Post: #1

I wonder what percent of the population is transgendered and what percentage of those actually want to serve.

Is it truly worth disrupting the services that are there to protect our country to satisfy a tiny percentage?

Why are they so eager to want to serve? The benefits? From what I understand transgendered people have higher suicide rates, giving them weapons and training seems to put lives at risk.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/military-rea...personnel/

Quote:WASHINGTON -- Pentagon leaders are finalizing plans aimed at lifting the ban on transgender individuals in the military, with the goal of formally ending one of the last gender- or sexuality-based barriers to military service, senior U.S. officials told The Associated Press.

An announcement is expected this week, and the services would have six months to assess the impact of the change and work out the details, the officials said Monday. Military chiefs wanted time to methodically work through the legal, medical and administrative issues and develop training to ease any transition, and senior leaders believed six months would be sufficient.

The officials said Defense Secretary Ash Carter has asked his personnel undersecretary, Brad Carson, to set up a working group of senior military and civilian leaders to take an objective look at the issue. One senior official said that while the goal is to lift the ban, Carter wants the working group to look at the practical effects, including the costs, and determine whether it would affect readiness or create any insurmountable problems that could derail the plan. The group would also develop uniform guidelines.

Although the group has six months to analyze the policy, Carter has directed them to start from the presumption that transgender persons should be allowed to serve unless practical obstacles are identified, reports CBS News correspondent David Martin.

"Throughout this time, transgender men and women in uniform have been there with us, even as they often had to serve in silence alongside their fellow comrades in arms," said Carter, in a statement released on Monday. "The Defense Department's current regulations regarding transgender service members are outdated and are causing uncertainty that distracts commanders from our core missions."

During the six months, transgender individuals would still not be able to join the military, but any decisions to force out those already serving would be referred to the Pentagon's acting undersecretary for personnel, the officials said. One senior official said the goal was to avoid forcing any transgender service members to leave during that time.

Several officials familiar with the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk about the issue publicly before the final details have been worked out.

In a statement to The Associated Press, Carter said, "we must ensure that everyone who's able and willing to serve has the full and equal opportunity to do so. And we must treat all of our people with the dignity and respect they deserve. Going forward the Department of Defense must and will continue to improve how we do both."

Some of the key concerns involved in the repeal of the ban include whether the military would conduct or pay for the medical costs, surgeries and other treatment associated with any gender transition, as well as which physical training or testing standards transgender individuals would be required to meet during different stages of their transition.

Officials said the military also wants time to tackle questions about where transgender troops would be housed, what uniforms they would wear, what berthing they would have on ships, which bathrooms they would use and whether their presence would affect the ability of small units to work well together. The military has dealt with many similar questions as it integrated the ranks by race, gender and sexual orientation.

Transgender people -- those who identify with a different gender than they were born with and sometimes take hormone treatments or have surgery to develop the physical characteristics of their preferred gender -- are banned from military service. But studies and other surveys have estimated that as many as 15,000 transgender people serve in the active duty military and the reserves, often in secret but in many cases with the knowledge of their unit commander or peers.

"Obviously this isn't finished, but Secretary Carter's clear statement of intent means that transgender service members should and will be treated with the same dignity as other service members," said Allyson Robinson, Army veteran and policy director for an association of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender military personnel called Service members, Partners, and Allies for Respect and Tolerance for All, or SPARTA.

The move follows several weeks of high level meetings in the Pentagon among top ranking military chiefs, secretaries and Defense Department leaders, including one on Monday involving Carter and the chiefs of the various services.

Military leaders have pointed to the gradual - and ultimately successful - transition after the ban on gays serving openly in the military was lifted in 2011. Although legislation repealing that ban passed Congress in late 2010, the military services spent months conducting training and reviews before the decision actually took effect the following September.

The latest Pentagon move comes just weeks after the Supreme Court upheld the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Officials familiar with the Pentagon meetings said the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force did not express opposition to lifting the ban. Instead, they said the military leaders asked for time to figure out health care, housing and other questions and also to provide information and training to the troops to insure a smooth transition.

Although guidelines require that transgender individuals be dismissed from the military, the services in recent months have required more senior leaders to make the final decisions on those cases, effectively slowing the dismissal process.

The transgender issue came to the fore as the military struggled with how to deal with convicted national security leaker Chelsea Manning's request for hormone therapy and other treatment while she's in prison. Manning, arrested as Bradley Manning, is the first transgender military prisoner to request such treatment, and the Army approved the hormone therapy, under pressure from a lawsuit.

Manning, is serving a 35-year sentence. The former intelligence analyst was convicted in August 2013 of espionage and other offenses for sending more than 700,000 classified documents to WikiLeaks while working in Iraq.

Post: #2

No fucking way they'd let a chick who wants a dick into the infantry or any combat arms branch.

That's asking to get someone killed.

Post: #3

Post: #4

If there's ever conscription again, I will dodge the draft before I serve with any of those freaks.

Post: #5

(07-13-2015 06:51 PM)TheBlackNarwhal Wrote:  No fucking way

If you are going to keep up with the U.S. military's amorous embrace of every SJW cause that comes down the pike, you are going to have to drop those words from your vocabulary.

Post: #6

(07-13-2015 06:51 PM)TheBlackNarwhal Wrote:  No fucking way they'd let a chick who wants a dick into the infantry or any combat arms branch.

That's asking to get someone killed.

How about a guy that wants tits and a gash?


Guarantee there will be fraggings.

Post: #7

Hazing and wall-to-wall counselings need a serious comeback.

Post: #8

All seven of the transsexuals who wanted to join the military rejoice.

Post: #9

The military has become a test tube for instituting politically correct and cultural Marxist ideologies. I pointed out a while back that the Secretary of the Air Force is a woman whose never flown a plane, and the (Former) Deputy Secretary was a gay man. Our top generals have been ousted under Obama, and I believe that meritocracy in the military is being phased out in favor of "Equal Oppurtunity". As far as trannys go, think about it: If the military allows tranny's to fight in combat, it's only due time before the general public accepts them because "They're fighting for our freedoms too".

Although we have many incompetent soldiers worth a damn, we still have many amazing soldiers--those will be the ones bearing the brunt of fighting God forbid a war breaks out. Meanwhile the Trannys will be at Walter Reed or some hospital crying about 'muh patriachy'.

Post: #10

I'm a man who fucks women. I only fuck women. Where's my accomodation, hmmmmm?

Post: #11

(07-13-2015 06:51 PM)TheBlackNarwhal Wrote:  No fucking way they'd let a chick who wants a dick into the infantry or any combat arms branch.

That's asking to get someone killed.

What makes you think they care whether some plumber's son gets killed?

Not that I'm saying that, but they look at it that way. It's a small price to pay in exchange for being able to "beta test" trannies.

Post: #12

Some older guys will remember the farcical character Corporal Klinger on the TV series Mash. The difference is that Klinger was a sane man impersonating an insane tranny in order to gain a disharge on the basis of mental health.

Fast forward half a century and this ludicrous situation is becoming reality. Except the trannies will actually be insane.

I wonder if they'll be granted extra time to apply their face camouflage? Surely it's also important to look fabulous in the jungle.

Post: #13

You also have to realize who the Army panders to. Just look at the commercials.

You have the Marines showing videos of slaying dragons and in some sweet ass dress blues. They have always had the image of being badass warfighters and every Marine has their hands registered as lethal weapons. The validity of this doesn't even matter as its' cemented into the public's brain.

The Army predominantly pushes education, resume skills and "life after the military" spiels. Army recruiters are trained to do everything in their power to convince you not to go combat arms just so it reflects great on Army annual statistics and so they can tell little Jimmy's mom he's not going to die in a combat zone. Peace time is a bitch. That's why the Army has the reputation it does for housing the limp wristed weak bodies, homosexuals and trannys; because it fucking *does*. The Army is so massive it takes in many more people then what's good for it.

When I was in basic the gay-boys immediately made themselves clear. Never took shit serious and were always crying about the DS yelling at them or how they missed their fucking mommy and friends. At sensing sessions (Mandated meeting between commanders and recruits to identify any problems) These were the buddy fuckers that would whine about how mean every one is and fake injuries just to shitbag out of training, unknowingly undermining the quality of training for many cycles to come. You can't have an effective soldier if he doesn't have a strong foundation to fall on.

They will probably create some type of award for the valor of coming into the military as a tranny as some PR campaign a bored general came up with, on top of the already crippling SHARP and EO shoved down my throat monthly. Shit they may even be able to wear a rainbow beret as a badge of honor.

If I ever get the chance to become a recruiter, I sure as hell am dishing out the hard truths and brutal honesty of what the Army expects out of it's people.

Post: #14

(07-13-2015 06:57 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  If there's ever conscription again, I will dodge the draft before I serve with any of those freaks.

It would depend on the terms of the conscription and the military's terms of engagement.

If it were a no-bullshit no-exceptions form of conscription -- so the sons of politicians have the same chance to go and get shot as everyone else -- then you would actually find the freaks to be in the minority. One of the big points in favour of a no-exceptions draft is that you get a true cross-section of America, or at least a true cross-section of America's youngest and strongest men: to the largest extent it's only the committed cowards who don't show up -- those who either are willing to serve a couple of years in prison or willing to flee across a border to avoid having to pick up a gun. Those who are left are drawn from all walks of life.

This was the experience in World War 2: when they ran out of volunteers (and they ran out pretty quickly, despite the fact the US had been directly attacked) they started drafting. Overwhelmingly conscripts made up (and won) World War 2. This is not to say career or volunteer troops did not do their part, but the notion of a "career" serviceman at the time was nothing like the public servant "career" military type who is sadly prevalent in the middle to upper ranks these days, the sort that is determined to punch the clock for 20 years and then retire with benefits at the ripe old age of 40 or so.

But as said, the terms of engagement were different as well: enlistment under the draft was 'for the duration or until the present conflict is won'. So every poor fucker drafted in had a strong motivation to work his fucking hardest to do his job so the military could win the war and thus so he could go home. Compare that to the Vietnam war which had conscription -- but for defined terms, and which didn't have a clear set of goals as such. There the competing priority of "Just keep my head down until 12 months are up" was available as well.

Post: #15

(07-13-2015 09:12 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 06:57 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  If there's ever conscription again, I will dodge the draft before I serve with any of those freaks.

It would depend on the terms of the conscription and the military's terms of engagement.

If it were a no-bullshit no-exceptions form of conscription -- so the sons of politicians have the same chance to go and get shot as everyone else -- then you would actually find the freaks to be in the minority. One of the big points in favour of a no-exceptions draft is that you get a true cross-section of America, or at least a true cross-section of America's youngest and strongest men: to the largest extent it's only the committed cowards who don't show up -- those who either are willing to serve a couple of years in prison or willing to flee across a border to avoid having to pick up a gun. Those who are left are drawn from all walks of life.

This was the experience in World War 2: when they ran out of volunteers (and they ran out pretty quickly, despite the fact the US had been directly attacked) they started drafting. Overwhelmingly conscripts made up (and won) World War 2. This is not to say career or volunteer troops did not do their part, but the notion of a "career" serviceman at the time was nothing like the public servant "career" military type who is sadly prevalent in the middle to upper ranks these days, the sort that is determined to punch the clock for 20 years and then retire with benefits at the ripe old age of 40 or so.

But as said, the terms of engagement were different as well: enlistment under the draft was 'for the duration or until the present conflict is won'. So every poor fucker drafted in had a strong motivation to work his fucking hardest to do his job so the military could win the war and thus so he could go home. Compare that to the Vietnam war which had conscription -- but for defined terms, and which didn't have a clear set of goals as such. There the competing priority of "Just keep my head down until 12 months are up" was available as well.

I'm aware of this. You either came home in a box or showed up at the victory parade.

That will never happen again.

Post: #16

They didn't come home in boxes in WWII.

Something else that has changed in the years since.

Post: #17

America: your enemies are laughing at you and rejoicing.

Note: no tranny recruiting program instituted at ISIS as of this writing.

Post: #18

If you are in the Army today none of this should phase you.

We had a flaming gay kid that fucked some kid in the laundry room in infantry school.

I thought that was crazy until I became an officer and met the two dudes who did a lot of the work that got don't ask don't tell repealed. Not a surprise that they were working on a new project to bring trannies to the army. They told us some shit about how there are a ton of trannies already in the military. This was a while ago already.

Post: #19

As said, conscription cannot work while it allows exceptions and while the terms of enlistment are specified durations rather than "until we win X war". You need both elements or it's not worth it. The paradox being that this set of rules will tend to keep the US out of wars. If there is a solid chance a politician's son, or the sons of his constituents, will go to war, that politician should be a shitload less likely to vote up starting one. It would be the direct opposite of the current US policy in relation to war: "Fight them using somebody else or somebody else's child."

Post: #20

Quote:When I was in basic the gay-boys immediately made themselves clear. Never took shit serious and were always crying about the DS yelling at them or how they missed their fucking mommy and friends. At sensing sessions (Mandated meeting between commanders and recruits to identify any problems) These were the buddy fuckers that would whine about how mean every one is and fake injuries just to shitbag out of training, unknowingly undermining the quality of training for many cycles to come. You can't have an effective soldier if he doesn't have a strong foundation to fall on.

Your post has no basis in reality. I was a split-option 11B (Basic between junior/senior year of high school and AIT after graduation) and went through Ft. Benning with two different training cycles at Sand Hill, experiencing the complete opposite of what you described. They didn't out themselves or throw tantrums, they kept their heads low, did their jobs, and pulled their weight (or at least tried to) along with everyone else.

If you think shitbags and blue falcons have a specific sexual orientation, you're either willingly delusional or haven't spent much time in service. There are always bad policies in the military and bad people, but it's disappointing to see such a high number of armchair generals who never served completely writing off our fighting capabilities because of a fucking internet article.

The infantry is a brotherhood; if you're unwilling or unable to join that brotherhood, focus your outrage on gay wedding cakes and Twitter posts.

Post: #21

Well - at least those "women" will pass the low physical tests of females quite easily:





Of course the whole military experience for men will be more of a farce than ever.

Post: #22

Perhaps they could use them in a special tranny regiment, for use in distracting the enemy and fucking with their head.

Post: #23

(07-14-2015 02:55 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Quote:When I was in basic the gay-boys immediately made themselves clear. Never took shit serious and were always crying about the DS yelling at them or how they missed their fucking mommy and friends. At sensing sessions (Mandated meeting between commanders and recruits to identify any problems) These were the buddy fuckers that would whine about how mean every one is and fake injuries just to shitbag out of training, unknowingly undermining the quality of training for many cycles to come. You can't have an effective soldier if he doesn't have a strong foundation to fall on.

Your post has no basis in reality. I was a split-option 11B (Basic between junior/senior year of high school and AIT after graduation) and went through Ft. Benning with two different training cycles at Sand Hill, experiencing the complete opposite of what you described. They didn't out themselves or throw tantrums, they kept their heads low, did their jobs, and pulled their weight (or at least tried to) along with everyone else.

If you think shitbags and blue falcons have a specific sexual orientation, you're either willingly delusional or haven't spent much time in service. There are always bad policies in the military and bad people, but it's disappointing to see such a high number of armchair generals who never served completely writing off our fighting capabilities because of a fucking internet article.

The infantry is a brotherhood; if you're unwilling or unable to join that brotherhood, focus your outrage on gay wedding cakes and Twitter posts.

Interesting experience(s). As a layperson I'm just wondering how this is going to end up and I can only fear badly.

We already have several examples of (completely illogical & insane) politically correct policies in the military causing casualties and disorder within the ranks.

Exhibit #1 would be the Muslim guy who went out of his way to say that Muslims will never follow orders against fellow Muslims who then blew up that mess tent - he was allowed to move up and continue on despite his own numerous warnings. A lot of people died because of that (yet the military still couldn't say it was due to the guy being a follower of Islam).

Then we've recently had the special forces groups start thinking of lowering standards so as to allow women in there so they get their "opportunity" (and thus the bar is lowered).

And then we've seen women are now being allowed into the general ranks of the basic fighting units, which sounds a bit crazy in many ways (and apparently in the Israeli army went over like a lead baloon, so they eventually stopped it).

And now this.

So it's yet again a slippery slope down to G*d knows where. All done just to placate a screaming minority mob of Marxist culture-destroyers.

But please anyone tell me the counterarguments to the above as I'd love to be proven wrong or have some reason to think this nonsense will either blow over or just never be a real issue due to gays and trannies not every wanting to be in the military in large numbers.

Post: #24

What I'm saying is that you're viewing the situation through a blurred lens based on reactions and outrage in the civilian world that have no bearing on actual combat effectiveness. Every military has two faces:

1. The hidden face, the one that fights and invades. Here, the U.S. is unmatched.
2. The public face, the one that must appeal to the general public for recruitment and support. Here, the U.S. puts on an act.

Gays and trannies are around 2% or less of the general population. Even fewer enlist. Do you really expect entire formations of rainbow flags and butch-cut lesbians to go charging at ISIS? Do you think that just because women are allowed in combat units by law that they'll constitute anything beyond a negligible minority? It's all one giant PR stunt, it's smoke and mirrors so that the primary duties and responsibilities of the military (point 1 as I listed) can be carried out with wide moral support from the U.S. population.

Post: #25

(07-14-2015 03:50 AM)Zelcorpion[img' Wrote:  http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/0...06x451.jpg[/img]

Of course the whole military experience for men will be more of a farce than ever.

Seeing that image is quite surreal. One of my best friend's father is good friends with that man and even sold his truck my friend (we'll call him George). He came to speak to my university on his experiences.

George told me that Kristen Beck was doing this as an experiment and plans to retire from the spotlight at some point and go be a monk. K. Beck is an alum of my university too and set PT records back in the day.

G