're gunna peeping tom. I don't doubt it already happens in many many ways within the military and many more outside.
But, comon. Someone is going to go get a Dr. statement, come out publicly to your unit, and claim they're their new gender on a legal document just to see a vag?
I mean, what the hell is the internet for?
It just really freaks me out how radical some of you are over this. Going as far to state: because "I Woulda Done It."
That's not entertaining, that's not flattering, and not something you should be bragging about to justify the way you feel about something...
I will leave it at that. I know I am one of the Minority, but some of these borderline phobic comments are ridiculous at best.
Phobic my ass. It ain't normal, and neither you nor the new-age libtard freak-show get to define what is "normal".
They can discharge or not enlist.
I don't know about you, but if any enlisted member can't get beyond those personal preferences, they can elect their own future.
To clarify though, no one here commenting, to my knowledge, is in that position.
Please don't try to manipulate my statement into something like calling our service members radicals for having a preference. Im not pointing to those people, I am pointing to the groups of people here, within OUR community, making statements that are extreme.
Kinda like the one I am replying to.
Got news for ya chief, his statement isn't radical.......it's freaking NORMAL.
With no military experience, I can't truly input the best ideology here, as I don't understand all the dynamics, relationships, hazing, etc that may/or may not happen.
But, are we really back at the: "Men will use it to get into girls restrooms to see their privates."?
For real? Has this discussion not been hashed out a thousand times? Just because we have some pervs who would've used that to their advantage doesn't speak for the people who this will benefit.
If people are gunna peeping tom, they're gunna peeping tom. I don't doubt it already happens in many many ways within the military and many more outside.
But, comon. Someone is going to go get a Dr. statement, come out publicly to your unit, and claim they're their new gender on a legal document just to see a vag?
I mean, what the hell is the internet for?
It just really freaks me out how radical some of you are over this. Going as far to state: because "I Woulda Done It."
That's not entertaining, that's not flattering, and not something you should be bragging about to justify the way you feel about something...
I will leave it at that. I know I am one of the Minority, but some of these borderline phobic comments are ridiculous at best.
You know, I understand, and, for the most part, agree with your thoughts. You stated your opinion in an appropriate manner, I hope it is received as such.
But, having not served, maybe you have not thought about how disruptive this will be to the morale of some units, not all but some.
For the most part you are talking soldiers either in their late teens or early twenties, not completely mature adults, many who will have never been exposed to transsexualism.
I don't think many on this board are homophobic, but many speak with the knowledge of what it actually means to be a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. At it's root, what is needed from our military is selfless sacrifice for the good of the whole.
It should not be about the individual's wants and needs, but rather the needs of the Nation, and therefore the service. Unfortunately, too often the former seems to be the case.
Several things about this bear further discussion:
1) Are folks in the middle of the gender reassignment process going to be allowed to enlist?
2) For those soldiers currently serving, is gender reassignment considered elective surgery? Not to be coarse, but does Flat-chested Phyllis get enhanced on the government dime? Does Pencil-dick Pete get some length and girth added on our dime? Shouldn't be.
3) Most of these folks who are currently-serving and want to be gender reassigned could be honorably discharged and be allowed to reenlist and their previous rank within a specified time after their reassignment surgery is done. That would allow them to be assigned to another unit in their new identity, or if they choose back to the old unit. I know that sounds a little flaky, but shit, the theme seems to be meet everyone's needs except the mission.
4) Early on I posted about the impact on morale in the unit. Thinking further, if 'Joe' is in a unit and has been carrying his weight and is okay to get along with, pretty sure most of the folks would be willing to accept 'Josephine' with little drama, so maybe the morale issue is overthinking.
It is still disturbing to see the focus slipping more and more to individual wants and needs rather than the whole.
JM probably disjointed $.02
ETA: I'm really embarrassed that it did not register that the article was not necessarily talking about folks in the middle of reassignment surgery, but rather those who weren't going to get the plumbing rearranged. My bad.
And a potential service member placing their own personal preferences ahead of chain of command is Military Discipline? Again, no one is being restricted.
If you don't like something enough to refuse to look past it, that's a personal issue.
Like economic growth, if this is a true issue, the lack of enlistment will speak for itself.
Anyone who wants to be a part of that higher calling has higher standards.
Service Members priority should be serving our nation. They can be political, have preferences, and voice their concerns. But if they cannot put their baggage on hold to serve our nation and the orders from chain of command, they don't have to enlist. No one is forcing them either way.
Military Discipline is more than just that statement. It's many things, many more than I will ever understand, but an important piece is setting your personal baggage to the side while serving your country.
Keep in mind, I don't say this to say people are *wrong* that's merely opinion. But the fear mongering from our own community, my original point before words were put in my mouth, was that we should focus on legitimate concerns, not something that our service members should have enough discipline to be mature about.
My two cents. I know its not popular, but its still a valid opine.
Nonetheless, I can understand how my rapport about not enlisting can be extreme, to many, but that's america. Free to make your choice, or not. DoD may mandate it, and if it's not something you agree with, you either deal with it within the change, or get out and try to change it from the outside.
Their "baggage" isn't baggage. The freaks don't get to define what is normal. Never should have been able to, but 8 years of Shitstain and his lefty conglomerate tried to fundamentally change us, but it didn't work. Welcome to the NEW (but yet the true) America.
You wanna be a freak? Fine, no one is advocating dragging you into the street and killing you. No one is saying you can't do this or do that. What is being said is that ramming it down our throats and attempting to tell us what is now "normal" is total bullshit.
Let me be more succinct and maybe my point will come across as more than just total and unequivocal pushback (which it is). The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was in fact brilliant, despite Clinton being the one who implemented it. No one cares who you want to have sex with, and it doesn't matter. That said, to force your personal lifestyle choices on EVERYONE (and that is an understatement when it comes to the military) is being a bit self-serving and attention whore-ish. The military is a melding of society's cross-section. Special categories don't cut it. There is a reason that all male recruits get their heads shaved. It promotes uniformity and reduces individuality, as you must perform as a UNIT. That is the idea behind it. "Special" snowflakes can and do serve but must realize that their personal peculiarities are without a doubt secondary to the big picture.
Averageman
07-07-17, 18:32
The objective of the left for the last fifty years has been to redefine"Normal".
If we are willing to play this game then, like the fat kid, the dumb kid or those needing any other type of waiver for enlistment, perhaps those needing to transition their sexual Identity need to accomplish this before enlistment?
Just because POTUS Obama wanted to cripple our Armed Forces doesn't mean we need to play along.
Didn't you hear? They are planning on adding females to the selective service.
I may be the Lone Ranger in this opinion, but why the heck hasn't that already been done?
I get so freaking tired of the double standard.
My son knocked up a girl he picked up in a bar when he was home on leave. My grandson was just beginning to walk the first time I saw him, called my son and told him, I wouldn't bother fighting this, he's yours. Soon after it comes time to start paying child support, which he did without complaint. Then they went after him to pay for the medical expenses associated with the pregnancy and delivery - all of them. Took him nearly a year to talk sense into them and get them to split the bill down the middle.
Equal rights my ass. Only when it is going the way they want.
I may be the Lone Ranger in this opinion, but why the heck hasn't that already been done?
No kidding. If we did ACTUAL equality in this country people would lose their minds. College admissions would be something like 80% asian and jewish kids who have been cracking the books before the rest of us even thought about trying to get into college. There would probably be 4 white guys in the entire NFL.
I know you are being funny, but, In talking with some of the women that I have converted to lesbianism (LOL) it isn't so much they feel like men, they are just attracted to other women, some of my convertees explained to me that they are actually repelled by men (I have that effect on women).
Yep, there are butches but just as often lesbians are as feminine as heterosexual females.
I could see having lesbians shower with straight men and gay men showering with women before I can the trans people. No one wants someone to be playing with themselves while looking at you in the showers.
Hold the phone here. Mew is going to go off about people putting aside their own personal baggage and putting the needs of the nation and service ahead of oneself. Saying that those who don't like it can opt-out and not reenlist, or even enlist in the first place...
WHERE IS THAT SAME MENTALITY FOR THE PRE-OP TRANNY!?! Keep your mouth shut, put your own baggage aside, and get your cock in the mens room or vag in the ladies. It's become perfectly socially normal to kowtow to the most isolated of societal minorities and portray anyone feeling that the right answer might be something else as a bigot. Why the hell not point out that this individual has male or female parts, and they therefore can use male or female facilities. I'm so sick of everything in the world needing to bend to; "MUH FEELS!!!" This "gender identity" bullshit is wearing really thin.
I went to college with a guy. Smart as hell and could have done anything. Only thing he wanted to do was be a Marine. Graduated, got his commission, served until he was a Captain, got out and went on to become one hell of a cop. QUEER AS A THREE DOLLAR BILL THE ENTIRE TIME I'VE KNOWN HIM. When it came time to join he kept his damned mouth shut about it, this was pre-social media so that wasn't an issue, and as far as I know he spent his active duty time single. He wanted it, it's all he wanted, and he was willing to put his own thoughts aside for it.
If we can't get people like him to enlist, burn it all down... Honestly, co-ed latrines, co-ed showers, co-ed racks, and be done with it. Drop the charade of "identifies as" because it's just going to bust up morale and cohesion. Charlie don't give a damn if Brenda was born as Brent, or Michael started life as Michelle, so why do we?
I could see having lesbians shower with straight men and gay men showering with women before I can the trans people. No one wants someone to be playing with themselves while looking at you in the showers.
I think this might happen one time, and the one playing with themselves would get busted up really quite badly...
So when folks decide to get implants and present as dolphins or sharks will we be forced to allow the. To swim in the tanks at sea world and the zoo wit the other dolphins and sharks?
A ridiculous questions, yes. Not a very good comparison, no. But where the hell does it end? Where's the line and who decides it? When does that line get crossed in the future and why?
What about adults presenting as children- do we allow a 57 year old man who believes and wants to present as a toddler to be allowed into Daycare?
Do we allow a person who believes they are a dog and presents as one to force a veterinarian clinic to treat them medically as a canine?
It's not normal. Gender disphoria should NOT be normalized.
Do I hate these people? Hell no! Do I wish them to not do as they wish- whithin REASON? Hell no!
But what we have going on with the bathroom issue in the military and in public is crossing the line.
Whenever we have instances such as this- e.g. Whose feelings do we cater to the majority of folks who are normal and not going against their chromosomes or the minuscule minority that defies what they literally and physically are?
you error on the side of freedom and liberty and when ones liberty/freedom/comfort/bathroom is pitted against another- embrace the majority over the minority.
Or you just have a third area for this tiny minority of fringe humans to utilize. It's less than .5% of our population. I don't want to delegitimize anyone. But come on folks!
So when folks decide to get implants and present as dolphins or sharks will we be forced to allow the. To swim in the tanks at sea world and the zoo wit the other dolphins and sharks?
A ridiculous questions, yes. Not a very good comparison, o. But where the hell does it end? Where's the line and who decides it? When does that line get crossed in the future and why?
What about adults presenting as children- do we allow a 57 year old man who believes and wants to present as a toddler to be allow d into Daycare?
Do we allow a person who believes they are a dog and presents as one to force a veterinarian clinic to treat them medically as a canine?
It's not normal. Gender dial Kira should NOT be normalized.
Do I hate these people? Hell no! Do I wish them to not do as they wish- whithin REASON? Hell no!
But what we have going on with the bathroom issue in the military and in public is crossing the line.
Whenever we have instances such as this- e.g. Whose feelings do we cater to the majority of folks who are normal and not going against their chromosomes or the minuscule minority that defies what they literally and physically are?
you error on the side of freedom and liberty and when ones liberty/freedom/comfort/bathroom is pitted against another- embrace the majority over the minority.
Or you just have a third area for this tiny ministry of fringe humans to utilize.
I agree. Label it as "Unisex" and all those of aberrant behavior can use it. Male and actually "identify" as male? Use the Men's restroom/shower. Female and actually "identify" as female? Use the Women's restroom/shower. Anything not covered by the above? Use the Unisex restroom/shower. Quite trying to force YOUR sexuality on everyone else.
Classic libtard rationalization: if you don't revel in, rejoice in, embrace, or otherwise "celebrate" this or that you're a bigot.
F**k that line of thinking.
By this line of thinking why don't all enlistes shower together? If you have dicks and vages in the same shower in this instance why not in all instances?
If I was I dentify as a cat (something I'm not) I'd be labeled bat shit insane. But if I identify as not the sex I am I'm totally normal? W in The actual F.
Ps. The wing bats I've never heard of this thread dragged out. JFC we are doomed as a society.
hotrodder636
07-07-17, 22:06
I don't even have words...as said above: how is this not considered best shit crazy. When is the great flood Mod 1 coming?
And oh yeah...........there's no such thing as a trans-woman. That's just a made up phrase for a jacked up dude or a mutilated dude. Right up there with made up phrases like assault weapon and other crazed Orwellian double speak.
Hold the phone here. Mew is going to go off about people putting aside their own personal baggage and putting the needs of the nation and service ahead of oneself. Saying that those who don't like it can opt-out and not reenlist, or even enlist in the first place...
WHERE IS THAT SAME MENTALITY FOR THE PRE-OP TRANNY!?! Keep your mouth shut, put your own baggage aside, and get your cock in the mens room or vag in the ladies. It's become perfectly socially normal to kowtow to the most isolated of societal minorities and portray anyone feeling that the right answer might be something else as a bigot. Why the hell not point out that this individual has male or female parts, and they therefore can use male or female facilities. I'm so sick of everything in the world needing to bend to; "MUH FEELS!!!" This "gender identity" bullshit is wearing really thin.
I went to college with a guy. Smart as hell and could have done anything. Only thing he wanted to do was be a Marine. Graduated, got his commission, served until he was a Captain, got out and went on to become one hell of a cop. QUEER AS A THREE DOLLAR BILL THE ENTIRE TIME I'VE KNOWN HIM. When it came time to join he kept his damned mouth shut about it, this was pre-social media so that wasn't an issue, and as far as I know he spent his active duty time single. He wanted it, it's all he wanted, and he was willing to put his own thoughts aside for it.
If we can't get people like him to enlist, burn it all down... Honestly, co-ed latrines, co-ed showers, co-ed racks, and be done with it. Drop the charade of "identifies as" because it's just going to bust up morale and cohesion. Charlie don't give a damn if Brenda was born as Brent, or Michael started life as Michelle, so why do we?
I can respect your experience and points.
I also can agree with the co-ed facilities.
To clarify, I don't believe that anyone shouldn't also set aside their baggage. I agree with that statement, but I also truly believe that this issue gets blown out of proportion quite often.
I know that the ultimate concern is for the safety and comfort of all. But as has been mentioned, this is a very small percentage of our population.
I've just never seen the big deal, granted I am from this "new generation".
Please don't think I am some pro-snowflake social justice warrior. This whole conversation started due to my frustration with these "rape/peepingtom/pervy" concepts that seem to perpetuate for some reason.
As mentioned, I am not here to contest whether the DoD is right. I don't want to seem repetitive so I will leave it here.
To those commenting saying that this isn't normal, they're freaks, what ever else, the "they" we are talking about are service members in this case. People who sign up to die for our freedom. I get that you disagree, but do any of our service members deserve those comments? "Normal" is a concept of perception. I will drop this too as at this point, it's an impasse to discussion.
You know, I understand, and, for the most part, agree with your thoughts. You stated your opinion in an appropriate manner, I hope it is received as such.
But, having not served, maybe you have not thought about how disruptive this will be to the morale of some units, not all but some.
For the most part you are talking soldiers either in their late teens or early twenties, not completely mature adults, many who will have never been exposed to transsexualism.
I don't think many on this board are homophobic, but many speak with the knowledge of what it actually means to be a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. At it's root, what is needed from our military is selfless sacrifice for the good of the whole.
It should not be about the individual's wants and needs, but rather the needs of the Nation, and therefore the service. Unfortunately, too often the former seems to be the case.
Several things about this bear further discussion:
1) Are folks in the middle of the gender reassignment process going to be allowed to enlist?
2) For those soldiers currently serving, is gender reassignment considered elective surgery? Not to be coarse, but does Flat-chested Phyllis get enhanced on the government dime? Does Pencil-dick Pete get some length and girth added on our dime? Shouldn't be.
3) Most of these folks who are currently-serving and want to be gender reassigned could be honorably discharged and be allowed to reenlist and their previous rank within a specified time after their reassignment surgery is done. That would allow them to be assigned to another unit in their new identity, or if they choose back to the old unit. I know that sounds a little flaky, but shit, the theme seems to be meet everyone's needs except the mission.
4) Early on I posted about the impact on morale in the unit. Thinking further, if 'Joe' is in a unit and has been carrying his weight and is okay to get along with, pretty sure most of the folks would be willing to accept 'Josephine' with little drama, so maybe the morale issue is overthinking.
It is still disturbing to see the focus slipping more and more to individual wants and needs rather than the whole.
JM probably disjointed $.02
Thanks for the awesome response!
I can certainly agree that my perspective is limited to a civilian mindset. I will admit I don't fully understand the dynamic.
From my perspective of service members it has always been to a very high regard. I have a very deep respect for our military folk. Its in my blood, thankfully continued on by others even though I didn't myself.
Thats why I absolutely agree that the needs of the nation come first. But will this impact it in a negative? We've seen what happens when lowering standards, PT, backgrounds, etc. And thats a whole other debate, like accomodating loadouts.
I think your questions are all valid points, many I could agree with.
ETA: I know I haven't responded to everyone, for the sake of not being overly repetitive and mass posting, I have avoided doing so. Please don't take it personal. Many are contributing valid food for thought.
I can respect your experience and points.
I also can agree with the co-ed facilities.
To clarify, I don't believe that anyone shouldn't also set aside their baggage. I agree with that statement, but I also truly believe that this issue gets blown out of proportion quite often.
I know that the ultimate concern is for the safety and comfort of all. But as has been mentioned, this is a very small percentage of our population.
I've just never seen the big deal, granted I am from this "new generation".
Please don't think I am some pro-snowflake social justice warrior. This whole conversation started due to my frustration with these "rape/peepingtom/pervy" concepts that seem to perpetuate for some reason.
As mentioned, I am not here to contest whether the DoD is right. I don't want to seem repetitive so I will leave it here.
To those commenting saying that this isn't normal, they're freaks, what ever else, the "they" we are talking about are service members in this case. People who sign up to die for our freedom. I get that you disagree, but do any of our service members deserve those comments? "Normal" is a concept of perception. I will drop this too as at this point, it's an impasse to discussion.
Service members aren't somehow exempt from criticism last I checked. NO man or women is above being called out for bad behavior.......you do believe that there is something called bad behavior....right? Your view of "normal" actually guts the word, it's now meaningless. On top of that, your worldview seems to understand compassion as indulging these poor lost souls in their delusion. I would think true compassion would actually take the course that the truth would be told to them and real help for their affliction would be presented. I'm of an older generation.
Service members aren't somehow exempt from criticism last I checked. NO man or women is above being called out for bad behavior.......you do believe that there is something called bad behavior....right? Your view of "normal" actually guts the word, it's now meaningless. On top of that, your worldview seems to understand compassion as indulging these poor lost souls in their delusion. I would think true compassion would actually take the course that the truth would be told to them and real help for their affliction would be presented. I'm of an older generation.
Then I ask. Where is the "bad behaviour"?
By what standards to we determine that.
Are they harming people? Causing uproar every where they go? I just want to understand why their behavior, in anyones eyes, is viewed as "bad" if their behavior doesn't hurt anyone.
We could point fingers at everyone for doing something that is "bad behavior". Just for being members on this board some anti-gunners would say we are getting involved with bad behavior.
And no, normal is a concept.
Is it normal in the military to open accept transgendered? No. But it becomes more "normal" everyday within society. Normals are impacted by culture, generation, social cycles, religion, and countless more things. Granted this is on a "social" standard. Not scientific.
I know we look very opposite on this issue, I don't ask to antagonize but to understand the "why" behind this perspective.
Then I ask. Where is the "bad behaviour"?
By what standards to we determine that.
Are they harming people? Causing uproar every where they go? I just want to understand why their behavior, in anyones eyes, is viewed as "bad" if their behavior doesn't hurt anyone.
We could point fingers at everyone for doing something that is "bad behavior". Just for being members on this board some anti-gunners would say we are getting involved with bad behavior.
And no, normal is a concept.
Is it normal in the military to open accept transgendered? No. But it becomes more "normal" everyday within society. Normals are impacted by culture, generation, social cycles, religion, and countless more things. Granted this is on a "social" standard. Not scientific.
I know we look very opposite on this issue, I don't ask to antagonize but to understand the "why" behind this perspective.
And you've fallen into the trap of relativism. Do you have any standard other than "if their not hurting anyone"? Why is that even your standard and how do you know it's right? Why should anyone be held to your standard? You've come to the point that being born physically male or female is irrelevant.....it's literally meaningless, but what goes on in the mind is everything.....is that really in accord with reality? If you have children and their playing in the front yard and I decide to stripe naked and masturbate in front of them would you consider that harmless? How exactly did I harm them if in fact I did? Would a woman being ordered to shower with a man who thinks he's a woman be harmful to her? Is whether something is really harmful to women only in the hands of some god like generals and marxists politicians? Have you ever studied "critical theory", where it came from and what purveyors of such a theory hoped it would accomplish.
And yes I have a standard, it's eternal and unchangeable and most in the world despise it.
Then I ask. Where is the "bad behaviour"?
By what standards to we determine that.
Are they harming people? Causing uproar every where they go? I just want to understand why their behavior, in anyones eyes, is viewed as "bad" if their behavior doesn't hurt anyone.
We could point fingers at everyone for doing something that is "bad behavior". Just for being members on this board some anti-gunners would say we are getting involved with bad behavior.
And no, normal is a concept.
Is it normal in the military to open accept transgendered? No. But it becomes more "normal" everyday within society. Normals are impacted by culture, generation, social cycles, religion, and countless more things. Granted this is on a "social" standard. Not scientific.
I know we look very opposite on this issue, I don't ask to antagonize but to understand the "why" behind this perspective.
My "why" when it comes to all of this nonsense is simple.
This all gets made in to more than it is. I really couldn't care any less what people do or believe they are. But laws engaging me in their fantasy is where my line gets crossed.
Should we be forced to support anorexia in people? They present as overweight when they are not. There is clearly a reality to the situation and an alter reality subscribed to; be it by mental illness, "being different" fantasy, "born that way" or whatever you wish to call it.
If people are allowed to create these fantasy realities that all of us must engage in and support- where should the line be drawn?
You can't go along with one "reality" and not the other. That's discrimination don't you know?!
Serious question.
If someone decided they were "black", even though their pigment was "white" and decided to start presenting that way- should institutions be forced to give minority status to them? Give them the upper hand in employment and college admission via affirmative action laws? Should all exclusively "black" groups be forced to allow entrance to these trans-dark-pigment individuals?
What about a 40 year old man that believes they are 13 years old and presents as such- should statutory rape laws not apply if they engage in sexual congress with someone who actually is 13 years old.
I could give more examples and have provided many- but I believe I'm being succinct in my position.
"Normal" is a set standard. Societal elements dictate standards and normality.
What is or isn't considered "normal" will always evolve.
Right now gender disphoria is a behavior that is a deviation from >99% of the rest of the population. It is not normal. And that is a fact.
Pushing laws and regulations that force 99%+ of the population to engage in the fantastical realities of the other <1% is just wrong.
Even though I believe it is ridiculous, I'd be fine with a third bathroom or "other" bathroom. Definitely not to be forced on private businesses by law, but if they decided to do so of their own accord. I'd be fine with an "other" bathroom in the military if that's really what they want to do for such a small group of folks. Go for it.
I'm not fine with having to forcibly engage in the fantasy or mental illness of another person- wether you or anyone else says it isn't doing harm or otherwise.
To each their own, leave me out of it and leave me alone. That's my why.
Service members aren't somehow exempt from criticism last I checked. NO man or women is above being called out for bad behavior.......you do believe that there is something called bad behavior....right? Your view of "normal" actually guts the word, it's now meaningless. On top of that, your worldview seems to understand compassion as indulging these poor lost souls in their delusion. I would think true compassion would actually take the course that the truth would be told to them and real help for their affliction would be presented. I'm of an older generation.
Your view of "normal" actually guts the word Normal is actually the word that I always used in talking to my children, as in 'It's okay to be gay, but it is not normal' spring boarding into discussions about relating to people with physical and mental disabilities, as well as psychological problems and being empathetic to their plight, etc.
But, I ask you seriously, what is the truth about their affliction?
God made me the way I am, don't know why. He made one of my daughter's friends with cystic fibrosis, don't exactly know why he allowed that condition to occur. Thinking that through, I believe that a small percentage of folks are psychologically non-heterosexual or gender confused, but a greater percentage actually have a crossed wire, so to speak.
So I'll be damned if I know what to say to each one about their affliction and be just, gentle and kind.
I do know that folks with different challenges need to accept the limitations their challenges put upon them. In the case of military service I think common sense would dictate that folks that want to identify as female with male genitalia, and folks that want to identify as male with female breasts and a vagina, have a condition that would preclude service in the military.
JMO
And of course the huge problem with libertarianism is that it has no moral foundation other than the preferences of it's adherents. It assumes that the "fantasies" of people are harmless in the end and that truth is malleable. Of course most of the world, half our country and tyrants have no problem whatsoever forcing people to submit to whatever tickles their fancy at the moment. In fact, except for some small exceptions, forcing people to submit to other people and their swell ideas is the reality of history.
Why is the Army legitimizing a mental disorder? Why is society so hell bent on destroying itself? Some people are pedophiles, they claim they were born that way, are we going to legitimize pedophilia next?
Your view of "normal" actually guts the word Normal is actually the word that I always used in talking to my children, as in 'It's okay to be gay, but it is not normal' spring boarding into discussions about relating to people with physical and mental disabilities, as well as psychological problems and being empathetic to their plight, etc.
But, I ask you seriously, what is the truth about their affliction?
God made me the way I am, don't know why. He made one of my daughter's friends with cystic fibrosis, don't exactly know why he allowed that condition to occur. Thinking that through, I believe that a small percentage of folks are psychologically non-heterosexual or gender confused, but a greater percentage actually have a crossed wire, so to speak.
So I'll be damned if I know what to say to each one about their affliction and be just, gentle and kind.
I do know that folks with different challenges need to accept the limitations their challenges put upon them. In the case of military service I think common sense would dictate that folks that want to identify as female with male genitalia, and folks that want to identify as male with female breasts and a vagina, have a condition that would preclude service in the military.
JMO
Well to answer seriously......it's a spiritual problem. We all have this problem to one degree or another. We believe garbage and suffer the consequences. And in a world that more and more wants to reduce men and women to smart monkeys with amoral preferences ( harmless fantasies) there is a big push to normalize any and all thought and behavior. Except my particular thought.
Why is the Army legitimizing a mental disorder? Why is society so hell bent on destroying itself? Some people are pedophiles, they claim they were born that way, are we going to legitimize pedophilia next?
Because they don't think it's a mental disorder..........it's literally normal.......just as normal as a man and women marrying and having children.
Why is the Army legitimizing a mental disorder? Why is society so hell bent on destroying itself? Some people are pedophiles, they claim they were born that way, are we going to legitimize pedophilia next?
Because if people on the left are fighting for the rights of others then they can't prove they aren't racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever. Problem is once society has championed all the legitimate causes, there's nothing left so you end up devoting your life to the plight of the some endangered songbird or claim that having a dog as a pet is slavery and working for canine emancipation.
You may joke about pedophilia, but I've met more than a few "those people just need help and understanding" types than I care to think about. Of course I've met brain dead idiots who think nobody should ever be on death row and they feel bad for rapists and serial killers who are serving time or possibly facing the death penalty. I guess if somebody has empathy for Ted Bundy types, then pedophiles aren't all that bad in comparison.
I think if we went forward enough into the future, assuming a functioning human society still exists, we will see people getting "professional help" for their desire to rape and murder people. Because why lock them up if you can understand and help them. And you have disagree with that notion and claim they are "too dangerous" then you are just a foniasophobic who should be locked up for your irrational hatred.
And of course the huge problem with libertarianism is that it has no moral foundation other than the preferences of it's adherents. It assumes that the "fantasies" of people are harmless in the end and that truth is malleable. Of course most of the world, half our country and tyrants have no problem whatsoever forcing people to submit to whatever tickles their fancy at the moment. In fact, except for some small exceptions, forcing people to submit to other people and their swell ideas is the reality of history.
Could not disagree more. Libertarianism, actual libertarianism anyway, is the freedom to choose as spelled out in the first amendment. You are free to get your values from religion or from a simple "do unto others" process that helps you determine if you are a nice guy or an ahole. Quite honestly, I'd rather deal with a person who is decent because "it's just the right thing to do" than somebody who is only following the rules because they fear god is watching and will punish them.
If fear or god is the ONLY thing keeping a person from being a rapist, thief, murderer or whatever then that person really isn't a good person. And that kind of person scares me just as much as the ones who want to make any compulsion normal and accepted.
I don't believe in the supernatural, so I don't believe in the existence of any entity that would have god status. I don't think anything happens after we die and all we get is this brief experience that sometimes isn't terribly fair. Some would assume that means I see the world as a "free for all" where I can do what I want when I want because if I get away with it there is no divine punishment. But for me it works kinda the other way, since this is the only life I think I get, I want to live it to the best of my ability and that means I have to square everything I do with myself and live with it, and I've got enough on my "regrets / should have done that different" list to want to keep adding to it.
Moose-Knuckle
07-08-17, 05:45
Why is the Army legitimizing a mental disorder? Why is society so hell bent on destroying itself? Some people are pedophiles, they claim they were born that way, are we going to legitimize pedophilia next?
Yes that will be next after the normalization of bestiality.
As for the why, see Cultural Marxism.
Where are all the pussy hatted radical feminists on this one? *crickets chirp*
Interesting discussion.
Most of the barracks I've seen in the last 5 years before I retired had a private shower in every room. Even on deployments the shower buildings have walls between each stall and maybe a curtain. The last place I ever saw an open bay shower was when I was a drill at FT Benning in the basic training barracks.
That being said, many foreign military's have full coed showers.
The Army doesn't have separate showers for homosexual soldiers.
So with the exception of basic, where is this going to be a big issue? If you haven't served in a while you might be surprised that your old barracks with the open bay shower that 10 shower heads and no dividers is probably torn down and a new collage dorm style barracks ran by civilian contractors is now there.
Who here is still active Army and has an open bay shower that you have to use?
Interesting discussion.
Most of the barracks I've seen in the last 5 years before I retired had a private shower in every room. Even on deployments the shower buildings have walls between each stall and maybe a curtain. The last place I ever saw an open bay shower was when I was a drill at FT Benning in the basic training barracks.
That being said, many foreign military's have full coed showers.
The Army doesn't have separate showers for homosexual soldiers.
So with the exception of basic, where is this going to be a big issue? If you haven't served in a while you might be surprised that your old barracks with the open bay shower that 10 shower heads and no dividers is probably torn down and a new collage dorm style barracks ran by civilian contractors is now there.
Who here is still active Army and has an open bay shower that you have to use?
See my sigline for a time reference. The barracks weren't like apartments either. 3 or 4 guys to a room, showers open (no stalls) in a central latrine. So yeah, that is my point of reference.
Averageman
07-08-17, 07:24
Interesting discussion.
Who here is still active Army and has an open bay shower that you have to use?
Every Army Gym.
But you are right about the barracks having individual shower stalls.
Could not disagree more. Libertarianism, actual libertarianism anyway, is the freedom to choose as spelled out in the first amendment. You are free to get your values from religion or from a simple "do unto others" process that helps you determine if you are a nice guy or an ahole. Quite honestly, I'd rather deal with a person who is decent because "it's just the right thing to do" than somebody who is only following the rules because they fear god is watching and will punish them.
If fear or god is the ONLY thing keeping a person from being a rapist, thief, murderer or whatever then that person really isn't a good person. And that kind of person scares me just as much as the ones who want to make any compulsion normal and accepted.
I don't believe in the supernatural, so I don't believe in the existence of any entity that would have god status. I don't think anything happens after we die and all we get is this brief experience that sometimes isn't terribly fair. Some would assume that means I see the world as a "free for all" where I can do what I want when I want because if I get away with it there is no divine punishment. But for me it works kinda the other way, since this is the only life I think I get, I want to live it to the best of my ability and that means I have to square everything I do with myself and live with it, and I've got enough on my "regrets / should have done that different" list to want to keep adding to it.
And like I said it has no more of a foundation than your own subjective preferences. And people have preferred some pretty interesting things in history.
The fear of God isn't the only reason I submit to God, your view is superficial. If you would take the time to read theology of course you'd find the idea of loving God and thus loves motivation to actual good to be quite prevalent. What scares me is that more and more people are taught and believe that what they think is just the product of chance and is actually just an electro chemical reaction taking place in their head. It ultimately has no more purpose than the dirt accumulating on the bottom of your shoe............eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. The idea of a transcendent creator and holy God has been a powerful idea in history and will be for a VERY long time.
Grand58742
07-08-17, 09:55
I tend to be argumentative when folks start questioning the military budget. I agree there is a lot of waste and it could be spent more smartly, but overall, the money is generally needed.
However...
This just tops the list as the most insane, unreasonable waste of money I've ever seen. Why is the .mil as a whole spending (likely) an insane amount of money to satisfy what will end up being a group of people that is going to be less than a percent of the total force? Fraction of a percent even. And something that's sure to affect morale for a considerably larger percentage of the force? Has the US Military gotten so eager to placate every social "class" it's off it's rocker? And this? Forgive me for not being politically correct, but this is a mental disorder. You want to be a woman (or a man) that's opposite of your birth sex? Fine. Get the surgery, treatments and whatever else it entails.
NOT ON MY ****ING TAXPAYER DIME THOUGH!
As in, you do that shit before you enter into the service. I know several gay individuals that are ashamed of what's happening in the service and even they say this BS has gotten straight out of hand.
They should just make everybody shower together irregardless of sex, like in Starship Troopers. ;)
Could not disagree more. Libertarianism, actual libertarianism anyway, is the freedom to choose as spelled out in the first amendment. You are free to get your values from religion or from a simple "do unto others" process that helps you determine if you are a nice guy or an ahole. Quite honestly, I'd rather deal with a person who is decent because "it's just the right thing to do" than somebody who is only following the rules because they fear god is watching and will punish them.
If fear or god is the ONLY thing keeping a person from being a rapist, thief, murderer or whatever then that person really isn't a good person. And that kind of person scares me just as much as the ones who want to make any compulsion normal and accepted.
I don't believe in the supernatural, so I don't believe in the existence of any entity that would have god status. I don't think anything happens after we die and all we get is this brief experience that sometimes isn't terribly fair. Some would assume that means I see the world as a "free for all" where I can do what I want when I want because if I get away with it there is no divine punishment. But for me it works kinda the other way, since this is the only life I think I get, I want to live it to the best of my ability and that means I have to square everything I do with myself and live with it, and I've got enough on my "regrets / should have done that different" list to want to keep adding to it.
Agreed. This country needs more Libertarianism, not less. It's the cure, not the problem, not even close. There's no moral relativism with Libertarian beliefs, and I guarantee you should one dig up one of the Founders they'd identify far more with modern Libertarianism than any GOP or Dem party. Libertarianism follows not just the letter of the Const, but the intent. Minimal government (the pretend goal of the GOP...), protection of Cont Rights, and an underlying principle of Liberty. Real Liberty.
My personal objection to this dumb policy has nothing to do with "normalizing" what some consider a psych disorder per se, but what effects it will have on military moral, readiness, and survival. I don't care who is trans, wants to be, identifies as a chicken. etc. But, the mil should not be used as the place for social experimentation and the primary concern should be what allows for the most effective fighting force vs not hurting the feelings of those who have decided they are another sex etc.
Morality is irrelevant to me in this context. Focusing the trans person vs what the trans person may do to the other 99.9% of the mil in terms of moral, etc, is what should be focused on in my view.
Kind of back on track, while searching trying to find if any militaries have co-ed open stall showers, or if any militaries had brothels I found this interesting article:
The story of my communal showering year tends to surprise people, especially women, to the point that it may actually be the most shocking thing I did in college. On the one hand, I don't totally understand what the fuss is about, since I got used to it pretty quickly. The general line on the shower, and on the co-op's pro-nudity policy in general, was that being naked didn't have to be sexual — and it's true that while shower sex was, in other dorms, a go-to solution to the roommate problem, I never saw or heard of anyone ****ing in the communal shower. Nobody ever came onto me or made me uncomfortable, and I was generally relatively at peace with the whole thing. In fact, the experience so desexualized the cleansing process for me that I didn't shower with a boyfriend for years after that, mostly because it didn't even occur to me.
On the other hand, I did know several women in the house who were uncomfortable with the arrangement. Unlike Shalit, they weren't bothered by the proximity of dick. Rather, they felt that coed nudity was inherently unequal, that being seen naked would always be different for a woman than for a man. In a way, I agree with this. Women are disproportionately the victims of sexual violence and stalking, and the male gaze is much more frequently threatening to women than the female gaze is to men. Still, I remember the day when I came back from my appendectomy with strict instructions not to face a showerhead directly for three weeks. I prepared myself to explain to everyone why I appeared to be showing them my bloody abdomen in violation of all shower protocol. When the first guy entered the shower with me, I mumbled something like, "Sorry-I'm-not-trying-to-show-you-my-tits-I-just-have-all-these-stitches-and-I-can't-get-water-in-them." Rather than razzing me or, probably worse, turning away shamefacedly himself, he smiled and pointed to his own appendectomy scar. The moment was so innocent and relaxed that it made the shower feel like — cheesy but accurate — a safe space.
I don't think anyone should be forced, either by lack of alternate facilities or by social pressure, to use a coed bathroom. And I do think communal showering poses problems, especially if it provides opportunities for harassment. But I will say that I briefly experienced what the hippies hoped for when they built the shower in the first place — a breakdown of the woman-as-sex-object-man-as-predator dichotomy, an instant when I was a human being with a (slightly broken) body, and not an image to be evaluated for attractiveness. And I wonder if allowing young men and women to piss and shit and shower together (if not, perhaps, as close together as I experienced), might help them view each other as a little more fully human.
http://jezebel.com/5431431/on-coed-bathrooms-and-showering-with-guys
and this one:
U.S. Military, Take Note: Norway’s Unisex Army Dorm Rooms Are Working http://www.vocativ.com/usa/military/u-s-military-take-note-norways-unisex-army-dorm-rooms-working/ The article briefly mentions something that others on this board have mentioned, there is a cultural difference between Norway and the US.
Agreed. This country needs more Libertarianism, not less. It's the cure, not the problem, not even close. There's no moral relativism with Libertarian beliefs, and I guarantee you should one dig up one of the Founders they'd identify far more with modern Libertarianism than any GOP or Dem party. Libertarianism follows not just the letter of the Const, but the intent. Minimal government (the pretend goal of the GOP...), protection of Cont Rights, and an underlying principle of Liberty. Real Liberty.
My personal objection to this dumb policy has nothing to do with "normalizing" what some consider a psych disorder per se, but what effects it will have on military moral, readiness, and survival. I don't care who is trans, wants to be, identifies as a chicken. etc. But, the mil should not be used as the place for social experimentation and the primary concern should be what allows for the most effective fighting force vs not hurting the feelings of those who have decided they are another sex etc.
Morality is irrelevant to me in this context. Focusing the trans person vs what the trans person may do to the other 99.9% of the mil in terms of moral, etc, is what should be focused on in my view.
And that is the crux of the matter essentially.
U.S. Military, Take Note: Norway’s Unisex Army Dorm Rooms Are Working http://www.vocativ.com/usa/military/u-s-military-take-note-norways-unisex-army-dorm-rooms-working/ The article briefly mentions something that others on this board have mentioned, there is a cultural difference between Norway and the US.
Not saying that you are advocating it, but I have ZERO desire to be like Europe. Not in the slightest. I've seen it mentioned in this thread "Well XXX in Europe....." I don't give a damn what they do in Europe. I don't live there and certainly don't see them as a place to emulate. Sorry (well not really) but I don't see Europe as the yardstick all others should be measured by.
YMMV (apparently it does to some here)
And that is the crux of the matter essentially.
I don't care of they go to war in drag if it improves their abilities as a fighting force. If it's bad for moral, unit cohesion, etc. it's an unwelcomed addition.
The military is not the place for social experiments. The military's job is to enforce foreign diplomacy and kill anyone who interferes with it. That requires a specific training regimen and mindset. This kind of nonsense is completely unnecessary and counterproductive.
Not saying that you are advocating it, but I have ZERO desire to be like Europe. Not in the slightest. I've seen it mentioned in this thread "Well XXX in Europe....." I don't give a damn what they do in Europe. I don't live there and certainly don't see them as a place to emulate. Sorry (well not really) but I don't see Europe as the yardstick all others should be measured by.
YMMV (apparently it does to some here)
Yep, I haven't gone beyond Germany, the average German I interacted with seemed nice enough but I did not think I'd like to live in the society that I saw bits and pieces of. Semi-decadent might be too strong a word. Also I do like my daily soak and shower.
I was not advocating, just saw those things while searching 'military bordellos' and 'military co-ed showers.'
And like I said it has no more of a foundation than your own subjective preferences. And people have preferred some pretty interesting things in history.
The fear of God isn't the only reason I submit to God, your view is superficial. If you would take the time to read theology of course you'd find the idea of loving God and thus loves motivation to actual good to be quite prevalent. What scares me is that more and more people are taught and believe that what they think is just the product of chance and is actually just an electro chemical reaction taking place in their head. It ultimately has no more purpose than the dirt accumulating on the bottom of your shoe............eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. The idea of a transcendent creator and holy God has been a powerful idea in history and will be for a VERY long time.
Yet even that belief didn't prevent "God fearing" jews and early christians from engaging in slavery and a few other acts of barbarity that we now criticize another religion for engaging in. Seems even with the "god fearing" what is moral is an evolving process. Probably a good thing to, I'd hate to live in a society where people offered their daughters to be raped in order to convince a rapist to not rape a passerby.
Agreed. This country needs more Libertarianism, not less. It's the cure, not the problem, not even close. There's no moral relativism with Libertarian beliefs, and I guarantee you should one dig up one of the Founders they'd identify far more with modern Libertarianism than any GOP or Dem party. Libertarianism follows not just the letter of the Const, but the intent. Minimal government (the pretend goal of the GOP...), protection of Cont Rights, and an underlying principle of Liberty. Real Liberty.
My personal objection to this dumb policy has nothing to do with "normalizing" what some consider a psych disorder per se, but what effects it will have on military moral, readiness, and survival. I don't care who is trans, wants to be, identifies as a chicken. etc. But, the mil should not be used as the place for social experimentation and the primary concern should be what allows for the most effective fighting force vs not hurting the feelings of those who have decided they are another sex etc.
Morality is irrelevant to me in this context. Focusing the trans person vs what the trans person may do to the other 99.9% of the mil in terms of moral, etc, is what should be focused on in my view.
Don't you realize that everything you've asserted in the first two paragraphs is of a moral nature. The definition and application of "liberty" for instance is moral in nature. Liberty is an abstract concept.....it doesn't ooze out of the dirt. The founders had to ask themselves what is right liberty and what is wrong liberty, since many people, including many Christians, define liberty as doing what you want. I don't think that's what the founders had in mind. Now the question is whether libertarianism has any foundation to which it can appeal to, other than the opinions of men. I can agree with many policy ideas of libertarians, but that is a whole different thing than justifying the "truth" of libertarianism. For instance, libertarians of various pedigree has asserted that the state shouldn't be involved with sexual involvements of men........is that true and how do you know? Why should government only be involved with who pays what for what? How does libertarian ultimately know or who does he appeal to? Other men, what men?
I would, for example, assert that the sexual ways of men is far from harmless to civilization. Those that subscribe to "critical theory" concerning sex know full well that they must destroy the ideas of monogamous faithful hetero marriage to ultimately destroy western civ, and they're busy in that endeavor. That's why it's SO important to the left that "trans-gender" people must be countenanced. Every sexual proclivity, except what I've promoted, must be countenanced to further the destroying. And libertarians are indifferent to this. The attitude seems to be "what's the big deal about a few transgender people", it's harmless really. The real problem is that the state dips into my wallet, or forced acceptance, or military readiness (real problems for sure). But the idea that sexual perversion can be used to destroy a civilization is poo-pooed.
Yet even that belief didn't prevent "God fearing" jews and early christians from engaging in slavery and a few other acts of barbarity that we now criticize another religion for engaging in. Seems even with the "god fearing" what is moral is an evolving process. Probably a good thing to, I'd hate to live in a society where people offered their daughters to be raped in order to convince a rapist to not rape a passerby.
I don't know of one theologian that tries to hide the dirty laundry of the history of Christianity. People are sinners and do sinful things, and sometimes they do them in the name of God. I would caution you though against misinterpreting the scriptures to grind your ax. If in fact Moses and Joshua did hear commands directly from God to destroy a wicked people they most certainly would be justified in that destruction. I believe that these narratives are true based upon the testimony of Jesus Christ Himself. The Jews practiced indentured servitude amongst themselves as a form of helping their relatives (since all the Jews were closely related), They did enslave for a period heathen who attacked them and were to be punished. And I think the last reference is to Lot, maybe not. I and others who think like me don't condone what Lot did, but we understand Lots weaknesses. Nowhere in the Bible is Lot's offering of his daughter to the heathen condoned. The Bible is quite frank about the sins of God's people in various circumstances. Keep in mind that Lot knew his guests were of divine origin, and that drove him to extreme measures. Ultimately you use all of this to justify yourself in rejecting Jesus Himself, who knew NO unrighteousness. Christianity is ultimately about Christ, not Moses or Lot or Paul or me.
The military is not the place for social experiments. The military's job is to enforce foreign diplomacy and kill anyone who interferes with it. That requires a specific training regimen and mindset. This kind of nonsense is completely unnecessary and counterproductive.
I agree with you. The left and some on this board would disagree and have. And their argument seems to revolve around what's the big deal about a few gays, or transgenders, or whatever. And why is the military exempt?
Don't you realize that everything you've asserted in the first two paragraphs is of a moral nature.
I never claimed other wise. I said moral relativism.
The definition and application of "liberty" for instance is moral in nature. Liberty is an abstract concept.....it doesn't ooze out of the dirt. The founders had to ask themselves what is right liberty and what is wrong liberty, since many people, including many Christians, define liberty as doing what you want.
As long as it does not prevent others from their own "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" than yes. It's not a free for all to do what ever you want and anyone who thinks that's the Libertarian position is not informed.
I don't think that's what the founders had in mind. Now the question is whether libertarianism has any foundation to which it can appeal to, other than the opinions of men. I can agree with many policy ideas of libertarians, but that is a whole different thing than justifying the "truth" of libertarianism. For instance, libertarians of various pedigree has asserted that the state shouldn't be involved with sexual involvements of men........is that true and how do you know? Why should government only be involved with who pays what for what? How does libertarian ultimately know or who does he appeal to? Other men, what men?
I would, for example, assert that the sexual ways of men is far from harmless to civilization. Those that subscribe to "critical theory" concerning sex know full well that they must destroy the ideas of monogamous faithful hetero marriage to ultimately destroy western civ, and they're busy in that endeavor. That's why it's SO important to the left that "trans-gender" people must be countenanced. Every sexual proclivity, except what I've promoted, must be countenanced to further the destroying. And libertarians are indifferent to this. The attitude seems to be "what's the big deal about a few transgender people", it's harmless really. The real problem is that the state dips into my wallet, or forced acceptance, or military readiness (real problems for sure). But the idea that sexual perversion can be used to destroy a civilization is poo-pooed.
I am of the Libertarian position that what ever you wish to do with your body, as long as you're an adult/done between consenting adults, and does not interfere with my or others "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" it's none of my business, nor the states. Don't care who you marry, what you identify as etc etc. I don't get to tell you what's right for you, you don't get to do the same to me, as long as those essential rules of Liberty are met. I don't have to like your life choices, but I do have to tolerate you as long as the essential Rights are met as they apply to me also.
I don't want to debate what's "perversion" and all that as it goes no place and no minds will be changed and wonders way OT.
There is no moral relativism in libertarianism.................so there are moral absolutes? Really? And how are they justified?
The whole premise of this thread is that there isn't something quite right with transgenderism and the underlying promotion of it in the military. If's it's as normal as everything else, what's the big deal? If a trans military member needs a $100,000 worth of hormones and medical procedures for their well-being, isn't he/she entitled? After all it's just like diabetes, or cancer or heart surgery. We heteros need those related procedures and medicines for our well-being, and the trans needs his hormones and sex reassignment surgery for his well being. Hetero and trans/gay, non gender specific person are all morally and culturally equivalent....right? Just ask a libertarian.
I don't know of one theologian that tries to hide the dirty laundry of the history of Christianity. People are sinners and do sinful things, and sometimes they do them in the name of God.
Never said otherwise, however it isn't just "people" but accepted values of all who adhere to early judaism and christianity that tolerated everything from slavery, to witch trials and a host of other horrors that were accepted and commonplace when these values were established.
Thankfully there are not "eternal and unchangeable" as you suggest or we would still be practicing some of them. Values of those who practice christianity and judaism over the last few thousand years are very subjective and have evolved to the point that only three of the ten commandments remain "laws." I'd certainly hate to be arrested because I didn't recognize only one true god, use his name in vain, remember the sabbath, make graven images, fail or honor my parents, commit adultery or covet my neighbors wife and stuff.
Don't kill (assuming justifiable defense is permissible), steal or bear false witness (although even that one isn't necessarily a criminal act) and that's it.
The sabbath thing provides a predicament, all jews recognize saturday and christians recognize sunday. That means every week an entire group breaks one of the commandments because they can't both be right. And this isn't a matter of people being "sinful in nature" it is due to how they are commanded to practice and observe their religious laws. The only way to have it otherwise is if Yahweh had rules from one group and different rules for another group, but that would hardly make his commandments eternal and unchangeable.
I get why honoring ones parents is generally a good thing but what if one of them is evil, do you really break gods eternal law if you fail to honor them no matter how reprehensible they might be?
And coveting other people's stuff. Does that really mean if I think the neighbors wife is cute and he has a cool car I'm breaking a commandment of god? I understand the purpose is to say it's wrong to conspire to take what is not yours, but that should be covered under "thou shalt not steal" and that isn't quite what it says. If somebody likes my car and has not plans to steal it, how does that hurt me?
Thankfully those old "eternal and unchangeable" laws no longer apply in most cases or we might still be doing horrible things to each other. God knows some people are perfectly capable of that without believing they are acting in defense of gods laws.
Why the F are transgender people allowed in the military? The military is not a political apparatus. It's sole purpose is to protect the sovereignty of the US and our interests.
male showers and female showers or bathrooms
then have OTHER
but that one leads to the discharge desk and the exit :)
OHHHHH just saw this photo hahhahaahha yeah we need that new door quick :)
http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/07/GettyImages-457546456-640x480.jpg
Never said otherwise, however it isn't just "people" but accepted values of all who adhere to early judaism and christianity that tolerated everything from slavery, to witch trials and a host of other horrors that were accepted and commonplace when these values were established.
Thankfully there are not "eternal and unchangeable" as you suggest or we would still be practicing some of them. Values of those who practice christianity and judaism over the last few thousand years are very subjective and have evolved to the point that only three of the ten commandments remain "laws." I'd certainly hate to be arrested because I didn't recognize only one true god, use his name in vain, remember the sabbath, make graven images, fail or honor my parents, commit adultery or covet my neighbors wife and stuff.
Don't kill (assuming justifiable defense is permissible), steal or bear false witness (although even that one isn't necessarily a criminal act) and that's it.
The sabbath thing provides a predicament, all jews recognize saturday and christians recognize sunday. That means every week an entire group breaks one of the commandments because they can't both be right. And this isn't a matter of people being "sinful in nature" it is due to how they are commanded to practice and observe their religious laws. The only way to have it otherwise is if Yahweh had rules from one group and different rules for another group, but that would hardly make his commandments eternal and unchangeable.
I get why honoring ones parents is generally a good thing but what if one of them is evil, do you really break gods eternal law if you fail to honor them no matter how reprehensible they might be?
And coveting other people's stuff. Does that really mean if I think the neighbors wife is cute and he has a cool car I'm breaking a commandment of god? I understand the purpose is to say it's wrong to conspire to take what is not yours, but that should be covered under "thou shalt not steal" and that isn't quite what it says. If somebody likes my car and has not plans to steal it, how does that hurt me?
Thankfully those old "eternal and unchangeable" laws no longer apply in most cases or we might still be doing horrible things to each other. God knows some people are perfectly capable of that without believing they are acting in defense of gods laws.
And again you confuse the practices of the those that uphold a Judeo/Christian values (and or biblical law) with the Trinity and their Bible. The argument seems to be that if some, many or even most get it wrong, then nobody is actually getting it right. That seems like an excuse to write the whole thing off. OK.
Although a reasonably full explanation of the Sabbath is probably not possible here, I will say that considerable amounts have been written about it and I find the Bible very clear about it's nature and practice. But then how could I or multitude of Reformed believers be right?
Trying to pit one commandment against another just won't do. Every single question you've presented can and has been answered. But your view of the 5th commandment is underdeveloped. Honoring your mother and father doesn't require us to look the other way in some sense when they do or teach evil. Parents have limited sovereignty, thus honoring God always takes precedence. In fact it can be a dishonor to your parents to NOT point out their failings before God. If my mother is a whore, I still can honor her by loving her, respecting her as God's chosen vessel to give me life, and to encourage her to give up her sin.
An honest Christian would always say he's always learning about God and His ways, learning to apply His precepts and commandments to all the circumstances of life, but evidently in your view there are no humble, trying, learning God fearing, loving Christians. Just murderers and witch hunters.
In the end you ask me to reject Jesus, the rock, and replace it with the quicksand of SteyrAug's libertarianism.
And again you confuse the practices of the those that uphold a Judeo/Christian values (and or biblical law) with the Trinity and their Bible. The argument seems to be that if some, many or even most get it wrong, then nobody is actually getting it right. That seems like an excuse to write the whole thing off. OK.
Although a reasonably full explanation of the Sabbath is probably not possible here, I will say that considerable amounts have been written about it and I find the Bible very clear about it's nature and practice. But then how could I or multitude of Reformed believers be right?
Trying to pit one commandment against another just won't do. Every single question you've presented can and has been answered. But your view of the 5th commandment is underdeveloped. Honoring your mother and father doesn't require us to look the other way in some sense when they do or teach evil. Parents have limited sovereignty, thus honoring God always takes precedence. In fact it can be a dishonor to your parents to NOT point out their failings before God. If my mother is a whore, I still can honor her by loving her, respecting her as God's chosen vessel to give me life, and to encourage her to give up her sin.
An honest Christian would always say he's always learning about God and His ways, learning to apply His precepts and commandments to all the circumstances of life, but evidently in your view there are no humble, trying, learning God fearing, loving Christians. Just murderers and witch hunters.
In the end you ask me to reject Jesus, the rock, and replace it with the quicksand of SteyrAug's libertarianism.
Actually I ask you to reject nothing. I'm simply explaining my rejection. Due to the constitution you are free to believe as you wish per the first amendment, and as a crazy libertarian I completely support your right to do so even if I don't believe a shred of it.
Again, I'm mostly just happy that 7 of those commandments are no longer laws. That's the most important thing to me. But I do have a question since the 10 commandments, and I'll even extend to you the KJV bible, are the moral authority of your beliefs, where in either source is the practice of slavery forbidden?
I would think the practice of slavery is one of the most abhorrent things man has done to man since the concept first occurred to him. Show me where Yahweh or Jesus ever condemned the practice and proclaimed it a sin. I honestly have never come across anything like that and I don't think we can talk about any form of morality that permits, even by omission, the practice of slavery.
Actually I ask you to reject nothing. I'm simply explaining my rejection. Due to the constitution you are free to believe as you wish per the first amendment, and as a crazy libertarian I completely support your right to do so even if I don't believe a shred of it.
Again, I'm mostly just happy that 7 of those commandments are no longer laws. That's the most important thing to me. But I do have a question since the 10 commandments, and I'll even extend to you the KJV bible, are the moral authority of your beliefs, where in either source is the practice of slavery forbidden?
I would think the practice of slavery is one of the most abhorrent things man has done to man since the concept first occurred to him. Show me where Yahweh or Jesus ever condemned the practice and proclaimed it a sin. I honestly have never come across anything like that and I don't think we can talk about any form of morality that permits, even by omission, the practice of slavery.
Are you not trying to convince me of the rightness of your rejection of the Bible? Are you not trying to win others to your position because you believe it really and truly will help the world? Don't you think I'm a bit foolish for believing such wicked things as are taught in the in the Bible? Are we just writing to each other about unimportant, non life changing things? Wouldn't you hope that the world would not be filled with people that think like me? And though you say you uphold my liberty to believe these things, isn't it true you would never actually, if you could help it, allow me to put these things into practice outside the walls of the church?
Exodus 21:16
Are you not trying to convince me of the rightness of your rejection of the Bible? Are you not trying to win others to your position because you believe it really and truly will help the world? Don't you think I'm a bit foolish for believing such wicked things as are taught in the in the Bible? Are we just writing to each other about unimportant, non life changing things? Wouldn't you hope that the world would not be filled with people that think like me? And though you say you uphold my liberty to believe these things, isn't it true you would never actually, if you could help it, allow me to put these things into practice outside the walls of the church?
Exodus 21:16
Nope, just explaining. Honestly I WISH I believed in an afterlife, I wish I believed I'd see all my loved ones and friends again...but I don't. And if you believe those things, honestly I wouldn't want to take it away from you.
But somebody came along and suggested any "morality" not based in "unchanging and eternal" beliefs was subjective and relative. I disagreed and more to the point provided examples where even long standing religious beliefs are also subjective and to a degree relative.
You have found your beliefs, they make your existence acceptable and satisfy your understanding of the reality of things as you perceive them. I am more happy for you than you will know or probably even believe. Having no beliefs or real understanding, or even worse, no satisfactory understanding of existence must be intolerable and nihilism can be a brutal pill to accept. I wouldn't wish that on anyone and I've seen what can result and it usually isn't pretty.
I'd honestly rather have 1/4 of the country running around honestly believing in Zues, Thor and Amaterasu than having no beliefs and mired in a pointless reality of no consequence.
I personally have arrived at quasi existentialism, held in check by acceptance of agnosticism, and try to live my life accordingly in a way that I find acceptable to me. It's better than nothing, but as stated I simply don't believe in the supernatural so "I" could never be a christian no matter how hard I tried.
As to your last assertion, I absolutely would NOT want a christian theocracy. Not only would it be contrary to our constitution and provide severe limits on my personal freedoms, we tried it once and it went over terribly. So mostly I'll just support your right to believe as you see fit to the extent it doesn't infringe upon my freedoms and I will try and make sure my beliefs don't infringe upon your freedoms.
There are those who believe that before we can arrive at the next level of human enlightenment that ALL religious beliefs must be discarded in favor of science, technology, etc. And while some gains might be had if we consigned all religion to mythology, I'm just as certain we'd find some other way to be just as divisive and brutal and human nature would reign supreme and we'd kill each other in the name of some new absurdity.
So even objectively, I wouldn't want that, even if it might eliminate islamic terrorism. More importantly, you really can't regulate belief no matter how you try. You can punish belief, but you will never regulate it so you can only do more harm if you tried to convince people who believe in "wicca" for example that "magic doesn't work" or everyone would already have cast a spell to get everything they want and "wicca" would be the only religion in the world. But that kind of logic doesn't seem to influence "belief" any more than all the evidence of landing on the moon will convince and ardent "moon hoax" believer that it actually happened.
Simply put, my beliefs are mine. I am not a missionary for my beliefs. I feel no need to spread the word, win converts or any thing like that. Agnosticism is pretty easy like that, I don't have to be anyplace special on the weekend or prove my agnosticism to a non deity.
And as we are now well off topic, I believe matters of "belief" have no place in this instance as the morality or non morality of where TG folks shower or pee has almost nothing to do with national defense or maintenance of our military. I think if that is your most important concern, maybe you probably shouldn't join the military.
http://www.rzim.eu/does-the-bible-condone-slavery
The kjv is not the end all text either
In some ways it has issues but is a fine translation for its time and reads well today
So do the exact words of a translation from 1611 mean the exact things today
The scriptures and word of God is the same but some words in the kjv are better translated in study bibles
The end meaning the same
Boot or trunk
Fag or cigarette
Also realize there are many kjv versions
Well we know boot is the same as trunk but some might not point being don’t get hung up on the translation know the true meaning
Sorry for mobile link on my iPad
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6OzOT-z8CaY
Actually I ask you to reject nothing. I'm simply explaining my rejection. Due to the constitution you are free to believe as you wish per the first amendment, and as a crazy libertarian I completely support your right to do so even if I don't believe a shred of it.
Again, I'm mostly just happy that 7 of those commandments are no longer laws. That's the most important thing to me. But I do have a question since the 10 commandments, and I'll even extend to you the KJV bible, are the moral authority of your beliefs, where in either source is the practice of slavery forbidden?
I would think the practice of slavery is one of the most abhorrent things man has done to man since the concept first occurred to him. Show me where Yahweh or Jesus ever condemned the practice and proclaimed it a sin. I honestly have never come across anything like that and I don't think we can talk about any form of morality that permits, even by omission, the practice of slavery.
http://www.rzim.eu/does-the-bible-condone-slavery
The kjv is not the end all text either
In some ways it has issues but is a fine translation for its time and reads well today
So do the exact words of a translation from 1611 mean the exact things today
The scriptures and word of God is the same but some words in the kjv are better translated in study bibles
The end meaning the same
Boot or trunk
Fag or cigarette
Also realize there are many kjv versions
Well we know boot is the same as trunk but some might not point being don’t get hung up on the translation know the true meaning
Sorry for mobile link on my iPad
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6OzOT-z8CaY
Honestly, any version from the time would suffice. I suggested the KJV as it is one of the most recent. I was simply pointing out that nowhere in any of the early works are a prohibition against slavery and it would be hard to declare it to be the definitive moral source as a result.
Honestly, any version from the time would suffice. I suggested the KJV as it is one of the most recent. I was simply pointing out that nowhere in any of the early works are a prohibition against slavery and it would be hard to declare it to be the definitive moral source as a result.
did you read the first link ?
Honestly, any version from the time would suffice. I suggested the KJV as it is one of the most recent. I was simply pointing out that nowhere in any of the early works are a prohibition against slavery and it would be hard to declare it to be the definitive moral source as a result.
Did you read Exodus 21:16? I put that there to answer your question.
Back on topic. Maybe keep it about how the army is going to handle this, day to day issues troops and leaders are likely to encounter, how this will affect mission and combat effectiveness, retention and promotion issues, etc...
Nothing will happen to combat effectiveness, there will be no issues, leaders will lead, and everyone will be retained.
Evidently the decision to introduce TG persons into the military was postponed by General Mattis 7/1.
Grand58742
07-09-17, 20:49
Nothing will happen to combat effectiveness, there will be no issues, leaders will lead, and everyone will be retained.
Evidently the decision to introduce TG persons into the military was postponed by General Mattis 7/1.
I think you are dead wrong. Yes, combat effectiveness will be effected, there will be issues, leaders will have their hands tied and retention will go down.
Let me put this into a situational method. Say you have a TG person who gets declined for promotion. Whether warranted or not, there will be an investigation conducted. And let's just say there's a hint of impropriety in this person not being chosen. That means the military, by and large, will knee jerk react (they always do) to this and order more "sensitivity" briefings and more training. And each hour spent on nonsense like this means one less hour of training in primary job. Leaders will feel hamstrung by not being able to promote qualified candidates if they feel someone is looking over their shoulder the whole time and will spend more time making sure their individuals are "LGBTQEIEIO Sensitivity Compliant" rather than focusing on a mission.
Most people that join the military, by and large, do it because of a desire to serve. There is a portion that's there for the money, or college, or they just didn't have anything else to do with their life. But the vast majority signed up to be soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. They did not sign up to be a part of a social experiment and sit through countless hours of training completely unrelated to their job. DUI briefings, date rape briefings, sexual harassment briefings, sensitivity training, "You shouldn't say Merry Christmas to people, but make sure you wear your reflective belt" training. People get tired of it. They didn't sign up for that.
The Obama Administration years policies are killing the military. More and more people wanted to get out. The last time early retirement (TERA) was offered in the USAF? Almost 20% of the total force applied. You know what that tells me? There is a serious morale problem service wide. Because the military has become Washington's social machine rather than a fighting force. 1 in 5 people applied for an early out.
Ultimately, this will affect the "bottom line" of the military.
I think you are dead wrong. Yes, combat effectiveness will be effected, there will be issues, leaders will have their hands tied and retention will go down.
I do not disagree with this at all. Pretty much all that have served know the potential for idiocy from the top down. I'm playing devil's advocate in a couple of my responses.
Let me put this into a situational method. Say you have a TG person who gets declined for promotion........
Devils advocate. That would largely depend on the TG person and the unit/command climate. If the TG person has been made to feel like part of the team, if they had been evaluated and counseled as all other soldiers have, fairly and with candor, then the likelihood of problems diminish.
On the other hand, if the TG sees themselves as a special snowflake (not all will be, some just want to serve as they view themselves) or, if the unit is a hostile environment, then yes troubles can arise. How big the problems are will be largely dependent on how the upper leadership actually buys into and practices the values and ethics of the service.
Most people that join the military, by and large, do it because of a desire to serve. There is a portion that's there for the money, or college, or they just didn't have anything else to do with their life. But the vast majority signed up to be soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. They did not sign up to be a part of a social experiment and sit through countless hours of training completely unrelated to their job. DUI briefings, date rape briefings, sexual harassment briefings, sensitivity training, "You shouldn't say Merry Christmas to people, but make sure you wear your reflective belt" training. People get tired of it. They didn't sign up for that.
Agreed, some knee jerk training topics, others not so knee jerk. The reality is that on occasion you do have to tell teenagers and young adults how to behave.
I don't know when you served, or if you still are, but I was in the Marines during the early 70's. During that time period there was a lot of racial strife. At Camp Lejeune we had MP's or the Sgt of the Guard and a couple of Guards on the chow lines to keep fights from breaking out. In '73 or '74 the Marine Corps rolled out human relations training. Much like today, when you have to be Delta or a SEAL to know anything about firearms training, you had to be black to teach human relations.
Just making the point that the special briefing goodness has been going on for a loooong time.
The Obama Administration years policies are killing the military. More and more people wanted to get out. The last time early retirement (TERA) was offered in the USAF? Almost 20% of the total force applied. You know what that tells me? There is a serious morale problem service wide. Because the military has become Washington's social machine rather than a fighting force. 1 in 5 people applied for an early out.
Devil's Advocate: Was the root cause the Obama policies, or wanting to get away from over 10 years of wartime tempo, the deployments, etc.? Also, for those in the zone to be offered TERA, was it a bad deal? As I understood it, at 15years, you lose less than 1/20th of your computed 15 year retirement pay, plus medical care. Not bad, in my view if you wanted to begin a second career. You need to remember, if you were on track to become an E-8 or E-9, or an O-6 you weren't eligible.
Ultimately, this will affect the "bottom line" of the military.
But, yeah, the reality is the military will suffer where the rubber meets the road.
I think you are dead wrong. Yes, combat effectiveness will be effected, there will be issues, leaders will have their hands tied and retention will go down.
Let me put this into a situational method. Say you have a TG person who gets declined for promotion. Whether warranted or not, there will be an investigation conducted. And let's just say there's a hint of impropriety in this person not being chosen. That means the military, by and large, will knee jerk react (they always do) to this and order more "sensitivity" briefings and more training. And each hour spent on nonsense like this means one less hour of training in primary job. Leaders will feel hamstrung by not being able to promote qualified candidates if they feel someone is looking over their shoulder the whole time and will spend more time making sure their individuals are "LGBTQEIEIO Sensitivity Compliant" rather than focusing on a mission.
Most people that join the military, by and large, do it because of a desire to serve. There is a portion that's there for the money, or college, or they just didn't have anything else to do with their life. But the vast majority signed up to be soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. They did not sign up to be a part of a social experiment and sit through countless hours of training completely unrelated to their job. DUI briefings, date rape briefings, sexual harassment briefings, sensitivity training, "You shouldn't say Merry Christmas to people, but make sure you wear your reflective belt" training. People get tired of it. They didn't sign up for that.
The Obama Administration years policies are killing the military. More and more people wanted to get out. The last time early retirement (TERA) was offered in the USAF? Almost 20% of the total force applied. You know what that tells me? There is a serious morale problem service wide. Because the military has become Washington's social machine rather than a fighting force. 1 in 5 people applied for an early out.
Ultimately, this will affect the "bottom line" of the military.
My post was pure sarcasm, If you saw the post that was deleted before this one you would see that I hold this foolishness in extreme contempt. I agree with most of what you wrote.
Grand58742
07-10-17, 06:55
My post was pure sarcasm, If you saw the post that was deleted before this one you would see that I hold this foolishness in extreme contempt. I agree with most of what you wrote.
My apologies. I didn't see the previous post on the matter.
I saw the writing on the wall when I retired in 2013. I could have had another four years, but the fire had gone out and I figured things would get worse before they got better. While I would still match our military up against anyone's on the planet, I personally think there is too much social justice going on and not enough honing of the martial skills.
My apologies. I didn't see the previous post on the matter.
I saw the writing on the wall when I retired in 2013. I could have had another four years, but the fire had gone out and I figured things would get worse before they got better. While I would still match our military up against anyone's on the planet, I personally think there is too much social justice going on and not enough honing of the martial skills.
No apology necessary. Glad you could make it to retirement.
Averageman
07-10-17, 12:38
My apologies. I didn't see the previous post on the matter.
I saw the writing on the wall when I retired in 2013. I could have had another four years, but the fire had gone out and I figured things would get worse before they got better. While I would still match our military up against anyone's on the planet, I personally think there is too much social justice going on and not enough honing of the martial skills.
You know in your heart when it is time to go.
I had to go just short of 21 years and just months b for 9/11. That still haunts me.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.