The Ban On Transgender Individuals In The Military May Soon Be Lifted

a reply to: Shamrock6

Path of least resistance. Why would someone complain with a more relaxed standard? Some may, but I don't think it will be the norm. Exceeding the standard feels great. Why would you ask for a more stringent standard?

a reply to: Baldryck

Because you know it was lowered specifically for you because somebody thinks you can't do it.

Is that really such a foreign concept? Good Christ. I'm not saying every last one of them is going to be filing a lawsuit, but I can absolutely see a man saying "you lowered the standard because you think I'm less of a man and that's horse crap."

Not that it'll amount to much, since the current administration has already said the solution to being more inclusive is to lower standards.

I don't care about their penises, vaginas, or physical capabilities. I just hope they don't cause a threat to the training and traditions. If they can roll with the punches and be a guy's guy type, then no problem. But I fear lawsuits will come from this and change the age-old way it works.

originally posted by: Baldryck
a reply to: Shamrock6

Perhaps there will be lawsuits, but it will be from outside groups. Those who won't serve anyways. Those who do serve will adhere to the standards without complaint.

LOL. You've never been in the military I take it.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I'm certain there will be individuals that will. I've conceded that point. I'm not trying to argue with you about this. I'm just saying, the majority will not complain. Non-transgender will most likely complain more than the transgender about the standard differences.

These are just my opinions from my history with the military. I could be completely wrong. I just don't think I am.

I like you Shamrock, I am not trying to argue to just argue.

originally posted by: Baldryck
a reply to: Shamrock6

Path of least resistance. Why would someone complain with a more relaxed standard? Some may, but I don't think it will be the norm. Exceeding the standard feels great. Why would you ask for a more stringent standard?

First of all reduced standards for one group and not everyone (which is the case now) is not true equity.

Secondly, the standards either mean something, in which case lowering them to accommodate people could very well get them and their comrades killed, or they don't in which case they are a complete waste of time.

a reply to: NavyDoc

For the second time, 20 years 13 days, still work with in a military facility daily with military people as a civilian. I am not a retard. I do have experience in the military. I do know how people think. I see people look for the path of least resistance. If someone is given a lower standard 99 percent of the time they will not complain. It makes it easier to pass the test.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I do NOT agree with lower standards. I am just being a realist on what I think will happen. I believe there should be a set standard for all. But it doesn't happen in the military. You know this as much as I do.

originally posted by: Baldryck
a reply to: Shamrock6

I served 20 years and 13 days. I also still work daily in with the military as a civilian. You mistake what I mean by complaint. There is always complaining, there will just be no official complaints. That is why they are taking their time implementing it. I am certain they are getting all their ducks and standards in a row before going through with it.

I don' t know what era you were in, but currently dealing with and trying to prevent EEOC complaints consumes a rather large portion of a CO's time. It is currently a rather large deal and even an unfounded EEOC complaint can get an officer relieved.

a reply to: NavyDoc

87 - 2007. Was hired as a civilian 2 months after I retired to the same facility I worked in when I retired.

I know what a headache it is. I just had to go to SAPR training for the 10,000th time. I've been to all the EEOC briefings. I know that people game the system.

My belief is, it will happen, they will have different standards, there will be complaints. I just don't think the majority of them will complain.

Ahh so they will learn they are all equally worthless and not a special snow flake. Progress.

originally posted by: Baldryck
a reply to: NavyDoc

87 - 2007. Was hired as a civilian 2 months after I retired to the same facility I worked in when I retired.

I know what a headache it is. I just had to go to SAPR training for the 10,000th time. I've been to all the EEOC briefings. I know that people game the system.

My belief is, it will happen, they will have different standards, there will be complaints. I just don't think the majority of them will complain.

Time will tell. Some would suggest that the personality type that is consistent with that state would indicate a much higher level of complaints and issues than previous.

a reply to: Baldryck

I hope to hell you are. It disgusts me that the Corps is under the gun to "lower your standards or explain why you won't and it better be damn good" when it comes to female infantry officers. I sincerely hope they can weather the storm. I simply cannot fathom how senior brass can legitimately sit there and think "hey lower standards will definitely win us some fights, let's do that!"

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Baldryck
I am all for this. They can die fighting for their rights like the rest of us. I applaud the Military for this equal inclusion.

As long as there are equal physical standards and everybody is now eligible for the draft and nobody gets special consideration.

You have an excellent point.

Because of this all women when they turn 18 should be required to sign up for the draft same as men.

Now that the military is gender free on all issues,
the draft should be included.

Let's start with Malia when she turns 18 next year.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Baldryck
I am all for this. They can die fighting for their rights like the rest of us. I applaud the Military for this equal inclusion.

As long as there are equal physical standards and everybody is now eligible for the draft and nobody gets special consideration.

You have an excellent point.

Because of this all women when they turn 18 should be required to sign up for the draft same as men.

Now that the military is gender free on all issues,
the draft should be included.

Let's start with Malia when she turns 18 next year.

Lead by example. I agree, she should be the first.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Baldryck

I hope to hell you are. It disgusts me that the Corps is under the gun to "lower your standards or explain why you won't and it better be damn good" when it comes to female infantry officers. I sincerely hope they can weather the storm. I simply cannot fathom how senior brass can legitimately sit there and think "hey lower standards will definitely win us some fights, let's do that!"

Senior brass for the most part, (my opinion) are politicians. It's about money and what they can get for their service/units at that point. Bucking the system is counter productive at that point in their career, award and promotion wise.

I have always been of the mindset of equal standards for all. That is the best and smartest way to do things, especially fighting wars. I just have been in the culture long enough to see how these things play out.

In a perfect world, each AFSC/MOS would have absolutely equal standards Gender/TransGender wise. If that were the case there would not even be any talk of different standards. Which is how it should be. There should just be a human standard in the military. We all know that will never happen though.

originally posted by: Baldryck

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Baldryck

I hope to hell you are. It disgusts me that the Corps is under the gun to "lower your standards or explain why you won't and it better be damn good" when it comes to female infantry officers. I sincerely hope they can weather the storm. I simply cannot fathom how senior brass can legitimately sit there and think "hey lower standards will definitely win us some fights, let's do that!"

Senior brass for the most part, (my opinion) are politicians. It's about money and what they can get for their service/units at that point. Bucking the system is counter productive at that point in their career, award and promotion wise.

I have always been of the mindset of equal standards for all. That is the best and smartest way to do things, especially fighting wars. I just have been in the culture long enough to see how these things play out.

In a perfect world, each AFSC/MOS would have absolutely equal standards Gender/TransGender wise. If that were the case there would not even be any talk of different standards. Which is how it should be. There should just be a human standard in the military. We all know that will never happen though.

And there is just that aspect. Chronic medication needs is typically a dis-qualifier for enlistment and commission at the outset and members have been released for medical issues that develop later--or at least made non-deployable which then forces someone else to fill that gap and take that deployment . How can the military be expected to enlist someone they know needs a continual and chronic supply of medications from the beginning?

As a veteran and woman in transition I will say that training standards should be of the represented gender on account of the added or diminished strength resulting form either the estrogen or testosterone. For a basic PFT in the Marine corps the running portion and the crunches are pretty much the same for either gender, if your fast your fast and if your core is strong you will be good at crunches. Speaking of crunches guys lets be honest, everybody gets 100...right?

I would have have loved female standards for at least pull ups too btw simply because I have long arms so pulling my long torso up with those long arms has always been tough. I was a decent runner though 22 min 3 mile and well crunches we all get 100, right?

Oh and as for the rifle qualifying again a non gender biased skill.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I think they will most likely just make someone on that list Non world wide qualified. At least at the onset of the policy. It would not play too well socially and politically if they just push the first ones out the door based on medical needs. It will be a few years before they start doing that in my opinion.

a reply to: TrappedPrincess

Everybody gets 100.

Unless the Blue Falcon makes an appearance.

Also, stop kipping