PDA

View Full Version : Transgender People Also Demand Right to Serve in Military



Odysseus
01-11-2011, 02:18 PM
Tuesday, January 11, 2011

By Lisa Leff, Associated Press
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/transgender-people-also-demand-right-ser#

San Francisco (AP) - Before handcuffing herself to the White House fence, former Petty Officer First Class Autumn Sandeen carefully pinned three rows of Navy ribbons to her chest. Her regulation dress blue skirt, fitted jacket, hat and black pumps were new -- fitting for a woman who spent two decades serving her country as a man.

Sandeen was the only transgender person among the six veterans arrested in April while protesting the military's ban on openly gay troops. But when she watched President Barack Obama last month sign the hard-fought bill allowing for the ban's repeal, melancholy tinged her satisfaction.

"This is another bridesmaid moment for the transgender community," the 51-year-old San Diego resident said.

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy now heading toward history does not apply to transgender recruits, who are automatically disqualified as unfit for service. But the military's long-standing posture on gender-identity has not prevented transgender citizens from signing up before they come out, or from obtaining psychological counseling, hormones and routine health care through the Department of Veterans Affairs once they return to civilian life.

Read the rest here. (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/transgender-people-also-demand-right-ser#)

=========================================
No slippery slope my a$$!!!! Okay, Wilbur, just how are we supposed to work with this?

Bubba Dawg
01-11-2011, 02:22 PM
Always a bridesmaid, never a groom....bride......groom....bride.....how about Broom.

I get confused.... :confused:

CueSi
01-11-2011, 02:25 PM
I received this story from a closeted guy in the field and passed it on to the Major. He's thanking God he's retiring.

If this is true...progress has outpaced sanity. Transgendered people deserve to have dignity and a good quality of life, but - - a right to military service is not included in that package. The logistical nightmare of dealing with Transpeople hasn't even been solved in totality in the civilian world...so magnify the impending fustercluck to the military?

Really?

~QC

Odysseus
01-11-2011, 02:45 PM
Always a bridesmaid, never a groom....bride......groom....bride.....how about Broom.

I get confused.... :confused:
You think that you're confused?

We had a unit that was deploying a few years back and they had to fill some vacancies from the IRR. A Soldier arrived who was listed on female on the battle roster, but was a male, from the waist up. Seems she was halfway to becoming he, but still had the original plumbing. Eventually, it was decided that the army couldn't meet the needs of that individual, but it got very interesting for a while. How would you classify the Soldier on the battle roster? Male or Female? (one wag suggested double-slotting them, which was good for a laugh, if nothing else) Where would the Soldier bunk? Shower? Needless to say, it was not something that the BN CDR wanted to deal with while he was trying to get his unit ready to go.

So, where's Wilbur? I want to hear all about how we're just making a mountain out of a molehill (or the surgeon is, anyway), and that we're all professional enough to handle this. :rolleyes:


I received this story from a closeted guy in the field and passed it on to the Major. He's thanking God he's retiring.

If this is true...progress has outpaced sanity. Transgendered people deserve to have dignity and a good quality of life, but - - a right to military service is not included in that package. The logistical nightmare of dealing with Transpeople hasn't even been solved in totality in the civilian world...so magnify the impending fustercluck to the military?

Really?

~QC

For the record, the person who sent the article to her is retiring, not me.

Rebel Yell
01-11-2011, 02:52 PM
I received this story from a closeted guy in the field and passed it on to the Major. He's thanking God he's retiring.

If this is true...progress has outpaced sanity. Transgendered people deserve to have dignity and a good quality of life, but - - a right to military service is not included in that package. The logistical nightmare of dealing with Transpeople hasn't even been solved in totality in the civilian world...so magnify the impending fustercluck to the military?

Really?

~QC

That is where the problem arises. There is no such "right". Serving in the military is not a right, it is a privilege.

Gingersnap
01-11-2011, 02:59 PM
I think this would cause needless morale problems. Most of these people are men who are altered to appear superficially female. They retain the bone length, heart and lung capacity, and upper body strength of men (relative to genetic women). This will just piss off women who work like dogs to meet the physical requirements of the service. It will also annoy women who work through menstruation and pregnancy.

Women who become surgical males will cause their own set of problems. Genetic men are unlikely to see these individuals as reliable in combat or highly physical operations since they still retain the bone length, cardio-vascular system, and weaker upper body strength of women (weaker relative to genetic men).

Worse yet, why would the military support the inclusion of mentally ill people in the service? There are enough problems with run-of-the-mill mental health issues in the military. Attempting to accommodate and exotic body dysmorphia disorder is asking for trouble.

Novaheart
01-11-2011, 03:02 PM
That is where the problem arises. There is no such "right". Serving in the military is not a right, it is a privilege.

Not addressing the transgender issue here, but addressing your post:

For which other "privilege" can one be conscripted?

Now for the transgender issue, I don't have the answer other than to say that it's like any other special circumstance: you break it down into its parts and look for similarities and differences to frame it for the application of logic.

If you have surgically or chemically altered your body such that your body is incompatible with your sex, then that would be a barrier to service in a sex segregated environment. Gay service members are members of their biological sex and do not have a problem being housed (etc...) with their biological sex. That's quite different than a man who wants to be housed (etc...) with/as a woman.

So the next aspect to come at this would be under ADA, and to my knowledge the ADA doesn't apply to the military.

Are other service members allowed to use steroids? Are military body builders tested for steroid use? I don't know.

Rebel Yell
01-11-2011, 03:10 PM
Not addressing the transgender issue here, but addressing your post:

For which other "privilege" can one be conscripted?

Once you earn the privilege, you're under contract. You volunteered to under conscription.

[/QUOTE]

Are other service members allowed to use steroids? Are military body builders tested for steroid use? I don't know. [/QUOTE]

Steroids are an illegal substance without a prescription, so, no. Alot of bodybuilders could be discharged for failing the body measurement test. I saw a shipmate of mine discharged, despite being all muscle. His neck was too big. He failed the body measurement test.

megimoo
01-11-2011, 03:19 PM
I received this story from a closeted guy in the field and passed it on to the Major. He's thanking God he's retiring.

If this is true...progress has outpaced sanity. Transgendered people deserve to have dignity and a good quality of life, but - - a right to military service is not included in that package. The logistical nightmare of dealing with Transpeople hasn't even been solved in totality in the civilian world...so magnify the impending fustercluck to the military?

Really?

~QCOne the door is open there's no telling what will come out of the closet.Brazil is the sexual realignment center of the world.They're going 'both ways' and some in between.When they start the process and have some preliminary work done the price usually goes up and they run out of money.All work is cash in hand, major surgery is the last step.They usually work as prostitutes in Europe to make enough money to finish up the procedures.

Germany arrested a bunch in a public park and hauled them in but had a hell of a time sorting them out to put into cells.They had men with breasts and and gonads.Woman with a Vestigial penis and full breasts critters with neither .They were all Brazilians making money to finish their procedures.After sex with the Germans they usually try and blackmail their clients for hush money !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1931506/Ronaldo-speaks-of-transvestite-shame.html

megimoo
01-11-2011, 03:25 PM
I think this would cause needless morale problems. Most of these people are men who are altered to appear superficially female. They retain the bone length, heart and lung capacity, and upper body strength of men (relative to genetic women). This will just piss off women who work like dogs to meet the physical requirements of the service. It will also annoy women who work through menstruation and pregnancy.

Women who become surgical males will cause their own set of problems. Genetic men are unlikely to see these individuals as reliable in combat or highly physical operations since they still retain the bone length, cardio-vascular system, and weaker upper body strength of women (weaker relative to genetic men).

Worse yet, why would the military support the inclusion of mentally ill people in the service? There are enough problems with run-of-the-mill mental health issues in the military. Attempting to accommodate and exotic body dysmorphia disorder is asking for trouble.Are you saying that homosexuality is a mental condition ?

Odysseus
01-11-2011, 03:29 PM
Not addressing the transgender issue here, but addressing your post:

For which other "privilege" can one be conscripted?

Delete the word "other" and you'd be right, since there is no conscription in the US military.


Now for the transgender issue, I don't have the answer other than to say that it's like any other special circumstance: you break it down into its parts and look for similarities and differences to frame it for the application of logic.

If you have surgically or chemically altered your body such that your body is incompatible with your sex, then that would be a barrier to service in a sex segregated environment. Gay service members are members of their biological sex and do not have a problem being housed (etc...) with their biological sex. That's quite different than a man who wants to be housed (etc...) with/as a woman.
Why is it different? A man who is attracted to other men or a woman who is attracted to her own gender is going to raise the same problems as a person of the opposite sex. Would you tell a straight woman that she should be okay with showering with lesbians, or a man that he must shower with gay men? And if so, how does that differ from telling a woman that she has to shower with men, or a man with women? Do you really believe that there is no problem there?


So the next aspect to come at this would be under ADA, and to my knowledge the ADA doesn't apply to the military.

Yet.

After all, don't the handicapped have the same rights as gays to serve their country? Shouldn't paraplegics be permitted to serve in those billets that they can work in? How much does it take to push a button to launch a missile. right? You don't even need functioning hands. Why can't a blind man be a sonar operator on a sub? He can hear, right? What does he have to look at? Doesn't a schizophrenic have just as much right to carry a rifle as anyone else? So what if he happens to hear a few extra voices giving him commands on the rifle range? We're all professional enough to deal with that, right?

With the repeal of DADT, we've established that the issue isn't whether we have the resources to accomodate the the variances in the people applying for the job, or whether they enhance readiness or detract from it, or even whether their presence will have a negative impact on the effectiveness of the rest of their organization, it's whether their rights are respected and they are treated fairly (because we all know how fair boot camp is). And if their fundamental right, the right to live, is compromised because we can't effectively defend the nation, well, that's a long way down the road, and it's not this generation's politicians and activists will suffer for their stupidity.


Are other service members allowed to use steroids? Are military body builders tested for steroid use? I don't know.

No and yes. Any other clueless assumptions or arguments that you'd care to make?

Gingersnap
01-11-2011, 03:35 PM
Are you saying that homosexuality is a mental condition ?

Homosexuality is a vice. Thinking that you are a man in a woman's body or vice versus is a mental illness. Trust me, if you told your doctor that you felt like an elk and you wanted other people to treat you like an elk (except the shooting part), your doctor would get you a psychiatric consult ASAP.

wilbur
01-11-2011, 03:38 PM
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
No slippery slope my a$$!!!! Okay, Wilbur, just how are we supposed to work with this?

How are you supposed to work with this?!?

Do you have good, compelling reasons to prohibit transgendered people from serving in the military? Does it pose new, unique and reasonably insurmountable obstacles in the military performing its sworn duty? If so, how bout starting 'your work' with those?

Duh.

lacarnut
01-11-2011, 03:40 PM
I have confidence that our idiot-in-chief can work it all out. :eek::confused:

Odysseus
01-11-2011, 03:54 PM
How are you supposed to work with this?!?

Do you have good, compelling reasons to prohibit transgendered people from serving in the military? Does it pose new, unique and reasonably insurmountable obstacles in the military performing its sworn duty? If so, how bout starting 'your work' with those?

Duh.

I had good, compelling reasons to prohibit gays. You saw how that went. As you kept saying, it's about the civil rights of the people who want to serve. The issues that accompany our accomodation of those rights aren't important to you, because you aren't the one who is going to have to deal with them. You'll just sit back out of harm's way and tell us how unenlightened we are when we tell you that you don't have a clue

"Duh" is right.

Rebel Yell
01-11-2011, 04:01 PM
I had good, compelling reasons to prohibit gays. You saw how that went. As you kept saying, it's about the civil rights of the people who want to serve. The issues that accompany our accomodation of those rights aren't important to you, because you aren't the one who is going to have to deal with them. You'll just sit back out of harm's way and tell us how unenlightened we are when we tell you that you don't have a clue

"Duh" is right.

Plus, you KNOWINGLY give up certain civil rights when you VOLUNTEER. Free speech being number one on the list.

AmPat
01-11-2011, 04:08 PM
Slippery slope my butt. You guys are being silly. :rolleyes::cool:

Odysseus
01-11-2011, 04:10 PM
Plus, you KNOWINGLY give up certain civil rights when you VOLUNTEER. Free speech being number one on the list.

Exactly. But, today's kinder, gentler force is all about personal empowerment, not national empowerment.

Well, maybe our next enemy will laugh itself to death before they can threaten us.

lacarnut
01-11-2011, 04:12 PM
How are you supposed to work with this?!?

Do you have good, compelling reasons to prohibit transgendered people from serving in the military? Does it pose new, unique and reasonably insurmountable obstacles in the military performing its sworn duty? If so, how bout starting 'your work' with those?

Duh.

If you had served, a dummy like you could figure it out.

wilbur
01-11-2011, 04:15 PM
I had good, compelling reasons to prohibit gays.

You had arguments that fell flat and were refuted by empirical evidence provided by the myriad of armies around the world who allow openly gay troops. Aside, most of your arguments were off the mark anyways, as they simply railed against gays in the military period. As we all know, DADT wasnt about gays in the military... they're already there and allowed to serve. DADT was simply about the requirement to expel them, should it slip out that they are gay.



You saw how that went. As you kept saying, it's about the civil rights of the people who want to serve. The issues that accompany our accomodation of those rights aren't important to you, because you aren't the one who is going to have to deal with them. You'll just sit back out of harm's way and tell us how unenlightened we are when we tell you that you don't have a clue

"Duh" is right.

Actually, my argument about DADT wasnt so much about civil rights, but about how removing the policy will be pretty much ineffectual. Transgender is a completely different beast, with its own can of worms.

And if you can't successfully win that fight in the political arena, then perhaps you should rethink your position on it to begin with.

Odysseus
01-11-2011, 04:31 PM
You had arguments that fell flat and were refuted by empirical evidence provided by the myriad of armies around the world who allow openly gay troops. Aside, most of your arguments were off the mark anyways, as they simply railed against gays in the military period. As we all know, DADT wasnt about gays in the military... they're already there and allowed to serve.
No, I had arguments that were cogent, convincing and utterly irrelevent to your ignorance of the issues. As I have said before, the other militaries don't have the scope of operations that we do, nor do they have the resource requirements. When an Israeli Soldier goes home at the end of training, he goes home, not to a barracks. If you want to see which countries are serious about projecting power, just look for them on the list of thos that permit gays to serve. They will be conspicuous by their absence. China, for example. North Korea, for another. Iran, Syria, pretty much all of the bad guys who are bent on expanding their influence through military force.

But, this is irrelevent. The activists smell blood in the water. They will want to take a bite, too.


Actually, my argument about DADT wasnt so much about civil rights, but about how the law is pretty much ineffectual. Transgender is a completely different beast, with its own can of worms.

And if you can't successfully win that fight in the political arena, then perhaps you should rethink your position on it to begin with.

I could win that fight anywhere but the political arena. It wasn't Soldiers who made the choice, or the American people, but political hacks in a lame duck session of the extreme leftist party, a party that had to shore up a critical component of its base, and that has absolutely no concern for the effects of their posturing on our ability to wage war. Come to think of it, they remind me a lot of you that way.

Rebel Yell
01-11-2011, 04:43 PM
Wilbur, where did you serve? Don't answer that, I already know.

You arguing with people who are serving or have served is like us telling you how to be a liberal. You know more about the situation, because you've lived it.

megimoo
01-11-2011, 04:54 PM
Homosexuality is a vice. Thinking that you are a man in a woman's body or vice versus is a mental illness. Trust me, if you told your doctor that you felt like an elk and you wanted other people to treat you like an elk (except the shooting part), your doctor would get you a psychiatric consult ASAP.I agree one hundred percent but the analogy is faulty.The question is if you told your doctor
that you as a woman felt like a man and demanded to be treated like a man would he get you a psychiatric consult ?

Odysseus
01-11-2011, 05:04 PM
Homosexuality is a vice. Thinking that you are a man in a woman's body or vice versus is a mental illness. Trust me, if you told your doctor that you felt like an elk and you wanted other people to treat you like an elk (except the shooting part), your doctor would get you a psychiatric consult ASAP.
Or, he'd take you down to the lodge. :D


Wilbur, where did you serve? Don't answer that, I already know.

You arguing with people who are serving or have served is like us telling you how to be a liberal. You know more about the situation, because you've lived it.
Wilbur knows everything. He has a BS in science! :rolleyes:

I agree one hundred percent but the analogy is faulty.The question is if you told your doctor that you as a woman felt like a man and demanded to be treated like a man would he get you a psychiatric consult ?

Whenever a woman demands that I treat her like a man, I let her pay for dinner.

AmPat
01-11-2011, 05:29 PM
Or, he'd take you down to the lodge. :D


Wilbur knows everything. He has a BS in science! :rolleyes:


Whenever a woman demands that I treat her like a man, I let her pay for dinner.Make her pass the "write your name in the snow with your urine" test. If she passes, MAN, man.:eek:

lacarnut
01-11-2011, 05:34 PM
Wilbur, where did you serve? Don't answer that, I already know.

You arguing with people who are serving or have served is like us telling you how to be a liberal. You know more about the situation, because you've lived it.

He could be considering the possibilities of becoming a transgender fruitcake.

Odysseus
01-11-2011, 05:34 PM
[/B]Make her pass the "write your name in the snow with your urine" test. If she passes, MAN, man.:eek:

Or, she has a funnel.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CfxSWwq8cVo/TQ5A3Zl08ZI/AAAAAAAACYE/eY0h9k3GBGo/s640/Don%2BWe%2BNow.jpg (http://hopenchangecartoons.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-12-22T00%3A01%3A00-06%3A00&max-results=7)

Novaheart
01-11-2011, 05:50 PM
Why is it different? A man who is attracted to other men or a woman who is attracted to her own gender is going to raise the same problems as a person of the opposite sex. Would you tell a straight woman that she should be okay with showering with lesbians, or a man that he must shower with gay men? And if so, how does that differ from telling a woman that she has to shower with men, or a man with women? Do you really believe that there is no problem there?

At one time, the military was all male. So the accommodations have nothing to do with the privacy of the men. The sexes are segregated in society and the military for the privacy and safety of females from heterosexual men, not from other women. The women are kept apart for their safety, for good order, and to protect their reputations and marriage ability. It's quaint, but true.

If the military cared about other men seeing your pecker there would be doors on the toilets and individual showers.

Novaheart
01-11-2011, 05:56 PM
After all, don't the handicapped have the same rights as gays to serve their country? Shouldn't paraplegics be permitted to serve in those billets that they can work in? How much does it take to push a button to launch a missile. right? You don't even need functioning hands.

I've thought about that from time to time. Are we really making he best use of our resources by demanding that all persons fit one of two molds? They only fit for a portion of their career anyway. I have been sailing with naval officers who were no longer physically fit; masters of the skills but unable to do things they once could. Why can't a guy with no legs be a phone operator or facilities manager in Virginia? As long as he understands that there are career limitations.

Novaheart
01-11-2011, 05:58 PM
No and yes. Any other clueless assumptions or arguments that you'd care to make?

It wasn't a clueless assumption, it was a legitimate question.

AmPat
01-11-2011, 06:51 PM
Old Contract: Are you a homosexual?
Acceptable answer: No!
Unacceptable answer: Yes!

Revised Contract: Are you a homosexual?
Acceptable answer: silence
Unacceptable answer: Yes!

New Contract: Are you a homosexual?
Acceptable answer: Yes
Unacceptable answer: No or Not yet!

Proposed Contract: Are you willing to become a homosexual?
Acceptable Answer: Only if I can cross dress too.

No slippery slope, No-Sir-Ree.:cool:

Odysseus
01-11-2011, 07:33 PM
At one time, the military was all male. So the accommodations have nothing to do with the privacy of the men. The sexes are segregated in society and the military for the privacy and safety of females from heterosexual men, not from other women. The women are kept apart for their safety, for good order, and to protect their reputations and marriage ability. It's quaint, but true.

If the military cared about other men seeing your pecker there would be doors on the toilets and individual showers.
You cannot be this stupid. In a heterosexual military, a unisex latrine is a place in which any sexual behavior is forbidden. A male caught in a female latrine or a female caught in a male latrine is presumed guilty of sexual misconduct because they shouldn't be there in the first place, and a sexual advance from someone of the same sex is equally illegal. It's a safe zone. Now, thanks to our oh-so-enlightened non-combatants, it's not. Sexual contact between same-sex Soldiers will occur, and if it's not consensual, how do you prove it? It's he-said, he-said. It makes the common areas less safe, allows the introduction of sexual behavior where it was previously forbidden, and guarantees additional stresses on units in combat.


I've thought about that from time to time. Are we really making he best use of our resources by demanding that all persons fit one of two molds? They only fit for a portion of their career anyway. I have been sailing with naval officers who were no longer physically fit; masters of the skills but unable to do things they once could. Why can't a guy with no legs be a phone operator or facilities manager in Virginia? As long as he understands that there are career limitations.

I take it back. You are that stupid. First, warfare, even in rear areas, is physically demanding, especially in an insurgency, where anyone can be attacked at any time. That's why we are required to maintain standards of fitness in accordance with the regulations of our respective services. Those naval officers that you claim to have sailed with were still physically capable of passing a PT test and making weight, or they would be out of the Navy. The reason for that is that every member of the service has to be deployable and able to do their jobs in combat.

That leads to the second issue: When we aren't in combat, what do you think that we're doing? I'll give you a hint: What do athletes do in the off season?

Train.

We train to do our jobs in circumstances that replicate the conditions of combat. Why? so that when we deploy, we are proficient at our tasks. Do you understand that a guy with no legs who stays behind keeps his skills with him, that the skills that he possesses are lost to his unit when they deploy and he does not? Hiring non-deployables to do certain jobs means that when those jobs need to be done downrange, the people who are trained to do them will not be available. A radio operator in Virginia does us little good if he can't be a radio operator in Iraq, and if he has to stay behind, then the person who replaces him will have poorer skills because he didn't do the job in CONUS. And before you assume that they can deploy to safe areas in theater, allow me to point out that the largest, safest base in Iraq, Balad, or LSA Anaconda (depending on when you were there) used to get mortared and rocketed daily, and when that happen, we had to put on our body armor and helmets. Paraplegics have a hard time getting around with 40lbs of armor on. The jobs that don't require deployment are the jobs that we hire civilians for.


It wasn't a clueless assumption, it was a legitimate question.

You asked if we are allowed to take illegal substances. When we're deployed, we're not allowed to drink alcohol, possess porn or say anything that might offend people who are trying to murder us. In CONUS, we are tested for drugs monthly. Now, do you think that we're allowed to take illigal substances?

Not knowing the most basic things about our lives and standards of conduct makes you pretty clueless, and if that didn't, your other statements would.

wilbur
01-11-2011, 08:10 PM
Of course, "the major" isnt the only soldier with an opinion on DADT. I've spoken with and considered the arguments of more personnel than just Odysseus here. Many of them echo the same sentiments that I do. So Odysseus simply does not get a trump card here, or on most other military issues. We are free to peruse the market of ideas from other servicemen and women as well, and make our best judgments of their arguments. I judge Odysseus's arguments to border on incoherent, and absurd - and the times when they aren't completely bonkers, they don't even apply to the point or discussion at hand.

Furthermore, I have found the arguments from the likes of Odysseus to be rooted in prejudice (whether he wants to admit or not)... it becomes obvious when he, for example, attributes the high number male-on-male sexual assaults in the military to relatively small homosexual military population. He just assumes that homosexual males, by the essence of their very nature, are unable to abide by the rules that other personal are expected to uphold, and therefore that they must have been responsible for most of those incidences.

It didnt even cross his mind for a second to think that there might be something else going on... It didnt even enter his mind to consider that it just didnt make sense that such a small population of soldiers could be responsible for so many sexual assaults. Had he realized that sexual assaults are rarely about lust, and more often about power and submission, he might have thought differently.. but he'd rather assume the worst of homosexuals. Sorry, Ody... that's text book prejudice. The only thing I regret about pointing out this obvious fact, is that I'm sure he'll cry about for years to come.

In any case... The US military is bigger than our little and rather unimportant "friend", Odysseus. And thank heavens for that.

PoliCon
01-11-2011, 08:48 PM
Once again the left continues to push and push and push to make the deviant accepted as normal.

m00
01-11-2011, 09:56 PM
I take it back. You are that stupid. First, warfare, even in rear areas, is physically demanding, especially in an insurgency, where anyone can be attacked at any time. That's why we are required to maintain standards of fitness in accordance with the regulations of our respective services. Those naval officers that you claim to have sailed with were still physically capable of passing a PT test and making weight, or they would be out of the Navy. The reason for that is that every member of the service has to be deployable and able to do their jobs in combat.

What about military members working at the Pentagon? I can't imagine there aren't staffers or aids that will never, ever, be deployed.

PoliCon
01-11-2011, 10:07 PM
Q: why on earth would the military want to let mentally ill people serve?

Kay
01-11-2011, 10:53 PM
Homosexuality is a vice. Thinking that you are a man in a woman's body or vice versus is a mental illness. Trust me, if you told your doctor that you felt like an elk and you wanted other people to treat you like an elk (except the shooting part), your doctor would get you a psychiatric consult ASAP.

I agree with that 100%.


So Odysseus simply does not get a trump card here, or on most other military issues. .....
The US military is bigger than our little and rather unimportant "friend", Odysseus.

OMG what an idiot.
Wilbur did you honestly think anyone would take that bullshit post seriously?

wilbur
01-11-2011, 11:02 PM
I agree with that 100%.

OMG what an idiot.
Wilbur did you honestly think anyone would take that bullshit post seriously?

I'm an idiot because I recognize that the opinion of Ody is not the be all and end all of the military opinion?

Rockntractor
01-11-2011, 11:04 PM
I'm an idiot because I recognize that the opinion of Ody is not the be all and end all of the military opinion?

Wilbur you do more for the cause of conservatism than you could ever imagine!

m00
01-11-2011, 11:04 PM
I'm an idiot because I recognize that the opinion of Ody is not the be all and end all of the military opinion?

Well, I'll trust him on these matters until I see a poster with a silver oak leaf.

Kay
01-11-2011, 11:17 PM
I'm an idiot because I recognize that the opinion of Ody
is not the be all and end all of the military opinion?

Yes, you are correct in your statement above.
From what I've read here, I'd say Major O accurately
represents the opinions of about 99.95 % of them.

wilbur
01-11-2011, 11:22 PM
Yes, you are correct in your statement above.
From what I've read here, I'd say Major O accurately
represents the opinions of about 99.95 % of them.

According to the recent study... its an objective fact that support for DADT repeal is widespread. So no... its actually an empirical fact that the opinions of the Major do not reflect 99.95% of the military. It represents A LOT less.

http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2010/12/behind-the-dont-ask-dont-tell-survey.html



The results of the study surprised many, because the overwhelming pattern is one of support for (or at least neutrality about) repealing the policy and allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly. This mirrors public support for either repealing DADT and/or allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the military, as the graph below details.

wilbur
01-11-2011, 11:26 PM
Well, I'll trust him on these matters until I see a poster with a silver oak leaf.

I don't trust him for much, because he is routinely confused about what his arguments actually apply to.

He routinely gets confused and offers arguments that really speak against gays in the military in general, as if they should argue for the status quo of DADT. DADT, of course, allows homosexuals to serve. In fact, most of his "arguments" against DADT appear to be misplaced arguments against gays in the military period and he doesnt even recognize it. Why on earth would we trust his word, when he doesnt even understand the policies he's arguing about?

Rockntractor
01-11-2011, 11:28 PM
http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2010/12/behind-the-dont-ask-dont-tell-survey.html


The photo below depicts, from left to right: Brigadier General Keith Kerr, Brigadier General Virgil Richard, Congressman Meehan,REAR ADMIRAL Alan Steinman, Brigadier General Evelyn Foote and C. Dixon Osburn, Executive Director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. At this meeting in 2003, Kerr, Richard, and Steinman, all retired high-ranking officers, disclosed that they are gay and discussed the problems within the DADT policy.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Congressman_Marty_Meehan_joined_by_retired_flag_of ficers_interested_in_repealling_DADT.jpg/800px-Congressman_Marty_Meehan_joined_by_retired_flag_of ficers_interested_in_repealling_DADT.jpg
Now that there is funny, you can't make shit like that up!:D

m00
01-11-2011, 11:31 PM
I don't trust him for much, because he is routinely confused about what his arguments actually apply to.

He routinely gets confused and offers arguments that really speak against gays in the military in general, as if they should argue for the status quo of DADT. DADT, of course, allows homosexuals to serve. In fact, most of his "arguments" against DADT appear to be misplaced arguments against gays in the military period and he doesnt even recognize it. Why on earth would we trust his word, when he doesnt even understand the policies he's arguing about?

He's spent infinitely more time in the military than I have (which is zero). I think there's "studies" and then there's reality. Especially when it comes to human behavior.

I think you can argue why you think repealing DADT is a good idea, or why you think repealing DADT will strengthen our military long term rather than weaken it. But I don't think you can really argue with Odysseus about how much the military dislikes the repeal. Unless, of course, you are pulling up to the table with a silver oak leaf or a bird.

Kay
01-11-2011, 11:34 PM
Why on earth would we trust his word,
when he doesnt even understand the policies he's arguing about?

OMG what an idiot x 2.
I venture to say that Major O is a little more up on the policies than you are Wilburt.
It is almost comical to read your posts when you try to "school him" on military issues.
But if it makes you feel empowered, carry on.

wilbur
01-11-2011, 11:37 PM
He's spent infinitely more time in the military than I have (which is zero). I think there's "studies" and then there's reality. Especially when it comes to human behavior.

I think you can argue why you think repealing DADT is a good idea, or why you think repealing DADT will strengthen our military long term rather than weaken it. But I don't think you can really argue with Odysseus about how much the military dislikes the repeal. Unless, of course, you are pulling up to the table with a silver oak leaf or a bird.

When odysseus offers an argument like: "I will no longer be able to promise recruits that they will not shower with homosexual soldiers if DADT is repealed" (which he has), it suggests a profound lack of comprehension about the reality of DADT - that homosexuals serve now, in secret, or openly (when and where they feel safe to reveal their sexuality).. and in reality a soldier will probably end up in a shower, at some point, with a homosexual.

Despite his military career, he simply doesnt know WTF he's talking about. And most of his arguments for the status quo are similarly mis-aimed.

lacarnut
01-11-2011, 11:46 PM
When odysseus offers an argument like: "I will no longer be able to promise recruits that they will not shower with homosexual soldiers if DADT is repealed" (which he has), it suggests a profound lack of comprehension about the reality of DADT - that homosexuals serve now, in secret, or openly (when and where they feel safe to reveal their sexuality).. and in reality a soldier will probably end up in a shower, at some point, with a homosexual.

Despite his military career, he simply doesnt know WTF he's talking about. And most of his arguments for the status quo are similarly mis-aimed.

You are the dumb fuck in this discussion. You have never served and do not have a clue what military life is like.

Kay
01-11-2011, 11:49 PM
Despite his military career, he simply doesnt know WTF he's talking about.
And most of his arguments for the status quo are similarly mis-aimed.

So despite his long and obviously successful career in the military
you're telling us that he doesn't know squat. But that you, with
your infinite lack of time (read zero) in the military know better.

Wear it proudly....
http://rlv.zcache.com/idiot_heres_your_sign_bumper_sticker-p128542684648076448trl0_400.jpg

PoliCon
01-11-2011, 11:50 PM
You are the dumb fuck in this discussion. You have never served and do not have a clue what military life is like.

Does it really matter what military life is like in this case? Reality is - these people are fucking nuts. We do not need crazy people having guns.

wilbur
01-11-2011, 11:55 PM
So despite his long and obviously successful career in the military you're telling us that he doesn't know squat. But that you, with
your infinite lack of time (read zero) in the military know better.


Re-read my last post and tell me in what way that argument from Ody (its a real one) actually applies to DADT? You can't, because it doesn't. It doesnt matter his experience, the argument fails to address the issue - its a red herring.. as were most of his others.

So yea, his military career aside, if he can't offer actual relevant reasons for his positions on an issue, then why on earth would *anyone* listen to him?

Kay
01-12-2011, 12:01 AM
I'm off to bed now little Wilburt.
I'll leave you to ponder on that last question you ask.
I'm just thankful that tonight the safety of my country
is in the capable hands of Major O and not yours.

Novaheart
01-12-2011, 12:05 AM
Yes, you are correct in your statement above.
From what I've read here, I'd say Major O accurately
represents the opinions of about 99.95 % of them.

That's not exactly a random sample.

wilbur
01-12-2011, 12:06 AM
I'm off to bed now little Wilburt.
I'll leave you to ponder on that last question you ask.
I'm just thankful that tonight the safety of my country
is in the capable hands of Major O and not yours.

Hey, you know what? I am glad he and many others choose to defend our country - but that doesnt make their beliefs or arguments any less fallible than anyone else's. It doesn't put them beyond criticism.

And I'll take your lack of response to the content of the last post as a concession that the points therein were sound. =)

CueSi
01-12-2011, 01:22 AM
Gah...we're refighting DADT.It's over, it's done.

Let's move on.

All I was thinking is that in a place with limited space where soldiers have to pack light and be close to one another that a Transgendered soldier would not make any logistical sense. In addition with the bathroom/sleeping issue - - many trans people are on hormonal supplements that HAVE to be taken at certain times which may not agree with the schedule in the field. And the moodswings that come with those can be unpredictable and amplified by stress.

Then there is the need for therapy in order for the entire operation to go through. Someone in the field will probably not have time to see the approved therapists for this.

The entire thing from therapy to surgery can cost from $30-$75k, if not more and very few surgeons are qualified for it. The VA is burdened and inefficient enough...will they be covering this?


~QC

PoliCon
01-12-2011, 02:02 AM
But QC - this isn't about them actually serving. This is about them wanting endorsement of their insanity and for it to be normalized.

CueSi
01-12-2011, 02:11 AM
But QC - this isn't about them actually serving. This is about them wanting endorsement of their insanity and for it to be normalized.

Arrrggggg.... you don't have to serve in the military to be normal.

~QC

PoliCon
01-12-2011, 02:18 AM
Arrrggggg.... you don't have to serve in the military to be normal.

~QC

True - but you can't be normal and be 'transgendered.' You cannot convince me that a perfectly healthy body is defective because some person "feels" that they're something their genetics denies. If anything - this proves to me that nature alone is not responsible in sexuality issues. Nurture also plays a significant role as well.

CueSi
01-12-2011, 02:36 AM
True - but you can't be normal and be 'transgendered.' You cannot convince me that a perfectly healthy body is defective because some person "feels" that they're something their genetics denies. If anything - this proves to me that nature alone is not responsible in sexuality issues. Nurture also plays a significant role as well.

Whoa... gotta speak to the bolded for a sec. Someone who seeks and really wants to know the truth of things wants to be convinced with actual proof, right? So to say, you can't convince me of . . . is shutting out everything but your foregone conclusion.

Maybe not normal, but - - at least not being marginalized. There is alot that makes someone transgendered. It's partially nature, it's partially nurture. Some of it may be beyond our present understanding of the mind and how it works. Hence ... what I said befor.

~QC

PoliCon
01-12-2011, 02:47 AM
Whoa... gotta speak to the bolded for a sec. Someone who seeks and really wants to know the truth of things wants to be convinced with actual proof, right? So to say, you can't convince me of . . . is shutting out everything but your foregone conclusion.

Maybe not normal, but - - at least not being marginalized. There is alot that makes someone transgendered. It's partially nature, it's partially nurture. Some of it may be beyond our present understanding of the mind and how it works. Hence ... what I said befor.

~QC

I didn't say it as a forgone conclusion as much as an evaluation of the evidence. I've spend a good deal of time discussing the issue with someone who is genetically abnormal - an XXY woman. As I have said earlier - when you have a genetic abnormality - that's one thing. But when you have a perfectly health body and you seek to mutilate it because of nebulous feelings? :confused: No sorry. And that's not even considering how miserable these people almost always end up after they complete their transformation.

CueSi
01-12-2011, 03:06 AM
I didn't say it as a forgone conclusion as much as an evaluation of the evidence. I've spend a good deal of time discussing the issue with someone who is genetically abnormal - an XXY woman. As I have said earlier - when you have a genetic abnormality - that's one thing. But when you have a perfectly health body and you seek to mutilate it because of nebulous feelings? :confused: No sorry. And that's not even considering how miserable these people almost always end up after they complete their transformation.

A genetic abnormality is different, I'd think... she wants to be a woman and probably looks and is represented as one.

When someone is transgendered, I think it's not as nebulous as you think, based on some of the transgendered girls I've dealt with. They liken to uncomfortability that morphs into disgust and depression. Some try to ignore or compensate for it (how do you think they had enough people to make a freaking TG vets group?...;) ) and maybe develop associated problems.

Funny thing... the happiest TG's I've met (M-t-F) were those that were "half done". The upper floors were finished, but they left the basement intact, so.. maybe you're onto something.

~QC

CueSi
01-12-2011, 03:08 AM
I'm fucking enjoying the goddamned civility in this conversation, Poli. :)

~QC

Novaheart
01-12-2011, 09:39 AM
Does it really matter what military life is like in this case? Reality is - these people are fucking nuts. We do not need crazy people having guns.

This is truly a forest for the trees moment. I reread the CNS/AP article.

You want nuts? Autumn Sandeen served for 20 year, 20 YEARS, with undiagnosed and unmedicated bipolar disorder. And someone is worried about her being transexual with a gun?

How is it possible that a person with bipolar disorder can serve in the military? I myself have been certain that I have met many such persons on active duty, but I have been repeatedly told that bipolar disorder cannot be visually identified, and I'm also aware that I tend to think that people with blue eyes are a bit off. But seriously, we're talk about this person being transgendered and the effect that would have on her service, and the whole time she had bipolar disorder.

Am I wrong? Are we treating bipolar disorder like it does alcoholism now? That is to say, ignore it in some, tolerate it at the top, treat it in others, exploit it in the rest?

PoliCon
01-12-2011, 11:00 AM
This is truly a forest for the trees moment. I reread the CNS/AP article.

You want nuts? Autumn Sandeen served for 20 year, 20 YEARS, with undiagnosed and unmedicated bipolar disorder. And someone is worried about her being transexual with a gun?

How is it possible that a person with bipolar disorder can serve in the military? I myself have been certain that I have met many such persons on active duty, but I have been repeatedly told that bipolar disorder cannot be visually identified, and I'm also aware that I tend to think that people with blue eyes are a bit off. But seriously, we're talk about this person being transgendered and the effect that would have on her service, and the whole time she had bipolar disorder.

Am I wrong? Are we treating bipolar disorder like it does alcoholism now? That is to say, ignore it in some, tolerate it at the top, treat it in others, exploit it in the rest?

Ya know what - you're right. Bipolar is nuts too. Doesn't make being transsexual any less nuts.

PoliCon
01-12-2011, 11:01 AM
I'm fucking enjoying the goddamned civility in this conversation, Poli. :)

~QC

They are possible ;) maybe others will learn from our example.

PoliCon
01-12-2011, 11:04 AM
A genetic abnormality is different, I'd think... she wants to be a woman and probably looks and is represented as one.

When someone is transgendered, I think it's not as nebulous as you think, based on some of the transgendered girls I've dealt with. They liken to uncomfortability that morphs into disgust and depression. Some try to ignore or compensate for it (how do you think they had enough people to make a freaking TG vets group?...;) ) and maybe develop associated problems.

Funny thing... the happiest TG's I've met (M-t-F) were those that were "half done". The upper floors were finished, but they left the basement intact, so.. maybe you're onto something.

~QC

And the fact that they are happiest half done should be further evidence that there is something wrong.

Odysseus
01-12-2011, 01:41 PM
Of course, "the major" isnt the only soldier with an opinion on DADT. I've spoken with and considered the arguments of more personnel than just Odysseus here. Many of them echo the same sentiments that I do. So Odysseus simply does not get a trump card here, or on most other military issues. We are free to peruse the market of ideas from other servicemen and women as well, and make our best judgments of their arguments. I judge Odysseus's arguments to border on incoherent, and absurd - and the times when they aren't completely bonkers, they don't even apply to the point or discussion at hand.
First, are the quotes meant to question my service or rank? There are others here who can confirm that I am who I claim to be. Care to clarify your insinuation?

Second, I don't expect a trump card, but I do expect you to to listen when people who actually have to live with the consequences of positions that you hold try to explain the consequences of those positions, something that you refuse to even look at.


Furthermore, I have found the arguments from the likes of Odysseus to be rooted in prejudice (whether he wants to admit or not)... it becomes obvious when he, for example, attributes the high number male-on-male sexual assaults in the military to relatively small homosexual military population. He just assumes that homosexual males, by the essence of their very nature, are unable to abide by the rules that other personal are expected to uphold, and therefore that they must have been responsible for most of those incidences.
I refuse to admit to something that is patently false, and a slander. Your ad hominem attack doesn't change the validity of arguments that you cannot counter. For example, male on male sexual assault is, by definition, a homosexual act. Who do you think is responsible, the tooth fairy (oops, I said "fairy"! Obviously a bigot)? And I didn't say that all of the assaults were committed by Soldiers who self-identified as gay, but what I did say is that by increasing the pool of Soldiers who are sexually attracted to their own sex, you will increase the number of these assaults.


It didnt even cross his mind for a second to think that there might be something else going on... It didnt even enter his mind to consider that it just didnt make sense that such a small population of soldiers could be responsible for so many sexual assaults. Had he realized that sexual assaults are rarely about lust, and more often about power and submission, he might have thought differently.. but he'd rather assume the worst of homosexuals. Sorry, Ody... that's text book prejudice. The only thing I regret about pointing out this obvious fact, is that I'm sure he'll cry about for years to come.
Usually, when men want to force power and submission on each other, they don't engage in homosexual acts. A beating does the trick. The act of rape is a sexual assault, not just an assault. A man cannot penetrate another person with his genitals unless he is aroused by the act. What is absurd, is that you are looking at acts of homosexual assault, demanding homosexual arousal, but denying that there is any homosexuality involved. That willful blindness to the obvious is the result of your own prejudice against common sense.

Odysseus
01-12-2011, 01:42 PM
In any case... The US military is bigger than our little and rather unimportant "friend", Odysseus. And thank heavens for that.
I never claimed to be important. I'm an O4 in an organization that goes up to O10, and my headquarters is commanded by an O8. What I do claim is that I have insights into the daily necessities of military operations and organizations that you lack, but which you refuse to deal with, because your ignorance serves your ego.


What about military members working at the Pentagon? I can't imagine there aren't staffers or aids that will never, ever, be deployed.
There are those who have managed to avoid it, but that is the exception, rather than the rule, and it is an exception that annoys a lot of us. But, in theory, every one of them is deployable, and after nine years of combat, anyone who has managed to avoid it has some explaining to do.

I'm an idiot because I recognize that the opinion of Ody is not the be all and end all of the military opinion?
No, you're an idiot because you refuse to listen to the people who deal with these issues on a day to day basis.

According to the recent study... its an objective fact that support for DADT repeal is widespread. So no... its actually an empirical fact that the opinions of the Major do not reflect 99.95% of the military. It represents A LOT less.

http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2010/12/behind-the-dont-ask-dont-tell-survey.html
That is an out and out lie. First, the survey never asked directly about whether the respondents thought that DADT should be preserved or repealed. Instead, we were addressed in terms that implied that repeal is inevitable, after which, cooked results were leaked in order to create the illusion that we support repeal. The link that you cited is a one of the sites used to disseminate the BS. The actual questions tell a different story:

63 percent of respondents live off-base or in civilian housing. When asked how the policy change would affect them, they replied that it wouldn't. Among combat troops, OTOH, over half with combat experience said a change would have a negative or very negative impact in the field or at sea. Among Marine combat troops, two-thirds said combat readiness would suffer.

When the questions got specific, the answers proved more negative:
More than 61 percent said they would take some sort of action to avoid sharing a tent or shower with a known homosexual.
6% of responders said repeal would improve either recruitment or morale,
Roughly four times that numbers said they would leave the military early if the repeal passed.

And, the DOD lumped neutral answers in as positives. For example, every "Equally as effective as ineffective" or "Equally as easy as difficult" answer was added into the positive category. Taking just one question, 67d which asks "If Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed, how easy or difficult do you think it will be for leadership as they start implementing the policy to... Make sure all Service members are treated with respect by their coworkers?" you get the following results:

11.8% "Very easy"
14% "Easy"
20.7% "Difficult"
29.4% "Very difficult"
21.4% "Equally as easy as difficult"

The final report stated that 46.5% responded favorably, which is highly disingenuous. In fact, 25.8% responded favorably, 50.8% responded negatively, and 21.4% were neutral. In other words, a majority was negative and a small minority was positive. It was that way with every question.

Finally, the survey was hardly representative. The response rate was extremely low (less than 20% in most branches), and there was a reason for that. In order to log in to the survey, you would have to input an identification number that was sent to your .mil e-mail. This means that the results were not anonymous, and since the administration and the CJCS are on the record as favoring repeal, what do you think will happen to those of us who opposed repeal? I can't wait for my first extra-duty, command-mandated sensitivity training, so that I can be made to spout the new line.


I don't trust him for much, because he is routinely confused about what his arguments actually apply to.

He routinely gets confused and offers arguments that really speak against gays in the military in general, as if they should argue for the status quo of DADT. DADT, of course, allows homosexuals to serve. In fact, most of his "arguments" against DADT appear to be misplaced arguments against gays in the military period and he doesnt even recognize it. Why on earth would we trust his word, when he doesnt even understand the policies he's arguing about?
No, you routinely twist arguments that speack out against gays in the military in general into endorsements of DADT, which restricts homosexual behavior. If I argue against being ordered to drink cyanide, that doesn't mean that I favor repeal of a policy that limits the amount of cyanide that I can be forced to drink on the grounds that the cyanide is there, so I might as well drink it anyway.


When odysseus offers an argument like: "I will no longer be able to promise recruits that they will not shower with homosexual soldiers if DADT is repealed" (which he has), it suggests a profound lack of comprehension about the reality of DADT - that homosexuals serve now, in secret, or openly (when and where they feel safe to reveal their sexuality).. and in reality a soldier will probably end up in a shower, at some point, with a homosexual.

Distort much? Under DADT, a Soldier will not have to shower with an openly gay Soldier. Where he or she might have ended up in a shower with a gay Soldier before, that gay Soldier could not be open about his/her sexuality. Any sexual conduct in the shower was forbidden. Now it is guaranteed that he or she will end up in a shower with an openly gay Soldier at some point in his/her career, and will not be able to say anything about it.


Despite his military career, he simply doesnt know WTF he's talking about. And most of his arguments for the status quo are similarly mis-aimed.

And despite your education (or perhaps because of it, as I suspect that you have been educated beyond your intelligence), you don't know WTF you're talking about.


Re-read my last post and tell me in what way that argument from Ody (its a real one) actually applies to DADT? You can't, because it doesn't. It doesnt matter his experience, the argument fails to address the issue - its a red herring.. as were most of his others.

So yea, his military career aside, if he can't offer actual relevant reasons for his positions on an issue, then why on earth would *anyone* listen to him?

I offer them all of the time. You elevate your opinions to facts and deride the facts and history raised by others as opinion. I asked this several times before, and you ignored it, because the answer isn't something that you want to deal with, but given that we are now enforcing close quarters on people who may be attracted to each other, how can you now justify the expense of maintaining separate facilities for male and female Soldiers? How does being forced to shower with a gay Soldier differ from being forced to shower with a Soldier of the opposite sex?

Once again, the issue isn't whether or not you think that my experiences are valid, it's what the impacts on the force will be. I have as yet to hear you cite a positive impact, or effectively refute the negative ones that have been raised. I can only assume that you don't care about the effects on the force.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CfxSWwq8cVo/S8c2g3Q9XeI/AAAAAAAABWs/IOhgi5qX5Vo/s640/Whether+We+Like+Him+Or+Not.jpg

AmPat
01-12-2011, 01:51 PM
Re-read my last post and tell me in what way that argument from Ody (its a real one) actually applies to DADT? You can't, because it doesn't. It doesnt matter his experience, the argument fails to address the issue - its a red herring.. as were most of his others.

So yea, his military career aside, if he can't offer actual relevant reasons for his positions on an issue, then why on earth would *anyone* listen to him?

DADT was designed to let the queers serve as long as they kept it secret. Repeal of DADT means they can OPENLY SERVE as homosexuals and won't be kicked out for their preferred orifice. If they can now sashay naked in the shower with heterosexuals without negative repercussions on their careers, it will have an effect. That seems clear to me and most others on this board.

If Ody says that "he cannot assure his recruits that they won't be taking showers with homosexuals," that is a statement of fact. You are choosing to argue against a FACT. You fail! Stop being a fool.:cool:

Novaheart
01-12-2011, 02:25 PM
To my knowledge there is no hard science on transgender identity. At this point, the body of work is simply behavioral psychology, and pretty much the "facts" are simply a collection of idea that most or the loudest support on the subject.

I do not believe in transgender identity. I do believe that there are biological mismatches and in betweens and that sort of thing, but I think they are a tiny subset of the people who identify as transgender. And normally I keep my mouth shut on the subject because it's none of my business if a guy thinks he's a girl or a girl thinks she's a guy.

I think that there are effeminate men and butch women, and that there might be some kind of biological predisposition to being a type in that regard. I have known effeminate heterosexual men, and god knows I have know butch heterosexual females. So this is not true gender identity. Gender identity is not whether you like fluffy sweaters and silky undies or Argentine men would all be trannies.

I think that many gay people, especially gay males, early in life come to believe that they are not of their biological sex, and the mind craving logic decides that if you are not a male then you must be a female. So, you're a gay little boy, and all the social pressure is that you are supposed to like this and not like that, and you're being brainwashed into being heterosexual, and it's not taking, it's setting off alarms. So your brain says, "I don't like girls, I will never like girls, I like jumping rope more than rough housing and I hate baseball so I am not a boy. If I am not a boy then I must be a girl."

If I am correct, then as society continues to erase anti-gay prejudice, then the number of boys who think they are girls should go way down over the next generation or two. In the interim, I think we need to encourage transexual people to consider all nonpermanent or mutilating options first. I honestly don't understand why trannies don't leave their bodies as is. There are a lot people out there who find crossdresers and transexuals exotic and attractive. It's not like most of these folks are actually "passing" for the opposite sex, and most end up in relationships with other transexuals. It makes no sense to mutilate your body, and if you're considering suicide or self mutilation , then you need to deal with that first anyway.

Odysseus
01-12-2011, 03:20 PM
If I am correct, then as society continues to erase anti-gay prejudice, then the number of boys who think they are girls should go way down over the next generation or two. In the interim, I think we need to encourage transexual people to consider all nonpermanent or mutilating options first. I honestly don't understand why trannies don't leave their bodies as is. There are a lot people out there who find crossdresers and transexuals exotic and attractive. It's not like most of these folks are actually "passing" for the opposite sex, and most end up in relationships with other transexuals. It makes no sense to mutilate your body, and if you're considering suicide or self mutilation , then you need to deal with that first anyway.

Regardless, this changes nothing about the idiocy of allowing them into the armed forces. The activists have said that we must comply, and he/she who must be obeyed has spoken.

NJCardFan
01-12-2011, 03:53 PM
Of course, "the major" isnt the only soldier with an opinion on DADT. I've spoken with and considered the arguments of more personnel than just Odysseus here. Many of them echo the same sentiments that I do. So Odysseus simply does not get a trump card here, or on most other military issues. We are free to peruse the market of ideas from other servicemen and women as well, and make our best judgments of their arguments. I judge Odysseus's arguments to border on incoherent, and absurd - and the times when they aren't completely bonkers, they don't even apply to the point or discussion at hand.

Furthermore, I have found the arguments from the likes of Odysseus to be rooted in prejudice (whether he wants to admit or not)... it becomes obvious when he, for example, attributes the high number male-on-male sexual assaults in the military to relatively small homosexual military population. He just assumes that homosexual males, by the essence of their very nature, are unable to abide by the rules that other personal are expected to uphold, and therefore that they must have been responsible for most of those incidences.

It didnt even cross his mind for a second to think that there might be something else going on... It didnt even enter his mind to consider that it just didnt make sense that such a small population of soldiers could be responsible for so many sexual assaults. Had he realized that sexual assaults are rarely about lust, and more often about power and submission, he might have thought differently.. but he'd rather assume the worst of homosexuals. Sorry, Ody... that's text book prejudice. The only thing I regret about pointing out this obvious fact, is that I'm sure he'll cry about for years to come.

In any case... The US military is bigger than our little and rather unimportant "friend", Odysseus. And thank heavens for that.
Thank you for proving my point about liberals. You're losing the argument so what do you do? You personally attack the person you're debating with:

Of course, "the major" isnt the only soldier with an opinion on DADT.
So, you're accusing him of not being who he says he is? Is that your argument? And you close by calling him unimportant then put friend in ""? Tell you what, is a friend to me and all of us. Maybe not you because you're such a douche.

NJCardFan
01-12-2011, 04:30 PM
Or, she has a funnel.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CfxSWwq8cVo/TQ5A3Zl08ZI/AAAAAAAACYE/eY0h9k3GBGo/s640/Don%2BWe%2BNow.jpg (http://hopenchangecartoons.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-12-22T00%3A01%3A00-06%3A00&max-results=7)
Thank you for showing us this website. I checked it out and can't stop laughing. This one was the best:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CfxSWwq8cVo/TSdjYpsddEI/AAAAAAAACc4/6XWmT2Fq-ko/s640/Hopeless%2Band%2BChangeless.jpg

Odysseus
01-12-2011, 06:11 PM
Thank you for proving my point about liberals. You're losing the argument so what do you do? You personally attack the person you're debating with:

So, you're accusing him of not being who he says he is? Is that your argument? And you close by calling him unimportant then put friend in ""? Tell you what, is a friend to me and all of us. Maybe not you because you're such a douche.
Thanks, friend. And no quotation marks.

Thank you for showing us this website. I checked it out and can't stop laughing. This one was the best:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CfxSWwq8cVo/TSdjYpsddEI/AAAAAAAACc4/6XWmT2Fq-ko/s640/Hopeless%2Band%2BChangeless.jpg

I've been reading that site for a few weeks now, and I'm back into November 2009. Fortunately, my fellow troops are used to my sudden bouts of giggling. I particularly like this one:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CfxSWwq8cVo/SwVvWPY9c7I/AAAAAAAAA20/z7zmO4D5UYQ/s640/Trial+And+Error.jpg

noonwitch
01-13-2011, 08:43 AM
I look at it this way-any person who wants to surgically change their gender is mentally ill. He or she deserves compassion and the same courteous treatment we give to our neighbors in general, but that does not equal a right to serve.


It would also be costly, medically speaking. If the military allows transexuals to enlist, will they then be responsible for the cost of ongoing plastic surgery? Are we going to take money from the same funds used to buy prosethics for soldiers who lost limbs in combat to pay for a transexual to maintain her female appearance for another couple of years? And, if so, how many trannies are going to join up for that reason alone?

Novaheart
01-13-2011, 09:27 AM
I look at it this way-any person who wants to surgically change their gender is mentally ill. He or she deserves compassion and the same courteous treatment we give to our neighbors in general, but that does not equal a right to serve.


It would also be costly, medically speaking. If the military allows transexuals to enlist, will they then be responsible for the cost of ongoing plastic surgery? Are we going to take money from the same funds used to buy prosethics for soldiers who lost limbs in combat to pay for a transexual to maintain her female appearance for another couple of years? And, if so, how many trannies are going to join up for that reason alone?

Again, trying to be completely objective, I do think there are other conditions which present a far greater potential liability to the military and taxpayer.

I know people don't like to think about it, some for the most obvious reason, but alcohol and alcoholism are IMO the most insidious, dangerous, and harmful things in this nation year after year and the military had shown BOTH (for those who miss such words) the willingness and ability to tolerate as well as treat alcoholism. By applying a performance standard rather than a medical standard, the military tolerates known alcoholics and only treats them when their condition reaches a point that SOME (for those who miss such words) people consider well beyond the earliest point of diagnosis and treatment. Of course, this is not unique to the military. As a society we tend to pussyfoot around alcoholism.