Trump breaks promise on Transgender Rights

[Serryah]

I agree! I am not talking about the Ls, Gs, and Bs... not even the folks that like wearing the opposite sexes clothes. I am talking about the folks that are transitioning sexes while in the service, or want to transition while in the service.



So I THINK we're on the same page. And that was my point.

If a Navy Seal can perform his mission who cares what he does with his free time. If that same Navy Seal says to his CO that he's a woman inside and wants to transition... that's NOT a problem.

FIFU.

Since this popped up, a lot of trans service people have been speaking out. One said that they didn't have their hormones covered, but rather they had to pay out of their own pocket for them. If that's the case, then there is NO basis on this 'ban', other than, well, who knows what. It certainly wasn't the Joint Chiefs and other military personnel who helped him make the decision. Maybe it was a distraction from Trump's issues. Maybe it was under pressure from the extreme Right Wing. Maybe it was just Trump being constipated and deciding to blame it on trans people. Whatever the reason, there is no justification for it.

Even IF a soldier wants to transition while in the service, as said, if they can still do the job - which there is no reason why they can't - then there is no excuse for this and it's just the typical panic stricken chicken littles who can't understand that people are people, even if they're people in the 'wrong body', as it were.

For anyone who was/is now in the service to turn their backs on those who are or were there now, YOU are the worst POS than even Trump is. They were/are your family, brothers/sisters in arms, people who you depended on and who depended on you with your lives. To turn your back on them just because they make you 'uncomfortable' is beyond disgusting. I'm sure there's things about you that they would find 'uncomfortable'; so what? Get over yourselves and support those who have your back.

 

[Highball]

Some of the "Crack Troops" need to be sent home. A few may stick around into newly organized Comfort Companies.

 

[Cliffy]

Trump: I consulted the military about the transgender ban. Military: no, you didn’t.

President Donald Trump said his decision to ban transgender people from serving in the military, announced via Twitter on Wednesday morning, came “after consultation with my generals and military experts.” It’s becoming clearer and clearer that he was lying.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis was on vacation when the decision was announced, and privately opposed the move. The Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. James Dunford, said Thursday that the military wouldn’t implement the ban absent a formal, non-tweeted order from the commander in chief.
And then there were the remarkable remarks that Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley made during a luncheon at the National Press Club.
During the lunch, Milley told reporters that he found out about the ban "the same way everybody else did — on the news." At the time, he was holding a glass of wine:
It’s hard to imagine a better symbol of how much confusion Trump’s tweets are causing within the military than the Army’s highest-ranking officer saying he found about it through the press, all the while holding a glass of wine.


www.vox.com/world/2017/7/27/16051892/trump-transgender-ban-army-chief-staff

 

[Jinentonix]

So is having your penis split and sewn down into labia. I can't quite remember at what stage a male toddler / child's testicles descend into the scrotum, but it's done at the instigation of dna. It's why men have nipples. If the dna says the testicles stay up? Until the dna states whether the sex organs stay in the body and become the ovaries if the dna says to descend they become testicles. That's how pretty interesting, eh? flood of the wrong hormones at the wrong time and you've got yourself someone who feels they were born into the wrong body. If our society accepted them the way other cultures have in the past, they'd not have the mental illness issues that they do because they are societally caused. If we accepted people for who they are rather then what we expect them to be there wouldn't be as many mental health issues as there are.

There are more then YX or XX. We're still learning so much about dna and it's roll in the body and brain that to stand by only 2 variants is ignorant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system#Humans
Humans, as well as some other organisms, can have a chromosomal arrangement that is contrary to their phenotypic sex; for example, XX males or XY females (see androgen insensitivity syndrome). Additionally, an abnormal number of sex chromosomes (aneuploidy) may be present, such as Turner's syndrome, in which a single X chromosome is present, and Klinefelter's syndrome, in which two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome are present, XYY syndrome and XXYY syndrome.[4] Other less common chromosomal arrangements include: triple X syndrome, 48, XXXX, and 49, XXXXX.

Only one problem, well two actually. First issue is that in nature the normal arrangement for placental mammals is either male or female. But more importantly are your examples. All of them are evolutionary dead-ends. What I mean is those people represented in the wiki article are unable to reproduce. All of them are born sterile with the exception of those with Turner's. While some with Turner's are sterile, others can reproduce with the assistance of modern technology, however it's still not a guarantee they'll be able to reproduce.
From an evolutionary standpoint, if you lack the ability to reproduce then you are a "bad" genetic mutation, it doesn't matter what kind of life form you are. From a human evolutionary and biological standpoint, there is only male and female. Yes, I know, there are true hermaphrodites in the human population but the known number is less than 20 out of 7.5 billion.

I have no issue with the idea of transgendered people. I've met some and even helped one get to his consultation and reassignment surgery. But the rest of this nonsense of "cis-gender", whatever the hell that is, and all the other gender identities is simply insanity being encouraged by govt and progressives. Your gender isn't an individuality thing, you don't get to make one up to suit your "personality" and then expect everyone else to play along.
At this point it's no different than me deciding to dress up like a king, crown and all, and expect everyone to treat me with the respect my title deserves and insisting everyone call me "Your Majesty". Are you going to play along? Should I even expect you to play along? Of course not. So why the hell am I going to take someone seriously who insists I call them by some goofy made-up term? "Oooo look at me, I'm a intersectional bisexual with an Oedipal complex, I need my own gender identity."

I like what one guy said about transgendered people serving in the military though. "If you're willing to put your life on the line to defend my rights and freedoms then you can identify as a Koala bear for all I care". :lol:

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Only one problem, well two actually. First issue is that in nature the normal arrangement for placental mammals is either male or female. But more importantly are your examples. All of them are evolutionary dead-ends. What I mean is those people represented in the wiki article are unable to reproduce. All of them are born sterile with the exception of those with Turner's. While some with Turner's are sterile, others can reproduce with the assistance of modern technology, however it's still not a guarantee they'll be able to reproduce.
From an evolutionary standpoint, if you lack the ability to reproduce then you are a "bad" genetic mutation, it doesn't matter what kind of life form you are. From a human evolutionary and biological standpoint, there is only male and female. Yes, I know, there are true hermaphrodites in the human population but the known number is less than 20 out of 7.5 billion.

With seven and a half billion members of the species on the planet, I'm not sure a handful of "evolutionary dead ends" are a major crisis.

I have no issue with the idea of transgendered people. I've met some and even helped one get to his consultation and reassignment surgery. But the rest of this nonsense of "cis-gender", whatever the hell that is, and all the other gender identities is simply insanity being encouraged by govt and progressives.

So, your problem is with terminology?
Your gender isn't an individuality thing, you don't get to make one up to suit your "personality" and then expect everyone else to play along.[/QUOTE]
Says who? Who gets to say whether or not you can "expect everyone else to play along?" Seems to me human history is rife with people being different or dishonest or both and expected everyone else to play along.

At this point it's no different than me deciding to dress up like a king, crown and all, and expect everyone to treat me with the respect my title deserves and insisting everyone call me "Your Majesty". Are you going to play along? Should I even expect you to play along? Of course not. So why the hell am I going to take someone seriously who insists I call them by some goofy made-up term? "Oooo like at me, I'm a intersectional bisexual with an Oedipal complex, I need my own gender identity."

You poor, oppressed cupcake! Tell me, exactly what does "playing along" cost you, in terms of money and effort?

I like what one guy said about transgendered people serving in the military though. "If you're willing to put your life on the line to defend my rights and freedoms then you can identify as a Koala bear for all I care". :lol:

Yup, I said "a '46 Buick," but same conclusion. If you're willing and meet the standards, there's no reason to keep you out.

You'd think the U.S. would have learned that, what with our experience of excluding blacks, women, homosexuals, and so forth. But I guess Orange Julius ain't that bright.

 

[EagleSmack]

FIFU.

Since this popped up, a lot of trans service people have been speaking out. One said that they didn't have their hormones covered, but rather they had to pay out of their own pocket for them. If that's the case, then there is NO basis on this 'ban', other than, well, who knows what. It certainly wasn't the Joint Chiefs and other military personnel who helped him make the decision. Maybe it was a distraction from Trump's issues. Maybe it was under pressure from the extreme Right Wing. Maybe it was just Trump being constipated and deciding to blame it on trans people. Whatever the reason, there is no justification for it.

Even IF a soldier wants to transition while in the service, as said, if they can still do the job - which there is no reason why they can't - then there is no excuse for this and it's just the typical panic stricken chicken littles who can't understand that people are people, even if they're people in the 'wrong body', as it were.

For anyone who was/is now in the service to turn their backs on those who are or were there now, YOU are the worst POS than even Trump is. They were/are your family, brothers/sisters in arms, people who you depended on and who depended on you with your lives. To turn your back on them just because they make you 'uncomfortable' is beyond disgusting. I'm sure there's things about you that they would find 'uncomfortable'; so what? Get over yourselves and support those who have your back.

Silly fool. You think a service member getting elective surgery and taking hormones is not going to affect performance. If a service member is laid up recovering, going through hormone treatments, and therapy, how can they possibly do their job. What a retarded POS you are.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Silly fool. You think a service member getting elective surgery and taking hormones is not going to affect performance. What a retard you are.

Are we back to this? I thought we covered this yesterday. Every MOS in the service has a range of acceptable performance. As long as an individual falls within that range, physical changes are irrelevant. If a servicemember falls outside the range, then sheit must be either reassigned to an MOS whose standards sheit does meet, or separated.

 

[EagleSmack]

Are we back to this? I thought we covered this yesterday. Every MOS in the service has a range of acceptable performance. As long as an individual falls within that range, physical changes are irrelevant. If a servicemember falls outside the range, then sheit must be either reassigned to an MOS whose standards sheit does meet, or separated.

I'm responding to the idiot who says gender reassignment won't have any affect on their ability to do their jobs. If you're in the infantry (for example) it most certainly will going from male to female.

Even IF a soldier wants to transition while in the service, as said, if they can still do the job - which there is no reason why they can't - then there is no excuse for this and it's just the typical panic stricken chicken littles who can't understand that people are people, even if they're people in the 'wrong body', as it were.

.

Losing muscle mass and strength certainly will affect a lot of jobs. Not every service member is a JAG.

 

[mentalfloss]

Wuh oh - Breitbart is slamming Trump now.


John McCain Backs Transgender Ideology, Slams Donald Trump's Policy - Breitbart

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I'm responding to the idiot who says gender reassignment won't have any affect on their ability to do their jobs. If you're in the infantry (for example) it most certainly will going from male to female.

That's not the question. The question is whether the gender reassignment will cause the individual to fall beneath the physical standards required of the infantry.

Losing muscle mass and strength certainly will affect a lot of jobs. Not every service member is a JAG.

Well do I know it. I, for example, wasn't a JAG. And I wasn't a damn officer, thank you very f*cking much, I worked for a living.

I look forward to you recommending kicking out every servicemember whose performance declines. Did 24 pullups last year, and only 22 this year (when the standard is 20)? Here's your discharge. Have a nice life.

 

[EagleSmack]

I look forward to you recommending kicking out every servicemember whose performance declines. Did 24 pullups last year, and only 22 this year (when the standard is 20)? Here's your discharge. Have a nice life.

Do you now? Is there anything else you'd like to embellish? Because that is what I said correct? F*ing POGS!

 

[Highball]

For those choosing to stay organize two systems. The Hummers (MOS OU812) and the Bung Plugs (MOS 69) and establish pay grades H 1-6 and BP 1-5.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Do you now? Is there anything else you'd like to embellish? Because that is what I said correct? F*ing POGS!

Ahem! The preferred term is "zoomie," jarhead.

You need to get your head around the fact that it is possible to decline in performance and still meet the standards.

 

[EagleSmack]

That's not the question. The question is whether the gender reassignment will cause the individual to fall beneath the physical standards required of the infantry.

.

How much time do you consider acceptable to take off as a Grunt? Do you think missing at least 3 months of training acceptable? Four to Six weeks recovery... Six to Eight before they can return to strenuous activity. All the prep time and counseling prior. Good F*ing grief.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

How much time do you consider acceptable to take off as a Grunt?

30 days a year, or whatever is required for needed medical purposes.

Operative word is "needed." We covered this yesterday too.

Do you think missing at least 3 months of training acceptable? Four to Six weeks recovery... Six to Eight before they can return to strenuous activity. All the prep time and counseling prior. Good F*ing grief.

It may or may not be. Depends on the servicemember and sheit's value to the service.

Funny, I seem to recollect a senior NCO or two who were on temporary or permanent PT waivers. Mostly because the shadows of their asses weighed 40 pounds.

 

[EagleSmack]

Ahem! The preferred term is "zoomie," jarhead.

That might be your term... it isn't mine.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

That might be your term... it isn't mine.

That's OK, "jarhead" isn't mine. I was being polite.

 

[EagleSmack]

30 days a year, or whatever is required for needed medical purposes.

Operative word is "needed." We covered this yesterday too.

So a year off in a four year enlistment. Not bad. Also understand I was responding to a cluless wonder who knows ZIP about military readiness.

It may or may not be. Depends on the servicemember and sheit's value to the service.

Funny, I seem to recollect a senior NCO or two who were on temporary or permanent PT waivers. Mostly because the shadows of their asses weighed 40 pounds.

Meaning they didn't have to PT? They were so fat they didn't need to train? Yeah... that's where I say kick their assez out and have a nice life.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

So a year off in a four year enlistment. Not bad. Also understand I was responding to a cluless wonder who knows ZIP about military readiness.

I consider a year off quite excessive, but I respect your right to find it acceptable.

Meaning they didn't have to PT?

And weren't required to take the PT test, or were given a lower standard.

They were so fat they didn't need to train?

Pretty much. Nice to have clout.

Yeah... that's where I say kick their assez out and have a nice life.

I agree. The service didn't. Oddly enough, in my experience it was mostly Army. The AF weight and PT standards are candyass compared to the Corps, but at least in my time the AF had very little patience with those who couldn't meet them.

My point was that the services have, at various times, allowed people to remain in, and even be promoted, when they didn't meet the physical standards. And that you seem to be assuming that all transgenders will be asking for and getting reassignement surgery while they are in service, which just isn't true anywhere outside your head.

 

[spaminator]

Tough pill to swallow: U.S. military spends millions on Viagra for troops | Worl