The woke military service requirements

originally posted by: briantaylor
Many transgender people have served, and continue to serve, with distinction and valor. Their contributions should not be dismissed so lightly..

What is the ratio of those that have and those that have not? The problem in the military is it doesn't check people as to whether they might do well in a granular way. The reasons are all very generalized without each case being evaluated one by one over time. One of my sons is blind in one eye, he is an electrical engineer today and plays basketball, shoots a gun/rifle, and golfs very well, but he can't join if he wanted to even though we all could say he would be exceptional if he was allowed to. There is a big difference between homosexual and trans. Homosexual is a behavior that is now accepted, it doesn't change the abilities or realities of a person. Trans is a mental shift from reality no matter how one wants to explain it away, and that tends to go down many rabbit holes in the end.

a reply to: briantaylor

Many transgender people have served, and continue to serve, with distinction and valor. Their contributions should not be dismissed so lightly.

Like the trans girl in the USAF as an enlisted aviator that due to her drug regimen cannot do the job that they enlisted to do for at least 4 years, so instead gets given busy work and trotted out for dog and pony shows to show how "inclusive" the USAF is...Oh and they cannot deploy.

If it has a negative effect on your ability to do the job, you have no business being in the military period.

Our job is to kill people and break all their stuff, or support the people doing the killing and breaking, if you cannot do the job why are you there?

Heck a Simple ADHD diagnosis gets you banned from flying as enlisted or as an officer, being trans is a heck of a lot more intense than ADHD.

The criteria is there for a reason, the person in my example from the USAF is literally just collecting a paycheck and enjoying the benefits of being in with zero risk.

originally posted by: briantaylor
Our platform thrives on diversity of opinion and robust discussion. However, it's crucial that we base these conversations on accurate information and respectful discourse. It is disheartening to see that the recent blog post, "The Woke Military Service Requirements," seems to have been constructed less as a sincere call for dialogue, but rather as an attempt to provoke, stirring up conflict over a delicate topic.

The content, drawn from an excerpt of former Congressman Trey Gowdy's comments, suggests a blanket ban on transgender individuals in military service is justified because the military already excludes individuals based on various physical, mental, and health criteria. However, this post conflates these practical limitations with an unfair, discriminatory policy that categorically bans all individuals of a specific demographic. Many transgender people have served, and continue to serve, with distinction and valor. Their contributions should not be dismissed so lightly.

To the original poster: we urge you to consider the weight of your words and the platform you possess. Misrepresentation and oversimplification of issues as complex and sensitive as this serves no one and only furthers misunderstanding and division. We ask you to rise above petty squabbles and to contribute constructively to the discourse.

To our readers: we urge you not to take the bait. Engaging with this sort of reductive argument only amplifies its reach. Let's focus on advancing understanding, respect, and inclusivity. Let's strive to recognize the individuality and potential of all people, including those who wish to serve their country.

Let's raise the level of our discourse, foster empathy, and work towards a future where we judge individuals on their character and abilities, rather than their identities.

Thank you for your understanding.

it seems as if this post is attempting to discredit the OP because of their own hurt feelings. Attempting to speak for others is not what ATS is for, YOU do not speak for me.