PDA

View Full Version : LETTER: ROTC Discriminates Against Transgender People



Odysseus
02-04-2011, 12:13 PM
You can't make this idiocy up.

From the Harvard Crimson http://www.thecrimson.com/writer/1206996/Janani__Balasubramanian/:

By Janani Balasubramanian
Published: Thursday, February 03, 2011

I am a junior at Stanford University and an officer of Stanford Students for Queer Liberation. I am frustrated and appalled by the rhetoric displayed in The Crimson’s Staff editorial “The Return of ROTC” published on January 31. As an advocate for civil rights, our organization is working against ROTC’s return to Stanford and against President Obama’s rallying cry for reinstituting the program across the nation.

The Crimson Staff first lauds the repeal of DADT and uses the now ostensible openness of the military as justification for ROTC’s return. In almost the same breath, The Staff points out the continued military exclusion of transgender and intersex people (though actually using the disparaging term "transgendered"), and then declares that this de jure discrimination should not be sufficient grounds for keeping ROTC away. To me, this is a huge logical hole. If discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual servicemembers was a barrier, explicit exclusion of another identity group protected by Harvard and Stanford’s own respective non-discrimination policies should also be a barrier. Along those lines, if the excluded group were a racial minority, would this discourse be as defiantly pro-ROTC?

The Staff posits that the trans/intersex discrimination issue was not discussed until after DADT was repealed. No doubt, mainstream LGB (not T) organizations have been uncritically excluding transgender politics from the public discourse on DADT, but the National Center for Transgender Equality and other queer and transgender advocacy groups have been discussing these issues of access and discrimination. We should be questioning our unawareness of the transgender student exclusion issue.

The Staff also theorizes that Harvard failing to bring back ROTC risks a loss of credibility to administrators who promised ROTC would return after DADT. Schools like Harvard and Stanford do indeed have the ability to engage their communities in nuanced, self-critical dialogue. We, at both Harvard and Stanford, recognize that gender identity is more than a token addition to our non-discrimination policies. We can ask administrators to state that they were previously incognizant or unsympathetic to the institutional discrimination against transgender students, but that this argument is a compelling reason to uphold our investments in equal opportunity and oppose ROTC.

I ask that all universities considering ROTC, but especially those like Harvard and Stanford who possess huge cultural capital, issue statements opposing the program in support of their transgender students. Several of us at Stanford are working with queer and transgender advocacy groups like the NCTE, and they have explicitly stated that such statements would indeed have significant positive impact for their work in the area of military discrimination. This is not merely a “queer agenda,” however, but a problem that behooves attention from us all as students opposed to de jure discrimination in favor of civil rights.

Janani Balasubramanian

Palo Alto, Calif.

Jan. 31, 2011

Janani Balasubramanian is a junior at Stanford and an officer within the Stanford Students for Queer Liberation.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And did I predict that this would be the next step? And, naturally, it's a civil rights issue, not a readiness issue.

http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2010/12/22/lwvy0q2xy9.jpg

noonwitch
02-04-2011, 12:59 PM
Anyone young enough to qualify for ROTC is too young to be making permanent decisions regarding sex change operations, as we are talking generally about college students under the age of 30.


Then again, I believe anyone who wants a doctor to change their body in such a dramatic way is mentally unstable. Plus, I think anyone over 30 who considers himself to be a bi-sexual is either afraid of a commitment or suffers from nymphomania or priapism, depending on gender.

Gingersnap
02-04-2011, 01:01 PM
Anyone young enough to qualify for ROTC is too young to be making permanent decisions regarding sex change operations, as we are talking generally about college students under the age of 30.


Then again, I believe anyone who wants a doctor to change their body in such a dramatic way is mentally unstable. Plus, I think anyone over 30 who considers himself to be a bi-sexual is either afraid of a commitment or suffers from nymphomania or priapism, depending on gender.

It's hard enough to be a competent heterosexual. Bisexuality is just too much work. :p

Odysseus
02-04-2011, 01:26 PM
Anyone young enough to qualify for ROTC is too young to be making permanent decisions regarding sex change operations, as we are talking generally about college students under the age of 30.

Then again, I believe anyone who wants a doctor to change their body in such a dramatic way is mentally unstable. Plus, I think anyone over 30 who considers himself to be a bi-sexual is either afraid of a commitment or suffers from nymphomania or priapism, depending on gender.
You say nymphomania as if it were a bad thing. :confused:

It's hard enough to be a competent heterosexual. Bisexuality is just too much work. :p

Plus, it doubles your chances for rejection. :D

ColonialMarine0431
02-04-2011, 01:29 PM
Just go away already freaks. :mad:

txradioguy
02-04-2011, 01:35 PM
Nah...didn't see this coming a mile away.

My opinion on the repeal of DADT is that it never was about letting gays serve openly. They pratcially do anyway under DADT. The repeal was/is symbolic.

What the Gay "rights" advocates have done is created a back door way (no pun intended) to force all 50 states to recognize gay "marriage".

There's a whole laundry list of stuff I forsee those of us in uniform have to be forced to accept in the near future.

Novaheart
02-04-2011, 01:44 PM
Deborah Samson Gannett (December 17, 1760 - April 27, 1827[1]), better known as Deborah Sampson, was an American woman who impersonated a man in order to serve in the Continental Army during the American Revolution, and was the only woman to fight in the Revolutionary War.[2] She served 17 months in the army, as "Robert Shurtleff", of Uxbridge, Massachusetts, was wounded in battle and discharged honorably at West Point.


from wiki

Rockntractor
02-04-2011, 01:46 PM
Deborah Samson Gannett (December 17, 1760 - April 27, 1827[1]), better known as Deborah Sampson, was an American woman who impersonated a man in order to serve in the Continental Army during the American Revolution, and was the only woman to fight in the Revolutionary War.[2] She served 17 months in the army, as "Robert Shurtleff", of Uxbridge, Massachusetts, was wounded in battle and discharged honorably at West Point.


from wiki

Irrelevant.

Phillygirl
02-04-2011, 01:48 PM
Deborah Samson Gannett (December 17, 1760 - April 27, 1827[1]), better known as Deborah Sampson, was an American woman who impersonated a man in order to serve in the Continental Army during the American Revolution, and was the only woman to fight in the Revolutionary War.[2] She served 17 months in the army, as "Robert Shurtleff", of Uxbridge, Massachusetts, was wounded in battle and discharged honorably at West Point.


from wiki

That doesn't tell me that she was transsexual or transgender, merely that she wanted to be a soldier and her gender prohibited that, so she put on a disguise.

txradioguy
02-04-2011, 02:05 PM
Deborah Samson Gannett (December 17, 1760 - April 27, 1827[1]), better known as Deborah Sampson, was an American woman who impersonated a man in order to serve in the Continental Army during the American Revolution, and was the only woman to fight in the Revolutionary War.[2] She served 17 months in the army, as "Robert Shurtleff", of Uxbridge, Massachusetts, was wounded in battle and discharged honorably at West Point.


from wiki


:rolleyes:


http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/9364/giantfail.jpg

Novaheart
02-04-2011, 02:08 PM
That doesn't tell me that she was transsexual or transgender, merely that she wanted to be a soldier and her gender prohibited that, so she put on a disguise.

Merely pointing out that before gang showers and open toilets became central to military training, plumbing apparently was less important than patriotism.

Phillygirl
02-04-2011, 02:10 PM
Merely pointing out that before gang showers and open toilets became central to military training, plumbing apparently was less important than patriotism.

Apparently not, since she had to hide her personal plumbing in order to serve.

Novaheart
02-04-2011, 02:16 PM
Irrelevant.

How about flipping the presumption of excellence. Around here and elsewhere, there is a trend to pit whatever is being criticized against a best case scenario of what is being supported. In reality every white heterosexual biological male is not superior to everyone else.

Part of the concept of diversity is that different people bring different aptitudes. Sometimes you need a big strapping Viking, and sometimes you need a little gymnast. Hell, you might even find that you have a use for someone with the strength of a man in a perfect size five cocktail dress.

txradioguy
02-04-2011, 02:21 PM
How about flipping the presumption of excellence. Around here and elsewhere, there is a trend to pit whatever is being criticized against a best case scenario of what is being supported. In reality every white heterosexual biological male is not superior to everyone else.

And neither is every self righteous gay who thinks the world owes them something more than the rest of us or some little boy in a dress wishing he'd been norn a girl who thinks he needs to be in the military.

How about posting something relavent to the discussion instead of a strawman that has nothing to do with Transgenders somehow thinking they are entitled to serve.

Novaheart
02-04-2011, 02:24 PM
Apparently not, since she had to hide her personal plumbing in order to serve.

Which she could because soldiers didn't spend a lot of naked time together back then.

Novaheart
02-04-2011, 02:28 PM
And neither is every self righteous gay who thinks the world owes them something more than the rest of us or some little boy in a dress wishing he'd been norn a girl who thinks he needs to be in the military.

How about posting something relavent to the discussion instead of a strawman that has nothing to do with Transgenders somehow thinking they are entitled to serve.

You have a perceptual disorder, and it's tiresome. I didn't say that transgendered people have a right to serve. I was talking about the possibility that they could serve and be an asset.

AmPat
02-04-2011, 02:33 PM
You have a perceptual disorder, and it's tiresome. I didn't say that transgendered people have a right to serve. I was talking about the possibility that they could serve and be an asset.

Yet you ignore or poo-pooh away the probability that they will be a nuisance or the complete absense of a reason to change the status quo.:rolleyes:

Rebel Yell
02-04-2011, 02:41 PM
Anyone young enough to qualify for ROTC is too young to be making permanent decisions regarding sex change operations, as we are talking generally about college students under the age of 30.


Then again, I believe anyone who wants a doctor to change their body in such a dramatic way is mentally unstable. Plus, I think anyone over 30 who considers himself to be a bi-sexual is either afraid of a commitment or suffers from nymphomania or priapism, depending on gender.

Alright, you're gonna get hauled into the Dome.;)

Odysseus
02-04-2011, 02:49 PM
Merely pointing out that before gang showers and open toilets became central to military training, plumbing apparently was less important than patriotism.

Okay, so we get rid of showers and toilets to accomodate your pet interest group. Funny thing, though, before we had modern plumbing, the ratio of deaths by disease to deaths caused by combat was 2:1. In the Civil War, when your example served, the numbers were:

Union:
Battle deaths: 110,070
Disease.: 250,152
Total 360,222

Confederate:
Battle deaths: 94,000
Disease: 164,000
Total 258,000

What diseases killed the most? Dysentary, Typhus, Typhoid, Malaria, Cholera, even plague... all diseases that are related to hygiene issues. What eliminated those diseases? indoor plumbing, elimination of standing open water, modern sanitation facilities, sewage treatment, regular showers, in short, all of the benefits of gang showers and toilets. But, what's a few thousand deaths per division in the face of the civil rights of a few people who can't live with the genitals that they were born with, or who are attracted to their own sex?

Do you begin to grasp just how ignorant you are, Nova, and how little you know about the military and its history, or how much damage your prescriptions will cause if implemented? Is anything sinking in here?

Rockntractor
02-04-2011, 02:54 PM
Alright, you're gonna get hauled into the Dome.;)

This normally would have caused this reaction.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/19318690.gif
Followed by this.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/GirlTemperTantrum.gif

Odysseus
02-04-2011, 02:58 PM
This normally would have caused this reaction.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/19318690.gif

I think that her vibrator is stuck. :D

Novaheart
02-04-2011, 03:02 PM
Okay, so we get rid of showers and toilets to accomodate your pet interest group. Funny thing, though, before we had modern plumbing, the ratio of deaths by disease to deaths caused by combat was 2:1. In the Civil War, when your example served, the numbers were:

Union:
Battle deaths: 110,070
Disease.: 250,152
Total 360,222

Confederate:
Battle deaths: 94,000
Disease: 164,000
Total 258,000

What diseases killed the most? Dysentary, Typhus, Typhoid, Malaria, Cholera, even plague... all diseases that are related to hygiene issues. What eliminated those diseases? indoor plumbing, elimination of standing open water, modern sanitation facilities, sewage treatment, regular showers, in short, all of the benefits of gang showers and toilets. But, what's a few thousand deaths per division in the face of the civil rights of a few people who can't live with the genitals that they were born with, or who are attracted to their own sex?

Do you begin to grasp just how ignorant you are, Nova, and how little you know about the military and its history, or how much damage your prescriptions will cause if implemented? Is anything sinking in here?


See, you are living proof of the value of diversity. The military obviously sees a value and has a use for your unique combination of pulmonary and intellectual function.

Rockntractor
02-04-2011, 03:06 PM
I think that her vibrator is stuck. :D

Hopefully they aren't energizer batteries!:eek:

Odysseus
02-04-2011, 03:06 PM
See, you are living proof of the value of diversity. The military obviously sees a value and has a use for your unique combination of pulmonary and intellectual function.

And no use for yours. Seriously, is that all you've got? Where's the counter argument? Where's the claim that we can get along just fine without showers and toilets? C'mon, Nova, make your case!

Novaheart
02-04-2011, 03:10 PM
And no use for yours. Seriously, is that all you've got? Where's the counter argument? Where's the claim that we can get along just fine without showers and toilets? C'mon, Nova, make your case!

Showers and toilets are great, it's superstitious idiots and snickering juveniles we can do without.

Apache
02-04-2011, 03:12 PM
See, you are living proof of the value of diversity. The military obviously sees a value and has a use for your unique combination of pulmonary and intellectual function.

Of which you have none...

Why do you feel the need to foist every deviant standard?

Apache
02-04-2011, 03:15 PM
Showers and toilets are great, it's superstitious idiots and snickering juveniles we can do without.

Not to mention whiny little bitches like you, who make their own lives hell...

Odysseus
02-04-2011, 03:21 PM
Showers and toilets are great, it's superstitious idiots and snickering juveniles we can do without.

What superstition have I expressed? How is my concern for the welfare of my troops juvenile?

What is juvenile about not wanting to shower with someone of either gender who is attracted to your gender? Why should we even bother with unisex showers and latrines, if we are going to compel straight Soldiers to shower and perform other intimate functions in the presence of openly gay Soldiers? What is the difference between a woman being compelled to shower with a straight man and a woman being compelled to shower with a lesbian? Please, enlighten me.

Rockntractor
02-04-2011, 03:26 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/we-met-in-boot-camp-gy-demotivational-posters-1296851113.jpg

Novaheart
02-04-2011, 03:32 PM
What is the difference between a woman being compelled to shower with a straight man and a woman being compelled to shower with a lesbian? Please, enlighten me.

Lesbians are women you moron.

Odysseus
02-04-2011, 03:33 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/we-met-in-boot-camp-gy-demotivational-posters-1296851113.jpg

Well, I suppose that's one form of close order drill. :mad:

Here's another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol5Dfs7jqFI

Nova will no doubt accuse me of being a s******ing adolescent for that, but since he has yet to explain how we can reconcile the military necessities of good order and discipline with sexual license and alternative lifestyles, I don't expect anything more than ad hominem attacks from him.

Odysseus
02-04-2011, 03:35 PM
Lesbians are women you moron.

I know what a lesbian is. It's a woman who is attracted to other women. A straight man is also attracted to women. Why should it make a difference if a straight woman has to shower with a man who finds her attractive or a woman who finds her attractive? Please explain, oh enlightened one who feels that he can call others a moron for pointing out the obvious.

Apache
02-04-2011, 04:02 PM
Lesbians are women you moron.

Losing your arguement, I see...

ColonialMarine0431
02-04-2011, 04:11 PM
Merely pointing out that before gang showers and open toilets became central to military training, plumbing apparently was less important than patriotism.

Huh? Communal showers and facilities have always been a part of the military. Where do you get your "facts"? MSNBC?

Odysseus
02-04-2011, 04:14 PM
Huh? Communal showers and facilities have always been a part of the military. Where do you get your "facts"? MSNBC?

He's talking Civil War era, when there weren't any showers at all. Apparently, he feels that hygiene should take a backseat to the newly conceived civil rights of transgendered persons.

ColonialMarine0431
02-04-2011, 04:58 PM
He's talking Civil War era, when there weren't any showers at all. Apparently, he feels that hygiene should take a backseat to the newly conceived civil rights of transgendered persons.

My bad. I missed that post on the Civil War lady that posed as a man. It's a moot point anyway. It has no relevance to the debate. By that logic, transgendered, transexual or whatever they call it should be allowed today because Joan of Arc supposedly tried to pass as a man on occasion.