Transgender in military...or not

[psalms 91]

I will always stand against your Satanic view.

Looking in the mirror are we?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Think... for a bit.. just once.

You might as well. This "us and them" crap gets tiring.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You might as well. This "us and them" crap gets tiring.

Us & them is the norm in tribalism. Religion is very tribal.

 

[hedrick]

Did you even stop to think for even a moment as to what some of the underlying reasons for mental health issues with trans people might be? Could it be because of the hate that people like you heap upon them? What would your mental health be like if you were put into their situation? You comments, others on this thread, are asinine. And I will keep using that word. They are also hateful and unChristlike.

That was the whole point of my post. While we don't have a complete explanation, a good deal of the negative health consequences are due to discrimination. Do you disagree?

I suggested that the military should be one place where people are judged based on their ability to do the mission, not other things? Do you disagree?

Have you read any of my posts? I think we need to deescalate the personal attacks in this thread. At least make sure you're attacking people who disagree with you.

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

and the whirlwind is in the thorn tree

 

[Saucy]

The ones being the real bigots here are those on the left. I'm sick of liberals who whip out the word "bigot" over every issue where someone disagrees with them, when THEY'RE the ones who are extremely closed minded to their own opinion on issues.

Is there seriously NO other rational, reasonable answer to this other than jumping to spewing pure anger and hate at everyone and screaming discrimination? No one has a right to serve the military. It's a privilege and you have to be at your absolute best and combat ready 24/7. ANY condition or ailment that prevents one from serving at the highest standard is barred from serving. I never could because I have a knee injury.

I don't even think that it's transgendered who are banned. All you have to do is postpone any transition surgery until after you serve. Problem solved.

 

[Stravinsk]

The ones being the real bigots here are those on the left. I'm sick of liberals who whip out the word "bigot" over every issue where someone disagrees with them, when THEY'RE the ones who are extremely closed minded to their own opinion on issues.

Is there seriously NO other rational, reasonable answer to this other than jumping to spewing pure anger and hate at everyone and screaming discrimination? No one has a right to serve the military. It's a privilege and you have to be at your absolute best and combat ready 24/7. ANY condition or ailment that prevents one from serving at the highest standard is barred from serving. I never could because I have a knee injury.

I don't even think that it's transgendered who are banned. All you have to do is postpone any transition surgery until after you serve. Problem solved.

There are tons of people who are sick of it, and not just because of the labeling. Some of the LGBT groups do much more, and try to use perceived social opinion to have people shamed and fired from their jobs for simply stating a view on homosexuality/transgender that isn't in line with their current opinions.

 

[hotrhymez]

I was hoping there wouldn't be any fighting in this thread and it would be a super peaceful discussion. Guess not

 

[MoreCoffee]

The ones being the real bigots here are those on the left. I'm sick of liberals who whip out the word "bigot" over every issue where someone disagrees with them, when THEY'RE the ones who are extremely closed minded to their own opinion on issues.

...

Uh huh

 

[MoreCoffee]

I was hoping there wouldn't be any fighting in this thread and it would be a super peaceful discussion. Guess not

Hope is a good thing, but expect disappointment when people are concerned. My point of view on this matter is that anybody willing and able to defend their fellow citizens ought to be allowed a chance to serve in the military. I don't see much good in saying to a fit young man or women that they cannot serve.

 

[Josiah]

My point of view on this matter is that anybody willing and able to defend their fellow citizens ought to be allowed a chance to serve in the military.

1. According to President Trump, the upper military advisors told him that transgender military persons are not able to serve in the military of the USA. You personally may disagree (based on whatever your expertise is regarding the US military) but Trump acted in accord with your polity.


2. I'm not sure I agree with your polity. A member of ISIS might be willing and able to serve in the Australian military (if there is one) but I don't agree with you there THEREFORE the Australian military is bound to accept such as a soldier in the Australian military (if there is one).



I think the consensus of lay opinion among the people here (none of whom are experts on the military) is that their dress and possible multilation of their flesh is not, per se, the issue but whether such is able to fully serve in the military of the USA. Well.... according to our president (and the press so far has not challenged this), the top leaders in the US Military said no, no they can't. And he acted solely on that, knowing full well this would be a very unpopular move on his part. Now, if the Danish or Australian military wants to staff THEIR military with 60 pound 12 year old girl ballet dancers, that's okay with me since I'm neither Danish or Australian (I'm not even sure either country has a military or that if they do, such matters) and it's totally none of my business (NONE). Each nation has the "right" to decided how to staff their own military. And in my opinion, each should do so so as to have THE most effective tool to break things and kill people (and keep others from doing the same to them), which is the sole and exclusive purpose of any military - not to illustration the current social philosophies of the local government or be some social experiment in RC'ism or help some politician get votes from a block he/she needs in the next election.



- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Donald tells lies. His "generals" are not currently serving in the military.

 

[hedrick]

There are tons of people who are sick of it, and not just because of the labeling. Some of the LGBT groups do much more, and try to use perceived social opinion to have people shamed and fired from their jobs for simply stating a view on homosexuality/transgender that isn't in line with their current opinions.

And conservative Christians have called me apostate for suggesting that we should accept gays.

But we're Christians. We're supposed to show a better way of dealing with conflict. I'm not seeing it.

 

[tango]

That was weak, but I'll let you off just because I like you. I hope your day is going well.

Are you planning to actually respond to the posts people are making, or do you intend to merely make offhanded remarks to suggest anything less than gushing approval of everything you believe in is worth nothing more than derision?

 

[tango]

My point of view on this matter is that anybody willing and able to defend their fellow citizens ought to be allowed a chance to serve in the military. I don't see much good in saying to a fit young man or women that they cannot serve.

The bigger issue is overall combat effectiveness, especially in the context of what "willing and able to defend" means in any given situation.

In an average day-to-day situation I'm "willing and able" to defend those around me. I'm bigger than most, trained in martial arts (albeit some years back) and on the days I'm carrying my knife or my gun I'm reasonably well equipped to defend those around me from the kind of dangers that are most likely. But in the bigger picture of the armed services I probably don't count as "able" because I'm too old (the military doesn't hate older people, just recognises their limitations), and too fat to serve (the military doesn't hate fat people, just recognises their limitations). A diabetic might be able and willing to serve, as long as they got their insulin shots, but the military can't guarantee the ongoing availability of insulin in a war zone thousands of miles from home. The military doesn't hate diabetics, just recognises their limitations.

Somehow a person undergoing gender realignment who needs regular hormone therapy, that can't be guaranteed in a war zone any more than a diabetic's required insulin can be guaranteed, becomes the victim of discrimination/bigotry/hate/whatever-it-is-today rather than merely having their limitations recognised. It comes back to the theme that's depressingly familiar these days - if you're denied because of your condition it's common sense but if I'm denied because of my condition it's discrimination.

 

[tango]

As far as combat effectiveness goes, maybe it's the straight, homophobic men who need to be banned. Perhaps they're the ones who make the military ineffective. Just sayin'.

What about straight non-homophobic men? And what has homophobia got to do with it anyway - I thought we were discussing the transgendered.

 

[Stravinsk]

And conservative Christians have called me apostate for suggesting that we should accept gays.

But we're Christians. We're supposed to show a better way of dealing with conflict. I'm not seeing it.

If the "better way" is to lay down completely on the subject of homosexuality and let it infiltrate many a church so that all the relevant verses are waved away (including the definition of marriage in Genesis and Christ's acknowledgement of that), as well as the law, and Saul/Paul too - then that has already been done by many a church and congregation.

So instead of conflict there is nothing but compromise at every practical and pragmatic level. Is this what you would describe as a "better way of dealing with conflict"? Basically - bend over for your now gay priest/deacon/pastor?

 

[hedrick]

If the "better way" is to lay down completely on the subject of homosexuality and let it infiltrate many a church so that all the relevant verses are waved away (including the definition of marriage in Genesis and Christ's acknowledgement of that), as well as the law, and Saul/Paul too - then that has already been done by many a church and congregation.

So instead of conflict there is nothing but compromise at every practical and pragmatic level.

I think it's possible to disagree without treating each other as non-Christians. I hope you didn't mean the last sentence is the offensive way it looks. (I haven't quoted it to provide you an opportunity to edit it.)

 

[~Jo~]

Being gay or transgender isn't a choice that you decided if you are or not its actually a thing your born with and no prayers or therapy will change that or knock it out of them,its determined in the womb long before we are actually born into the world, so if you had the choice of being killed by the enemy or some one standing there to protect you being gay or trans would you let them protect you or say hang on your gay you shouldn't be here doing this job... and then get yourself killed .. I don't think so really do you .. it shouldn't make any difference what a soldier is heterosexual doesn't mean your fearless and a lot of troops come back with Ptsd its not just found trans or gays...

 

[Stravinsk]

Being gay or transgender isn't a choice that you decided if you are or not its actually a thing your born with and no prayers or therapy will change that or knock it out of them,its determined in the womb long before we are actually born into the world, so if you had the choice of being killed by the enemy or some one standing there to protect you being gay or trans would you let them protect you or say hang on your gay you shouldn't be here doing this job... and then get yourself killed .. I don't think so really do you .. it shouldn't make any difference what a soldier is heterosexual doesn't mean your fearless and a lot of troops come back with Ptsd its not just found trans or gays...

If there is absolutely no choice, decision of mind - what and how to think, and body -what and how to act on what one thinks -

Then absolutely every conceivable sexual practice is like you described. Basically - predestined or predetermined from the womb, which is also basically saying that "god made it that way". This is why I brought up practices such as females using snakes or donkeys in post #52 - which aren't (at least yet) considered an "orientation predetermined from the womb". Maybe in time they will be.

Such a cruel god some christians seem to have. For the Scriptures on this matter are crystal clear. Homosexuality, among other forbidden sexual practices, is sin and in particular it is a perversion. For it to take place, there has to be some responsibility on the part of the person - they had to choose to think and act in certain ways. It is so crystal clear in the text in so many ways, and hence the level of denial so great - I would go so far as to say that Christendom - should it adopt it at large, or individual persons who adopt it have (or perhaps just are) - atheists with a Christian primer or coating.

Goes for all churches who preach that it is not sinful either. They are deceiving their congregations and might as well throw out the Bible entire.