More SARC briefings soon.

[dream big]

7 hours ago, Duck said:

This is bull$hit. I mean all 7 of those people now can't join. Thanks a lot Trump.

To be fair Guam is sneaky like that 

[brickhistory]

You know, Nathan Johnson is right.

Everyone who wants to serve should be allowed to.

Blind?  Sure, come on in.  We can make allowances because you need to self-actualize.

Crippled?  Ditto; the welcome mat is out.

Can't deploy?  Can't fight? Can't do the job because a physical abnormality is going to cause you to be a long-term, very expensive ineffective round and you knew that coming into the service?  I'm sure somebody can carry your load (sts...(or maybe not)) in order for you to feel included.

Those individual needs should absolutely be catered to because when push comes to shove, those attributes are going to be useful in a fight.

Heck, we oughta make sure those that want to be pilots but aren't currently allowed to due to whatever physical malady prevents them having the opportunity get a fair shake as well...

[RTB]

8 hours ago, 1111 said:

From your study, see limitations of the study in the UCLA link in your link.

 

Quoted from your study:

"The results of this meta-synthesis are very preliminary and there are a number of limitations inherent to a study of this kind, relying as it does on datasets that are methodologically varied....The manner in which researchers inquired about sui- cidality is also concerning. For example, some research- ers63 note that yes/no questions, such as ‘‘have you ever attempted suicide?’’ tend to overestimate positive re- sponses from those who have self-harmed, but not attempted to end their life. This might be corrected by questioning participants’ intent to die through in-person interviews, which have been found to reduce attempt rates from 4.6% to 2.7% of an adult sample.109,110 Unfortunately, only 14% of the 42 studies included here collected data primarily from face-to-face interviews."

to be clear what I am saying is study in this field is very young and prone to generalization. The researchers from the study you posted highlights this in their report.

thanks for the feedback, so how prone are they really to suicide?

  

First off, it's not "my" study. That was just the first study I came across. There are plenty of other sources if you care to look.  That study compiled results from 42 other studies over 19 years. So lots of data. You seem to be going out of your way to try to prove trannies don't have issues and should be able to serve.  Why?   

They have serious mental issues, and the condition has a name in Psychiatry, Gender Dysphoria.  Those issues and confusion lead to higher cases of suicide attempts.  So yeah, they're more prone to suicide.

 

 

[tk1313]

8 hours ago, 1111 said:

The military has always been a social laboratory! See Truman 1948, order 9981, who told a bunch of folks, the African Americans are coming and they will be part of this organization. 

^this probably pissed off a bunch of European Americans! Just like this latest group is going to piss lots of us off.

https://www.thinglink.com/scene/510155664333471745

To be clear I am saying that the transgendered community are facing acceptance hurdles, hurdles the groups like AA, women and gays had to endure. Those hurdles will be different for each one of those communities depending on the level of pushback from society.

Reason #6969 why Trump won: Equating transgender struggles with those of African Americans.

Independent of your personal beliefs on whether or not trannys should be allowed to serve, the comparison is a stretch. African Americans are born African American. Despite some very rare genetic disorders, transgender people are born a certain sex... XY or XX. A male can want to be a female, and vice versa, without ever making that information public or doing "gender-reassignment" surgery and therapy/meds--and no one will know. But there is no way for an African American to just forego being AA in favor of being white, or vice versa, despite Dolezal's best efforts to prove otherwise.

And yes, I'm guessing the trans ban will focus on classifying being transgender as a mental health issue (i.e. gender dysphoria as RTB stated) negatively affecting one's ability to serve.

[matmacwc]

Sgt. Robert Brown US Army

Nobody has a "right" to serve in the Military. Nobody.

What makes people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer? Very far from it.

The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short.

Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers. Poor eyesight will disqualify you, as well as bad teeth. Malnourished? Drug addiction? Bad back? Criminal history? Low IQ? Anxiety? Phobias? Hearing damage? Six arms? Hear voices in your head? Self-identify as a Unicorn? 

Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair? Can't run the required course in the required time? Can't do the required number of pushups?

Not really a "morning person" and refuse to get out of bed before noon?
All can be reasons for denial.

The Military has one job. War. Anything else is a distraction and a liability.
Did someone just scream "That isn't Fair"? War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful.

YOU change yourself to meet Military standards. Not the other way around.
I say again: You don't change the Military... you must change yourself.
The Military doesn't need to accommodate anyone with special issues. The Military needs to Win Wars.

If any of your personal issues are a liability that detract from readiness or lethality... Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors. Who's next in line?

[nsplayr]

So the current rules allow for transgendered people to serve and there are thousands of people serving today. Drops in the bucket compared to the master DoD personnel spreadsheet, but real people leading real lives not fundamentally different than the rest of us.

What do they do now? Can they deploy/promote/cross-train? What SQ/CC can explain this new "policy" to Amn. Snuffy?

The CINC has made it clear, at least from his perspective, that a certain group of currently serving armed forces members suddenly aren't welcome anymore. As a fellow service member, why is this acceptable?

I can understand the arguments that trans people shouldn't be allowed to join in the first place (although I disagree in most cases), but they're already in...what is the rationale for kicking them out now? What changed between last week and today? What new data or analysis is driving this decision?

Or are we kicking them out? No one knows and it's exactly the kind of fire-ready-aim shit leadership we all regularly decry.

The policy of yes/no to trans people serving aside, can anyone even begin to defend this process?

Mostly rhetorical questions...y'all know as well as I do there was no logical process or reason for this sweeping new policy via twitter. I guess we'll all wait and see.

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

 

What SQ/CC can explain this new "policy" to Amn. Snuffy?

What changed between last week and today? What new data or analysis is driving this decision?

 No one knows and it's exactly the kind of fire-ready-aim shit leadership we all regularly decry.

..y'all know as well as I do there was no logical process or reason for this sweeping new policy

All of these statements apply to Obama's original decision to force tranny acceptance onto the military, despite objections from the military.  

 

[SocialD]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/top-us-general-says-no-change-to-military-transgender-policy-until-leaders-issue-guidance/article/2629863

[Steve C]

15 hours ago, Prozac said:

Not arguing in favor or against, but the second order effects may be worth considering. Many, maybe most New recruits as of right now have social views that don't resonate with a lot of the old heads. By excluding this group, the DOD may be inadvertently sending the message that it is a backwards organization and one to be avoided by these youngsters. We already have a major disconnect where huge segments of society cannot or will not relate to military service. One of my concerns is that we are shutting the door not just on the transgender community, but on a whole bunch of forward thinking millennials that we probably want to keep in the recruiting pool. 

I'm good with no "forward thinking millennials."

[HossHarris]

Life isn't fair. 

The sooner the snowflakes wrap their craniums around that fact, the happier they'll be in the long run. 

[Guest LumberjackAxe]

I hear a lot of complaints about our "war fighting capability," but let's be honest here--a tranny can make a powerpoint slide just as good as a straight dude.

More importantly... can I now get out early if I identify as a woman??? Cha-CHING!

[Stitch]

21 hours ago, di1630 said:

I could give 2 fvcks if a tranny showed up and did the job...problem is that people are trying to join the army/marines, drop the tranny card and they are ineligible to deploy while they "transition" and then after they got free treatment, they leave.

Good for Trump. Time to end the social experimentation.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Agree 100% not to mention they'll get GI Bill benefits; so "free" medical care, then they get to go on for a "free" college education once they walk and other bennies.  Not to mention everyone else in the unit has to pick up the slack while this person is on profile/con-leave during medical treatment.  Even if the others are 100% supportive of that individual their patience will run out at some point and they will begin to resent that person because they're picking up someone else's load (STS).  So a whammy on multiple points.   

[HossHarris]

6 hours ago, nsplayr said:

So the current rules allow for transgendered people to serve and there are thousands of people serving today. Drops in the bucket compared to the master DoD personnel spreadsheet, but real people leading real lives not fundamentally different than the rest of us.

What do they do now? Can they deploy/promote/cross-train? What SQ/CC can explain this new "policy" to Amn. Snuffy?

The CINC has made it clear, at least from his perspective, that a certain group of currently serving armed forces members suddenly aren't welcome anymore. As a fellow service member, why is this acceptable?

I can understand the arguments that trans people shouldn't be allowed to join in the first place (although I disagree in most cases), but they're already in...what is the rationale for kicking them out now? What changed between last week and today? What new data or analysis is driving this decision?

Or are we kicking them out? No one knows and it's exactly the kind of fire-ready-aim shit leadership we all regularly decry.

The policy of yes/no to trans people serving aside, can anyone even begin to defend this process?

Mostly rhetorical questions...y'all know as well as I do there was no logical process or reason for this sweeping new policy via twitter. I guess we'll all wait and see.

Life isn't fair. 

 

 

 

The sooner the snowflakes wrap their craniums around that fact, the happier they'll be in the long run. 

[17D_guy]

Watched a Wing CC, CV, JAG, etc. deal with this at a base I was previously at.  They spent an inordinate amount of time for 2 individuals to see how they could continue serving.  For what...two more Airmen, compared to the Wing, it's mission, the other items they're required to cover by law?

How are we going to deal with trans people downrange that forget their pills/shots, or host nation issues, GO1, etc.?

I don't care outside of AF work, besides the insanity w/ the pronoun nonsense, and have known 2 that worked as civ's on base.  1 was nice, the other was an asshole who wore mini-skirts all the time.

As a reminder - https://www.offutt.af.mil/News/Features/Display/Article/998356/transgender-airman-flies-high-with-new-af-policy/

Why the hell did he have to send this shit out on Twitter...

[AZwildcat]

 

[TnkrToad]

21 hours ago, 1111 said:

The military has always been a social laboratory! See Truman 1948, order 9981, who told a bunch of folks, the African Americans are coming and they will be part of this organization. 

^this probably pissed off a bunch of European Americans! Just like this latest group is going to piss lots of us off.

https://www.thinglink.com/scene/510155664333471745

To be clear I am saying that the transgendered community are facing acceptance hurdles, hurdles the groups like AA, women and gays had to endure. Those hurdles will be different for each one of those communities depending on the level of pushback from society.

Dude, seriously? 

There are (and were) valid operational reasons to open and/or encourage greater degrees of military service to females and non-caucasian males. It provided for a substantially greater pool of folks from whom to draw, when the military always needs talent. 

The costs don't come close to outweighing the benefits in the case of transgendered troops. We can live without whatever additional talent they might bring to the table. 

[yatalpan]

On 7/26/2017 at 10:40 PM, 1111 said:

So I can be wise on that literature, can you post a source on "significantly higher risk of suicide"? 

I ask only because in the past when it comes to the military admission, folks have used all sorts of "literature" to say things like blacks lacked qualities to make them combat effective personnel, women are unable to fly fighters, gays will somehow lack the adaptability to be open and rainbow.

 

Here is a better argument that may work for you, I do not like (insert new group trying to gain accepted status in the military) because it does not align with the cultural identity I wish to uphold. But hey maybe you actually have a done a lot of research on your "suicide" claim.

"Mortality from suicide was strikingly high among sex-reassigned persons, also after adjustment for prior psychiatric morbidity. In line with this, sex-reassigned persons were at increased risk for suicide attempts. Previous reports [6,8,10,11] suggest that transsexualism is a strong risk factor for suicide, also after sex reassignment, and our long-term findings support the need for continued psychiatric follow-up for persons at risk to prevent this. "

Easy find on google scholar.

 

[matmacwc]

[Prosuper]

OK guys I'm older than dirt, my time we would get article 15's if we got a severe sunburn and was unable to perform your duty. Now someone mutilates their genitals with elective surgery and puts themselves class C for 2 years, how is that possible.? How is this in the best interest of the military, I was always told the interests of the USAF come first before your personal feelings and wants.  Gender dysphoria:  the condition of feeling one's emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one's biological sex. Now two words stand out in that, emotional and psychological , those are two words that disqualify anybody for service. So my question would be are these trans gendered troops on duty guilty of fraudulent enlistment ?

[Prozac]

18 hours ago, Steve C said:

I'm good with no "forward thinking millennials."

I find myself thinking the same thing at times.  Problem is, these are going to be the people defending our way of life when we're in nursing homes.  The Vietnam guys probably said the same thing about my generation.  To be clear, I think the idea of DOD footing the bill for gender reassignment is absurd.  But a blanket ban/kicking out people already serving is probably not the right answer.  If the President truly trusts his military council, he should let the Pentagon handle the policy announcements and put the keyboard down.

[Fud]

14 minutes ago, Prozac said:

To be clear, I think the idea of DOD footing the bill for gender reassignment is absurd. 

Huge 2 on this.  I would not be surprised to see people join up just to get the surgery and then leave Active Duty service after getting the elective surgery. The entitlement mentality is growing by leaps and bounds in this country, and I do not like it one bit.   

[Naviguesser]

Chances are good that those millennials willing and able to serve are already serving.  We're not missing out on anything by banning mentally unstable "transgenders" from service.  This generation has a lot more wrong with it than just a few people who are confused about the differences between boys and girls.

Source:  https://time.com/2938158/youth-fail-to-qualify-military-service/

[Azimuth]

You guys realize that Millenials start with those born in 1981-1982, right?  That means there are Chiefs, though young I know a few, and Majors that are Millenials.  

[SocialD]

38 minutes ago, Azimuth said:

You guys realize that Millenials start with those born in 1981-1982, right?  That means there are Chiefs, though young I know a few, and Majors that are Millenials.  

Well some of us were saved...there is now a "micro-generation" called Xennials (1977-1983).  So I've got that going for me...which is nice, so I can continue to put down Millennials.  

 

https://www.sfgate.com/living/article/xennials-millennials-generation-x-definition-age-11250741.php

[Karl Hungus]

On 7/27/2017 at 9:50 PM, LumberjackAxe said:

I hear a lot of complaints about our "war fighting capability," but let's be honest here--a tranny can make a powerpoint slide just as good as a straight dude.

More importantly... can I now get out early if I identify as a woman??? Cha-CHING!

Heard multiple young copilots and ACs say something to the effect of "so can I claim I identify as a woman/man and get out of my UPT ADSC, un-identify as a man/woman, get hired by an ARC unit, and flee the sinking ship that is AD AF?" over the past couple of days...