Trump transgender troop limits can take effect, top court decides

[marcusarelus]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I served a long time ago, and I can honestly say that if a "transgender" or anyone that even looked a bit "that way" had actually joined up, s/he would have had a hard time of it- they'd never had been accepted, along with homosexuals.

I don't know any macho guys that serve in the teeth corps now, but I can't see their attitude having changed much. Warriors aren't into touchy feely much, and the battlefield is no place for political correctness.

Apparently, since women have been admitted into more general military roles, the sexual abuse situation has risen dramatically, and only to be expected, given it's guys that kill people for a living.

Nowadays I couldn't care less if a guy wants to get his bits cut off and wear a dress, but I'm a lot older now than I was when I was in the green machine.

 

IMO, if enough TGs wanted to join up, as long as they could pass all the tests that the guys do ( no easy passes ), they could have a special unit with just them in it.

 

If they are allowed in, NO WAY they should be given any special treatment, drugs or surgery, and be assigned as the sex that they are genetically.

Different in a war zone.  Soldiers getting shot at don't care about petty stuff.  Three gay guys in my unit in Vietnam - no problem. 

[DM07]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I served a long time ago, and I can honestly say that if a "transgender" or anyone that even looked a bit "that way" had actually joined up, s/he would have had a hard time of it- they'd never had been accepted, along with homosexuals.

I don't know any macho guys that serve in the teeth corps now, but I can't see their attitude having changed much. Warriors aren't into touchy feely much, and the battlefield is no place for political correctness.

Apparently, since women have been admitted into more general military roles, the sexual abuse situation has risen dramatically, and only to be expected, given it's guys that kill people for a living.

Nowadays I couldn't care less if a guy wants to get his bits cut off and wear a dress, but I'm a lot older now than I was when I was in the green machine.

 

IMO, if enough TGs wanted to join up, as long as they could pass all the tests that the guys do ( no easy passes ), they could have a special unit with just them in it.

 

If they are allowed in, NO WAY they should be given any special treatment, drugs or surgery, and be assigned as the sex that they are genetically.

Dude...what the #$@% is wrong with you?

"I served a long time ago, and I can honestly say that if a "transgender" or anyone that even looked a bit "that way" had actually joined up, s/he would have had a hard time of it- they'd never had been accepted, along with homosexuals."

Great! What a beacon of virtue you and your fellow soldiers must have been!

 

"Warriors aren't into touchy feely much, and the battlefield is no place for political correctness." maybe tell that to ...oh...let's say...Tammy Duckworth, who lost both legs in battle! Oh how toucht feely of her!

 

"Apparently, since women have been admitted into more general military roles, the sexual abuse situation has risen dramatically, and only to be expected, given it's guys that kill people for a living." Is to be EXPECTED!? You must be very popular with your fellow "killing machines", I assume! Basically saying, they are all rapists in disguise!

 

"IMO, if enough TGs wanted to join up, as long as they could pass all the tests that the guys do ( no easy passes ), they could have a special unit with just them in it."

Yeah...so should the women- folk and them damn negros!

Right?!

 

"If they are allowed in, NO WAY they should be given any special treatment, drugs or surgery, and be assigned as the sex that they are genetically."

I myself am a conscentious objector, but many of my friends joined the Army. Many of them to get their drivers license paid by the government or get mechanics- training.

I would hazard a guess, you have nothing against this kind money, being wasted on "soldiers" who don't want to be killing machines, right!?

 

 

[johnnybangkok]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I served a long time ago, and I can honestly say that if a "transgender" or anyone that even looked a bit "that way" had actually joined up, s/he would have had a hard time of it- they'd never had been accepted, along with homosexuals.

I don't know any macho guys that serve in the teeth corps now, but I can't see their attitude having changed much. Warriors aren't into touchy feely much, and the battlefield is no place for political correctness.

Apparently, since women have been admitted into more general military roles, the sexual abuse situation has risen dramatically, and only to be expected, given it's guys that kill people for a living.

Nowadays I couldn't care less if a guy wants to get his bits cut off and wear a dress, but I'm a lot older now than I was when I was in the green machine.

 

IMO, if enough TGs wanted to join up, as long as they could pass all the tests that the guys do ( no easy passes ), they could have a special unit with just them in it.

 

If they are allowed in, NO WAY they should be given any special treatment, drugs or surgery, and be assigned as the sex that they are genetically.

By your own admission you served a 'long time ago' yet here you are, supplanting other commentors who have much more recent experience (and are saying this isn't an issue) with your own bias and out of date thinking. You say that homosexuals aren't accepted and comment that 'sexual abuse' is to 'be expected' -  a truly horrendous thing to say.

You want people segregated because other people cannot control their urges and the fault of all of this doesn't lie in the hands of the perpetrators but in the hands of the victims.

Like many Trump fans (of which I know you are a fervent one), your thinking belongs in the 1950's and is so seriously backward as to not be remotely funny any more. 

You have a choice in life to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. It's obvious which way you decided to go.   

[marcusarelus]

2 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

By your own admission you served a 'long time ago' yet here you are, supplanting other commentors who have much more recent experience (and are saying this isn't an issue) with your own bias and out of date thinking. You say that homosexuals aren't accepted and comment that 'sexual abuse' is to 'be expected' -  a truly horrendous thing to say.

You want people segregated because other people cannot control their urges and the fault of all of this doesn't lie in the hands of the perpetrators but in the hands of the victims.

Like many Trump fans (of which I know you are a fervent one), your thinking belongs in the 1950's and is so seriously backward as to not be remotely funny any more. 

You have a choice in life to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. It's obvious which way you decided to go.   

Aww don't dis Trump fans.  I used to be a Trump fan (not so much anymore) but I did point out that in combat no one cared.  Our medic was gay and everybody liked him - never a problem.  Chaplain's assistant was also gay (maybe a requirement) and he was OK nobody bothered him. 

[metisdead]

An inflammatory insulting post has been removed. 

[Dumbastheycome]

I really can't understand the issue.

Simple solution,as others have said, is to deny the surgical gender reassignment to enlisted persons.

Undergo that  before enlistment or opt out.

There seems to be no problem with  women or homosexuals , only those who apparently desire gender reassignment. If that be to have Military funding then I can't see any reason that denying it would be unconstitutional or contrary to human rights.

At the end of the day the risk of taking a non discriminatory bullet is more or less equal.

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

I really can't understand the issue.

Simple solution,as others have said, is to deny the surgical gender reassignment to enlisted persons.

Undergo that  before enlistment or opt out.

There seems to be no problem with  women or homosexuals , only those who apparently desire gender reassignment. If that be to have Military funding then I can't see any reason that denying it would be unconstitutional or contrary to human rights.

At the end of the day the risk of taking a non discriminatory bullet is more or less equal.

 

 

 

Correct, the OP is about transgenders only. Women are no longer an issue with military service and homosexuals are apparently no big deal now, or at least Obama believed that.

It's always worth remembering though, that for every soldier getting shot at, there are many, many more that will never be shot at or even fire a weapon at a real person. The ratio used to be 10 support personnel to every front line soldier, but I don't know what it is now.

 

[EVENKEEL]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Correct, the OP is about transgenders only. Women are no longer an issue with military service and homosexuals are apparently no big deal now, or at least Obama believed that.

It's always worth remembering though, that for every soldier getting shot at, there are many, many more that will never be shot at or even fire a weapon at a real person. The ratio used to be 10 support personnel to every front line soldier, but I don't know what it is now.

 

 

Edited January 26, 2019 by EVENKEEL