DoD "ready" for DADT repeal

[snoopyeast]

OK, history fun fact of the day: WW2 U.S. Soldier Drag Show (1942) | The Public Domain Review

Does that mean we can put noseart back on the jets?

[Egghead]

Does that mean we can put noseart back on the jets?

Bring an extra paintbrush and I'll help.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Egghead

[deaddebate]

Gay marriage now available for over half of all Americans--legal in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, & Wisconsin

https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/same-sex-marriage-is-now-legal-for-a-majority-of-the-u-s https://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/symposium-the-supreme-courts-opt-out-means-more-marriage-equality-but-continuing-harms-to-gay-and-lesbian-couples https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-declines-to-review-same-sex-marriage-cases/2014/10/06/ee822848-4d5e-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/us/denying-review-justices-clear-way-for-gay-marriage-in-5-states.html

[M2]

Everyone's probably already seen this (it went "viral" today), but for the few that haven't...

U.S. Army Spc. Sabryna Schlagetter kisses her wife, Cheyenne, after returning home to Fort Carson, Colorado, with other members of the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team on Friday, November 14. The couple married on Valentine's Day this year before Sabryna deployed to Afghanistan

[StoleIt]

[zrooster99]

Hot!

[Guest]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/10/usa-today-capital-download-air-force-secretary-deborah-lee-james/20165453

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James says the ban on transgender troops is likely to be reassessed and should be lifted.

"Times change," she told Capital Download, saying the policy "is likely to come under review in the next year or so." Asked whether dropping the ban would affect military readiness, she replied: "From my point of view, anyone who is capable of accomplishing the job should be able to serve."

I previously wrote about this topic here:

[brickhistory]

Ick.

But then so was the previous decision.

That "needs of the many" thing doesn't seem to be a military necessity anymore. Definitely a first-world problem.

We can discuss the ramifications of such an individual becoming captured by less progressive enemies elsewhere, I guess.

Have fun.

I freely acknowledge my dinosaurness.

Proudly.

[Warrior]

Apparently I'm cisgender. I had no idea the trannies would come up with an equally bizarre term for a normal person.

I'll save y'all some googling:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender

[Majestik Møøse]

Written by the same guy who advised the use of the term "PMV-4" instead of "car". We're really swimming in "technical correctness" and hyper-inclusiveness these days.

[StoleIt]

[Day Man]

Ick.

But then so was the previous decision.

That "needs of the many" thing doesn't seem to be a military necessity anymore. Definitely a first-world problem.

We can discuss the ramifications of such an individual becoming captured by less progressive enemies elsewhere, I guess.

Have fun.

I freely acknowledge my dinosaurness.

Proudly.

Honest question: what is your position on black people?

[DirkDiggler]

Just like the Katoy bathrooms in Thailand

[brickhistory]

Honest question: what is your position on black people?

Taste like chicken...

But on a more serious note:

1. edited to delete the F. U. I originally had written

2. I don't equate race with LGBT. Great if you do, I don't.

3. What is the percentage of transgenders compared to the overall male/female population, particularly that percentage within the military?

Given that ithe percentage is going to be exceedingly small, the amount of attention, the funds, and the asspain (sts) expended to accomodate this miniscule percentage doesn't make economic or military sense.

4. Another example of the very large majority having to adapt to the even tinier minority that is the "T" part of LGBT.

edited to delete the original "Oh yeah, before I forget, F.U." I had written.

Having walked away from the Lena Dunham-like non-accusation accusation, in this case, that I'm racist, I will attempt to make my point.

If there are to be standards for serving, why?

If those standards can be changed to accomodate, relatively speaking, a small percentage, i.e., gay/lesbian, and I think it is a given that the transgender percentage is waaaay smaller than that, then why are the remaining standards any more valid?

We could make reasonable accomodations for the severely crippled. We could find uses for the mentally retarded.

If you think these points are ludicrous, then why? Wouldn't your 'standards' be arbitrary and discriminatory to someone who, by definition, doesn't meet those 'standards' and are excluded because you decided to do so?

Giving a military order and expecting it to be obeyed is a standard enforced by law.

But unless that order is given to everyone, isn't it discriminatory?

"Go fly this exceedingly dangerous mission with a good chance of you not coming back. I don't need the entire squadron to perform the job, just one jet/crew. That's you." Sure seems arbitrary to me and a smart 'victim' class can make the argument that the order is discriminatory.

Silly?

Absolutely.

But it does follow the logic train being ridden by the LGBT brigade.

Logic and common sense aren't necessarily the same thing.

Edited December 12, 2014 by brickhistory

[Day Man]

Taste like chicken...

But on a more serious note:

1. edited to delete the F. U. I originally had written

2. I don't equate race with LGBT. Great if you do, I don't.

3. What is the percentage of transgenders compared to the overall male/female population, particularly that percentage within the military?

Given that ithe percentage is going to be exceedingly small, the amount of attention, the funds, and the asspain (sts) expended to accomodate this miniscule percentage doesn't make economic or military sense.

4. Another example of the very large majority having to adapt to the even tinier minority that is the "T" part of LGBT.

edited to delete the original "Oh yeah, before I forget, F.U." I had written.

Having walked away from the Lena Dunham-like non-accusation accusation, in this case, that I'm racist, I will attempt to make my point.

If there are to be standards for serving, why?

If those standards can be changed to accomodate, relatively speaking, a small percentage, i.e., gay/lesbian, and I think it is a given that the transgender percentage is waaaay smaller than that, then why are the remaining standards any more valid?

We could make reasonable accomodations for the severely crippled. We could find uses for the mentally retarded.

If you think these points are ludicrous, then why? Wouldn't your 'standards' be arbitrary and discriminatory to someone who, by definition, doesn't meet those 'standards' and are excluded because you decided to do so?

Giving a military order and expecting it to be obeyed is a standard enforced by law.

But unless that order is given to everyone, isn't it discriminatory?

"Go fly this exceedingly dangerous mission with a good chance of you not coming back. I don't need the entire squadron to perform the job, just one jet/crew. That's you." Sure seems arbitrary to me and a smart 'victim' class can make the argument that the order is discriminatory.

Silly?

Absolutely.

But it does follow the logic train being ridden by the LGBT brigade.

Logic and common sense aren't necessarily the same thing.

Thanks for the response; despite your anger towards me for pointing out your bigotry, you almost made sense. Couple more questions for you:

- How are we expending "attention, funds, and asspain" to accommodate said individuals besides just allowing them to serve?

- Are you also against females serving since their PT standards are different?

- What standards were changed after the repeal of DADT?

Also, crews get hand-picked for missions all the time, so not real sure what your point is there.

[brickhistory]

Neatly done.

I'm a bigot for not agreeing with the concept.

But those who think that the majority should be bent to the will of the minority are not?

Convenient.

Couple, actually only one, of questions for you:

How are you gonna solve the problem of accomodating a transgender individual in a military unit?

[HeloDude]

This will definitely make piss tests more interesting...

[dvlax40]

- Are you also against females serving since their PT standards are different?

how can you justify lower PT standards for women? Im not saying women shouldn't serve but how is it fair to disqualify a dude who maybe just barely missed the PT standards and let a women pass with lower standards, shouldn't the content of their character and their skill set in their chosen position outweigh different PT standards? if anything the PT standards need to be like the fighter aircrew with things based on a common weight multiplier

i want to clarify im not being antagonistic, im just trying to honestly ask the question to foster discussion

Edited December 12, 2014 by dvlax40

[Day Man]

Thanks for not answering my questions...

But those who think that the majority should be bent to the will of the minority are not?

Who is being bent in what way?

How are you gonna solve the problem of accomodating a transgender individual in a military unit?

What's the problem?

their skill set in their chosen position outweigh different PT standards

I would agree.

Edited December 12, 2014 by day man

[Guest]

how can you justify lower PT standards for women? Im not saying women shouldn't serve but how is it fair to disqualify a dude who maybe just barely missed the PT standards and let a women pass with lower standards, shouldn't the content of their character and their skill set in their chosen position outweigh different PT standards? if anything the PT standards need to be like the fighter aircrew with things based on a common weight multiplier

i want to clarify im not being antagonistic, im just trying to honestly ask the question to foster discussion

For fucks sake, not this again. The fitness assessment is not a test of operational capability but a veiled health determination more frequently used for force shaping and cost mitigation.

Good God, everybody loves to beat this dead horse.

[brickhistory]

I'm not going to be put on the defensive "answering your questions."

Hey, you won or are winning.

You, and those like you, or following you, will have to figure out how to accommodate this .000X percentage.

Accommodate =

-dress and grooming standards

-hygiene and billeting requiremets

-dealing with the loss of capability should someone decide mid-tour to switch uniforms

-dealing with the inevitable friction that develops from such an integration - from counseling to UCMJ actions

And these issues are just off the top of my skull.

They may be non-issues to you in the interests of "inclusion" or "equality."

But some poor company commander, some squadron commander, some senior NCO sure as sh1t is going to have to devote a helluva lot of time in learning about all this, then executing it.

Never mind the actual mission of whatever unit.

Taking the time to deal with this tiny fraction of a percentage of the overall population has to take priority.

Because it will. Getting fired over this buffoonery will be a higher threat than not accomplishing the mission due to lack of attention on it or preparing for it.

Again, you win the argument. It's gonna happen.

Enjoy it.

[SuperWSO]

Please don't justify your bigotry (sp) with dress and groomng standards. It cheapens a FEW OF the valid concerns you raise.

Why cant the pro-LGBT side of the discussion answer a question. I think its a legit question and all you have is "You're a bigot."

Before Brick walks away (rightly) in frustration, I'll repose the question.

"Chris" just joined the organization. You as the commander are charged with enforcing standards and discipline. What set of standards does this airman use? If Chris doesn't maintain standards, what is the message to the rest of the squadron?

[brickhistory]

Good ol' First Amendment.

Allowing the words and ideas of even ones you don't like or agree with to be out in the world.

Interesting how those on the new "correct" side of the fence forget that little aspect of life.

Seems like only yesterday that your ideological group were on the other side and embraced the idea of diversity.

My bad...

As for "dress and grooming standards," what prevents someone with inappropriate plumbing who feels they are in the wrong body from wearing the uniform of the gender of their choice?

If none, then how much time and effort will have to be devoted to rewriting, retraining, and then enforcing these new standards?

And this is just one relatively minor area that will have to be addressed.

[Day Man]

Why cant the pro-LGBT side of the discussion answer a question. I think its a legit question and all you have is "You're a bigot."

Before Brick walks away (rightly) in frustration, I'll repose the question.

"Chris" just joined the organization. You as the commander are charged with enforcing standards and discipline. What set of standards does this airman use? If Chris doesn't maintain standards, what is the message to the rest of the squadron?

"Hi sir/ma'am. My name is Chris. FYSA, I identify with X gender."

"Ok, Chris. Do your job, adhere to those standards, and let me know if anyone gives you shit. Welcome to the squadron."

Would you honestly tell your commander you are now identifying as a woman to take an easier PT test? GMAFB.

[ThreeHoler]

What about genderqueer?