"... cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service. Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life. A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."
Said Trump's executive order "Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness."
I'm reading about it in "Trump Moves Toward Pushing Openly Transgender People Out of Military/The president also ordered the Pentagon to end diversity programs, reinstate many service members dismissed for refusing the coronavirus vaccine and create a new missile defense system" (NYT). That article refers to Trump and Hegseth's intent "to return the military to an unapologetically masculine professional culture."
Said Trump's executive order "Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness."
I'm reading about it in "Trump Moves Toward Pushing Openly Transgender People Out of Military/The president also ordered the Pentagon to end diversity programs, reinstate many service members dismissed for refusing the coronavirus vaccine and create a new missile defense system" (NYT). That article refers to Trump and Hegseth's intent "to return the military to an unapologetically masculine professional culture."
Is the military inherently masculine? Does the order really speak in such terms? I would assume that Trump and Hegseth have a strong commitment to the role of women in the military (though not necessarily in the front line of combat). The order that speaks frankly — unapologetically — of the "warrior ethos" of the military (boldface mine):
The United States military has a clear mission: to protect the American people and our homeland as the world’s most lethal and effective fighting force. Success in this existential mission requires a singular focus on developing the requisite warrior ethos, and the pursuit of military excellence cannot be diluted to accommodate political agendas or other ideologies harmful to unit cohesion.
I don't think that excludes women, though it may exclude the kind of stereotypical femininity that might be what makes some biological males see themselves as female.
The order elaborates why transgender persons don't satisfy the warrior ethos:
Recently, however, the Armed Forces have been afflicted with radical gender ideology to appease activists unconcerned with the requirements of military service like physical and mental health, selflessness, and unit cohesion. Longstanding Department of Defense (DoD) policy (DoD Instruction (DoDI) 6130.03) provides that it is the policy of the DoD to ensure that service members are “[f]ree of medical conditions or physical defects that may reasonably be expected to require excessive time lost from duty for necessary treatment or hospitalization.” As a result, many mental and physical health conditions are incompatible with active duty, from conditions that require substantial medication or medical treatment to bipolar and related disorders, eating disorders, suicidality, and prior psychiatric hospitalization.
The part quoted at the beginning of this post comes next. The rejection of transgender persons in the military is based not merely on "the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved" but on the personality traits deemed to exist. It is viewed as lacking in honesty, discipline, humility, and selflessness.
Posts
83 comments:
I agree with not making any accommodations for transgender people while on duty, but I am much less concerned about what they do while off duty.
"Is the military inherently masculine?
Yes. Quite possibly the oldest human male job after farming. Even Lincoln acknowledged this when Mary Todd tried preventing Robert Lincoln from serving in the Union Army during the Civil War.
"Does the order really speak in such terms?"
No. The NYT is hyperventilating as usual.
"I don't think that excludes women..."
It doesn't. A minority of women A) possess the warrior ethos and B) can meet the same standards as men, but from personal experience there is no denying that being female in the military is generally harder on average than being male in the military, especially on deployment. Women are built different, and this order does allude to that difference in making the case that the military has a mandate to minimize inefficiencies as much as possible.
Needing a constant supply of hormones or feminine products is an inefficiency.
The Soviet and Israeli armies used to be held up as proof of womens' usefulness on the battlefield. You don't see that so much any more for some reason.
Hey dipshit. Hunting and fishing predates farming by like a million years.
They already carry tampons for bullet wounds.
Surely hunting is older than farming. And Abe Lincoln's wife always used only her married name after they got hitched. (She had a pushy sister who dedicated her life to making people think of the Todds as a great family.)
Women on the front line may be an example of 'better than nothing.'
I don't know about this. My military hero, General Millie Vanillie, said "Transgenders are the backbone of the US Military". Guys who think they're chicks, and vice-versa staff our Militaries HR departments, push paper, and fix ice cream machines. How could we have won Afghanistan or Iraq without them? Trump may have over-stepped.
Is the military inherently masculine? - YES IT IS. That's why women haven't yet been drafted.
I just love bi-polar Howard, don't you? Paragon of rationalism one minute. Ad hominem the next.
There are plenty of non-combat jobs for women in the military. The problem is the feminists want to push them into combat jobs and into the top reaches of the officer corps when better qualified men are available. As usual, we can't have common sense, we need hysterial extreme feminism.
"That's why women haven't yet been drafted."
I hope this changes. Probably in the next major global conflict, it will have to.
"Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness." Also, deprioritizing lifelong expensive healthcare for trans vets.
Half of these poor folks are being treated for mental illness (other than the delusion that they belong to the opposite sex, which afflicts 100% of them.) Their deployability rate is a small fraction of those not so afflicted. Most of them are using military service as a subterfuge to obtain free genital mutilation surgery, then spend the rest of their enlistment in recovery and psychiatric treatment. They are an unacceptable burden on the military and do not belong anywhere near it.
On Reddit, there are occasional paid ads in comment threads. The US Navy is one such advertiser.
Starting about a month ago, there was an ad stating approximately "Think your makeup is not welcome onboard? Think again! Your best hair, make-up, and jewelry can be part of your Navy experience!". included photos of elaborate fingernail art and hair braids.
I literally choked. Have not noticed if that particular ad has stopped, though.
Hunting by yourself leads to hunting as a group to increase the chances of a kill (see dogs, dolphins, killer whales, etc.). Group hunting leads to tribal battles when a tribe wanders into a neighbors hunting and gathering territory. As such, I suspect that humans fought and killed both animals and other humans from the very start of the species. Killing happens with violent meat-eating apes too.
Those caught in the trans bind are IMHO mentally ill. Why would you want unstable needy people in the group you have chosen and trained to excel in your defense? Who need to trust one another implicitly in the most consequential matters?
Do the Viet Nam era feminists wish they were eligible for the draft back then. Do you wish you could have watched on TV, as your life hangs in the balance of a bingo wheel with your birthday written on a ball to see if your life would be wasted first? It's too bad America's young men had to fight and die in that bullshit war.
Should we send all of our daughters for the next USA forever war? Should we PRIORITIZE sending our daughters in the name of equity?
What is the actual point feminists and transgender pushers are trying to make here? I don't believe they actually want what the are bitching and moaning about.
See the Swedish take on male vs. female biological differences: "They are exactly the same." All the wanting and hoping and dreaming in the world can't move a rocket ship into space.
Hey dipshit Howard. Who did the hunting and the fishing? What's your point relative to the post?
The military is self-defense. Different rules.
They are not fit for combat duty due to the amount and kind of hormones needed to maintain their fantasy. That's why all the Biden ones were in clerical or non-combat leadership positions. The whole exercise by Biden was a scam to make taxpayers pay for surgeries, pensions and for most of them disability payments for life.
Like Tim I do not support the further use of these "accommodations" for the creepy social engineering dreams of Biden.
If the Republicans pulled a reducto ad absurdum and enacted exactly what the Democrats have claimed to want for women for generations (e.g., ERA, equal pay), Democratic voters would reject it upon understanding the harsh lives of many males. Politicians need a bogeyman to keep the donations coming, and 'winning' means people would forget and stop giving.
And they stammer when asked by Congress to explain missing their recruiting goals!
I don't want America's young men dying under the command of a woke General Milley in the next American forever war. Certainly not our daughters. Not even our bull dykes.
Is the military inherently masculine?
Is giving birth to babies inherently feminine?
So after four years of taking steps away from military capability, THIS is what the left is upset about regarding restoring military capability? Wait until they see the next DOD funding bill, and what it does and does not contain.
My reasoning is strictly fairness and equality. Women are now strong and independent, and each one can whoop man-ass because they're all wonderwomen and sheena-queens-of-the-jungle. If the boys have to carry a draft card and die in a trench somewhere because some woke asshat says they need to, then so can the wonderwomen. We'd be glad to have them!
If the left were in charge of our military - everything would be painted in rainbow pride flag. I'd be a joke.
The don't believe it. The want to talk-the-talk without having to walk-the-walk, as usual. They want the prestige without having to take the risk, and if they really knew what the risk was, you'd be shocked at how suddently "trad" they become.
I'm a former enlisted combat vet, former commissioned Regular Army combat arms type, and my ex is a retired Colonel (female) (JAG)
The purpose of the Army is to kill people and break things, not be a social laboratory or a jobs program or a social services clinic.
Combat effectiveness and efficiency is key. Women can do a few combat jobs well. Helo pilots for one, but too many women lowers the effectiveness of a unit, not raises it (see three females unable to change a truck tire. that one man can)
Trans? much more trouble than they are worth. Almost all are non-deployable
It's not ad hominem if it's true. You say bipolar like it's a bad thing.
What RideSpace Mountain said (mostly).
Joyce Benenson's "Warriors and Worriers" says that men are predisposed to qualities that made them good warriors and women are predisposed to qualities that made them successful in domestic groups. Though Benenson, now at Harvard, has declined to enter any present controversy.
'Is the military inherently masculine?' No, but fighting somebody to the death on the battlefield is. Anybody that would indulge in the necessary mutilation and regimen required for sex change cannot be focused on the mission - they're too focused on themselves, and their mental illness. There's plenty of room in the military for females in the medical corps, logistics, behind the lines support. Can a battle-ready front line distinction be made for exclusionary purposes? I would have thought so. I think the purpose here is to discredit the nonsense that's been hogging the attention away from more important matters, and in this sense, I approve. Gender studies have no place in professional battle readiness.
Is the military inherently masculine? It has to be, exceedingly so, or it will lose to a military that is. Currently, we're the equivalent of a gun-owner surrounded by knife-wielders with maybe a black powder weapon here and there. That's the only reason we can even entertain questions like "is the military inherently masculine". That level of technological supremacy isn't the natural order of things and won't stay that way without extremely masculine energy (fascination with gear/equipment, engineering, physicality, blowing shit up, extreme competition at the highest levels, etc)
If you wait until the battlefield to start winning, you've likely already lost. This is axiomatic. The military must be inherently masculine or it will lose to a military that is.
Physically defending your hearth and home predate farming by...well...a freaking LONG time.
Transgender individuals should never have been allowed in the military in the first place. The military services' mission is to kill people and break things, and to appear so strong to our adversaries that killing people and breaking things is unnecessary because our adversaries don't FAFO. Having people with obvious mental issues among our personnel weakens mission preparedness and projects weakness to our adversaries.
And for some strange reason, aren't in any hurry to do so.
Well said. And none of this even touches on what effects giving "go" when the performance was "no go". That has a lot of knock-on effects beyond just getting a few little princesses through swamp phase. I saw it first hand.
The truth is that bi-polar people like Howard require medication, and like transvestites and their hormones, it is an "inefficiency". Take your meds Howard!
There is some controversy now about early human hunter-gatherers. In addition to hunting, men gathered a lot of nuts and berries, roots and fruits -- and now some sources argue that women did a share of the hunting. I don't know how true that is and how much that is the usual b.s. It looks like it may be a kernel of real truth surrounded by woke b.s. about women being natural hunters and warriors.
I think we can take it for granted by now that the Times will turn everything into a matter of race or gender. The reason for excluding transgenders from the military (apart from transgenders being a recent creation or discovery) is that they hurt unit cohesiveness. You don't want to have the other troops in the foxhole continually asking if the person next to them is a a man or a woman. Now that most of the military isn't in the front lines, but working in offices and other support facilities, some generals are willing to take the risk. Unit cohesion is still an issue, and it's not because (real) women are unwelcome in the military.
One reason for women being excluded from armies was the concern about bearing and raising future generations. Contemporary Americans have acted like that isn't a problem, but it hasn't stopped being one.
Trump is changing this a little by sending the military to the border, but our military remains overwhelmingly expeditionary: we fight in other countries, not our own. Most other militaries are defensive. Even the offensive ones don’t really fight beyond their immediate neighbors.
So that means that unlike the majority of militaries that fight on short supply lines, we fight on perilously tenuous supply lines. Which means infantry soldiers especially have to carry a lot of crap. Even support troops, who drive not walk, will have to at least shift huge quantities of materiel once they get there. And everyone has to be prepared to walk out of trouble, like the Chosin Reservoir retrograde. All of these factors militate (pun intended) for the male body, with its denser bones and higher work capacity.
Then there are the extended periods of time on expeditions. Having all kinds of options for 19 year olds to bang each other erodes discipline. Even civilian office jobs with middle aged people turn into Peyton Place. What do you think a bunch of people barely out of adolescence are going to do?
A military that operates within commuting distance of its own border doesnt have to face these problems and may be able to work efficiently with a wider range of people.
JSM
Don't be ridiculous. What exactly are you going to draft millions of America's young women to do? Train for a year and a half before crossing the Atlantic Ocean in troopships to invade Morocco?
Keyword - selflessness. If you’re focused on how you accessorize, act and how people treat you, you’re not warrior material.
A quick internet search revealed that transgenders have a required daily drug regime. I have doubts that any service member (trans or cis) with required daily meds can be effectively deployed for combat.
I bet my WWII sailor dad is rolling in his grave right about now, along with Admirals Halsey and Nimitz and a whole lot of other guys.
Sex and sex-correlated gender (e.g. sexual orientation). Transgender is a spectrum disorder with variable divergence in individual and coupling conditions and expressions. As for females, there is an evolutionary and emotional imperative to place women first, but they must be prepared to defend home and hearth in the breach.
Patentlee @ 11:39: "...required daily meds..." Good point. How does it work, logistically, when your unit is on the start line and has to stand down because there aren't enough cold packs for the hormone injection kits?
"What exactly are you going to draft millions of America's young women to do?"
Become targets mostly. Gives our enemies something to shoot at other than the guys. Welcome to the suck, ladies. If women want the prestige combat action brings, then they're going to do the work combat action requires...sometimes that means dying before ever even seeing the enemy.
Unless they're willing to get drone-bombed on some sunken beachline in the Spratly's, then I don't want to hear one more goddamn word out of them about equality when their brothers, fathers, bf's and husbands have to carry a draft card, but they don't.
Okay monopole
I was trained as a light weapons infantryman--Ft. Polk Louisiana, summer of 1969 where they started 1,000 men a week in such training.In the military there are grunts--and considering the loads they have to carry, they had better be all male. I didn't see any women in the infantry training brigades at Polk.
And there are button pushers--and both males and females can handle those tasks just about equally as well.
And somewhere in between those groups there are military jobs that require some physical strength more likely than not to be found in men than in women.
That's pretty much it. They don't deploy diabetics who need regular insulin injections, they can't deploy transgenders who need regular hormone therapy.
I’m intrigued by theNYT’s list including creation of a missile defense system. If missiles are inherently phallic, isn’t missile defense inherently feminine?
How does it work, logistically, when your unit is on the start line and has to stand down because there aren't enough cold packs for the hormone injection kits?
Or your surrounded and the weather precludes the Air Force dropping supplies. What do you do then? Ever heard of the Siege of Bastone?
The average combat load out for an infantryman on the battle field is between 90 and 120 pounds. This includes the uniform, body armor, weapons, ammunition, food, water, etc. This is hard enough for men, now imagine how much more demanding this is for an average woman when it is almost as much as she weighs.
Now there are some women who can handle this, but the average woman cannot. Why would you want to force this situation on the armed forces, whose basic job is to break things and kill people when necessary.
Women firemen, women cops, and women soldiers inevitably require those in charge to either alter their tactics so that physical strength is far less necessary, or to deploy personnel in a way that loads physical risk and aggression disproportionately onto the male gender and pushes the women into administrative functions.
You are then required to avoid rewarding the men for their disproportionate risk-taking role. This is now regarded as just.
"Is the military inherently masculine?"
Yes.
By the way, migraine headaches are disqualifying to join the military.
"Enlistment medical standards specify that “Recurrent headaches of all types of sufficient severity or frequency as to interfere with normal function or a history of such headaches within 3 years” are disqualifying for enlistment."
Female soldiers showed up in my reserve unit during the last year of my enlistment. The most obvious difference was in their physical strength. They were just not strong enough to do the physical work that the men could, like anything involving heavy lifting. This meant that we were literally undermanned in certain situations. Not a good thing in many combat situations.
Every army needs cannon fodder.
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."
...ok, so I was reminded of an old piece by James Webb about women in the military. I suppose that it still may apply, with some minimal revision to reflect "trans" people and their particular needs for accommodation (eg., regular supply of hormones, etc.)
https://www.washingtonian.com/1979/11/01/jim-webb-women-cant-fight/
There are plenty of non-combat roles that ANYone with a desire to "serve" may occupy. There is no need to negatively alter actual "combat" standards simply to accommodate some office-sitter's fantasy about incorporating unfit persons into direct-combat roles.
Of course, it is also important to recall, from the experience of past wars and conflicts, that even behind-the-lines personnel may, under adverse circumstances, be called upon to pick up a rifle and defend his own life and the lives of others.
As a former Marine Corps fighter pilot, it's my view that there is a place for women flying in combat missions. My first carrier qualification instructor pilot was a woman Navy lieutenant who was very good at her job. I've also served with women helo and C-130 flight crew in combat who provided excellent close combat air support.
That said, it's hard to imagine women Marines in front line infantry divisions. Trannies have no place in the armed services in any job. They are sick fucks from the start. Gays and lesbos should be able to serve so long as they keep it entirely to themselves. I suspect that the best commanding officer I ever served with was gay, but that didn't define him. Don't ask, don't tell was good policy.
- Krumhorn
Well, thanks Derve for this arresting insight. I'll carry it further. It seems to me that not only does the military discriminate against women and trans, it discriminates against the handicapped. One of our most able war commanders was paraplegic, but the military refuses to recruit among this class. With advancements in scooters and motorized wheelchairs, there's no end of useful things these patriotic citizens can do in combat situations. Some attention should be paid to uneven or muddy battlefields, but how often does that situation come up in modern battles.....The next big push should be for our military to hire the handicapped.
Mike is right. Those who are undergoing transition treatment or have completed it are undeployable. You can’t send people who require extensive medical treatment and medication due to uncertainty in being able to sustain their treatment.
Would another pinata be something like a pinata colada?
derve's cluster-B grand mal reeeeeeeeeeeizure - soon to be deleted - pretty much confirms that Xir swanson is a tranny. Obsessiveness bordering on mania is how they argue.
Transgender people need to stop claiming that they actually are the opposite sex. That's not being truthful. They are pretending to be the opposite sex. It's fine to pretend that you are something, but at the end of the day you have to admit that you are just pretending. I know lots of people who pretend that they are Star Fleet officers, but if they seriously believed that they were, they would be put into therapy.
It's sort of like that story a few months ago where a woman tried to take her son to the vet because he identified as a cat. (And got offended when the vet told her that he was not licensed or qualified to treat human beings.) Pretending is one thing, but you can't change reality like that.
If anyone was wondering, as I was, why certain posters who exhibit bot like behavior get banned, well, now we know.
Xir swanson has removed xir's posts...we must've really struck derve's nerves.
“Is the military inherently masculine?”
Unless I’m mistaken, the US military has many women, so …
Judging by recent performance I would call the military's reliance on male leadership "unproven". Or did a female general plan the Afghan fork-up?
TV Dinner person is tedious.
When I was in Army Basic (I don't want to emphasize my age, but it was while Nixon was President and was still generally thought to be a good one), I remember our Drill Sargant gave us a "reward" of 15 minutes in the Base PX. While we were there a bunch (I assume platoon) of WACS came in, and their Sargant loudly announced to her troops: There's a MILE OF COCK out there (I don't think she meant us) , but you aren't gonna get near it until you complete your training. Now I used to live in NYC, and I knew what a Lesbian looked like, and I thought, there's nobody in that group that has ANY interest in a "mile of cock", certainly not the Sargant.
But, you never know.
All's fair in lust and abortion, but, ironically, not war.
In the Navy we would speak of the poor sailor who got sucked under the pier by a big wave.
The military is neither inherently male sex nor masculine gender. However, context matters. As for the transgender spectrum, homosexuals serve as individuals, not couplets. And others in the spectrum... well, Mengele eat your heart out.
serious question: HOW, could ANY ONE think otherwise?
Maybe mentally ill people need assistance, to keep from committing sue cide.. MAYBE
but WTF are they supposed to be doing in the Army? or EVEN, in the USAF?
Even a finance clerk might be called upon to, at least, function as Infantry in a static defense if the first guys just got pulverized. There's no getting away from the possibility/probability. In VN, when the choppers were short of door gunners, cooks and supply guys would volunteer.
No getting away from it.
11B10 71542
Heterosexual males, the bulk of the armed forces, don't like having fags and trannies around. It's no more complicated than that.
It's a reasonable statement. I know a few female vets, and they would agree with it too. There are lots of jobs in the military that can be done by fit and fairly masculine women, but that doesn't make it any less inherently masculine.
Imagine an inherently feminine, mostly female military.
If some group of activist women really want to re-make the military in a less masculine way, they can start by lobbying for females to have to register for the draft. Until then, I can't even take them seriously.
simpler case: Road convoy from point A to Point B. Jessica Lynch wasn't a volunteer door gunner
A recently deceased friend of mine was an enlisted computer nerd at MACV in '67 or '68, and used to tell the story of how he and others were often asked if they wanted to volunteer to be door gunners. They didn't.
Another friend of mine, died a few years ago, had been a door gunner for six months; when they needed a clerk-typist at HQ his high-school typing class skills got him the job and all he had to do after that was survive the occasional mortar shelling at night.
These guys were there about the same time.
They are divorced from reality. If you want them handling weapons, you're nuts, too
A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."
Said Trump's executive order "Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness."
So beautiful
Post a Comment