Politics Transgender in the military

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Sly, just because they do humanitarian aid doesn't mean that the primary PURPOSE of the military is not war. Because it is.

For Pete's sake....soldiers deliver bags of rice off of helicopters in war-torn or weather-demolished areas with M-16s strapped across their backs/fronts and pistols on their hips/under their arms. Come on man.

The pooch has apparently been into the chicken wings, splintered the hell out of them before gobbling them down.
He'll feel much better after he gets over trying to pass them.
 
Sly, just because they do humanitarian aid doesn't mean that the primary PURPOSE of the military is not war. Because it is.

For Pete's sake....soldiers deliver bags of rice off of helicopters in war-torn or weather-demolished areas with M-16s strapped across their backs/fronts and pistols on their hips/under their arms. Come on man.

I never said that. I never said it wasn't. Actually I said their primary mission was war. What I'm disagreeing with is the statement that their ONLY mission is war. That is BS.
 
The pooch has apparently been into the chicken wings, splintered the hell out of them before gobbling them down.
He'll feel much better after he gets over trying to pass them.

can-dogs-eat-chicken-bones_93f83826cc16ea31.jpg
 
I never said that. I never said it wasn't. Actually I said their primary mission was war. What I'm disagreeing with is the statement that their ONLY mission is war. That is BS.

I see. Thank you for clarifying.

Just speaking for myself, personally, I believe the ONLY purpose of the Military should be war and Defense of the homeland. Nothing more, nothing less.

Just my personal opinion.

If you need humanitarian aid, call upon the Conservation Corp or the Red Cross or something. Don't call the US Military.
 
I see. Thank you for clarifying.

Just speaking for myself, personally, I believe the ONLY purpose of the Military should be war and Defense of the homeland. Nothing more, nothing less.

Just my personal opinion.

If you need humanitarian aid, call upon the Conservation Corp or the Red Cross or something. Don't call the US Military.
That's like saying "don't call the police unless you want someone to get shot." Though I guess that's also true.
 
I see. Thank you for clarifying.

I've been clear the entire time.

Just speaking for myself, personally, I believe the ONLY purpose of the Military should be war and Defense of the homeland. Nothing more, nothing less.

Just my personal opinion.

If you need humanitarian aid, call upon the Conservation Corp or the Red Cross or something. Don't call the US Military.

So an airliner crashes at sea and the closest help is an American Navy ship and we shouldn't help in the search? Rescue survivors? Coordinate the search?
 
I see. Thank you for clarifying.

Just speaking for myself, personally, I believe the ONLY purpose of the Military should be war and Defense of the homeland. Nothing more, nothing less.

Just my personal opinion.

If you need humanitarian aid, call upon the Conservation Corp or the Red Cross or something. Don't call the US Military.
Ultimately, the preferred purpose of a strong military is not to fight a war, but to avoid a war by being sufficiently strong to prevent potential opposition from being willing to engage. It's like Fonzie in Happy Days. He never had to fight beats he was perceived as being too tough to mess with.
 
When disaster strikes, US military assets often key to relief efforts

By TRAVIS J. TRITTEN | STARS AND STRIPES

CAMP FOSTER, Okinawa — It was a familiar scene as the USS George Washington reached the Philippines this week: the U.S. military rushing to the aid of hundreds of thousands suffering from a natural disaster.

U.S. aircraft carriers loaded with equipment, supplies and thousands of troops have shown up early to some of the world’s worst disasters over the past decade, including tsunamis in Japan and Indonesia and a deadly earthquake in Haiti.

The massive ships are a potent symbol of U.S. power — and charity. Disaster relief has become a key mission for the United States and a way to exercise the softer side of its military influence overseas.

...

The U.S. humanitarian assistance often includes Marines on the ground within hours or days of a calamity to clear supply routes and airports, then a larger force, led by the Navy and one of its carrier groups. Sailors can use helicopters to airlift disaster victims to safety, take part in search-and-rescue operations and provide medical treatment.

...

In 2011, the USS Ronald Reagan arrived off Japan’s northeastern coast following a massive earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster that claimed more than 20,000 lives and scraped away communities along hundreds of miles of coastline. Marines were among the first to reach the Sendai airport, working to clear hundreds of jumbled vehicles and help Japan reopen the key transportation hub.

The effort was named Operation Tomodachi, which means “friend” in Japanese. The mission was widely hailed by the military and U.S. government as proof of the two nations’ close relationship and security agreement.

But the good will isn’t limited to just allies — the military has rushed in to help others, too.

The aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson arrived in Haiti in January 2010, days after an earthquake killed 230,000 people, injured about 300,000 and destroyed or severely damaged a quarter-million homes. The carrier brought 19 helicopters to deliver badly needed relief supplies. About 2,000 Marines also assisted the island nation in the aftermath.

...

In Haiti, the U.S. had little to gain strategically. The small island nation is mostly known in the United States for its ineffective government and illegal immigration. A recent coup had led to limited military intervention.

The Navy was also called to action in December 2004 when one of the worst tsunami disasters on record occurred following an earthquake in the Indian Ocean.

About 286,000 people died in the surge of water that struck 14 countries, according to the World Bank. In less than a week, the USS Abraham Lincoln was deployed off the coast of Indonesia’s Aceh province, which suffered most of the deaths and destruction. The crew ferried food, water and medical supplies to survivors.

...

With Typhoon Haiyan, disaster struck an old U.S. military partner — and a potentially valuable host for forward-deployed military forces in the future.

Up to 10,000 are thought to have died and more than 600,000 displaced due to Haiyan.

The initial disaster relief mission this week, headed by Marines and the George Washington, provided blankets, food and some evacuations for Filipinos in the Tacloban and Samar area who saw their coastal communities battered to rubble and splinters by the super typhoon on Nov. 8.

The United States, in coordination with the Philippine government, provided plastic sheeting for shelter, toothpaste, soap and feminine products. The lack of basic necessities such as fresh water and food led to desperate pleas and looting in the days after the storm.


https://www.stripes.com/news/pacifi...n-key-to-relief-efforts-1.253245#.WXrOeIjyuUk
 
That's like saying "don't call the police unless you want someone to get shot." Though I guess that's also true.

If a criminal was robbing a store you were in, would you call customer service, or would you call the police?

If there was a homeless person digging cans out of your apartment dumpster, would you call the police, or the local homeless shelter?

If there was house fire, would you ask the police to take care of it, or the fire department?

But yeah....keep making cracks about the police. That certainly helps your argument. Maturity isn't something Liberals are known for, that much is certain.

I've been clear the entire time.



So an airliner crashes at sea and the closest help is an American Navy ship and we shouldn't help in the search? Rescue survivors? Coordinate the search?

Obviously you haven't, or it wouldn't have been an issue.

And special or extreme circumstances notwithstanding, the purpose of the Military SHOULD primarily be for war. That is the very nature of their existence.

After all....we didn't defeat the Redcoats with pillows and kind words.

Ultimately, the preferred purpose of a strong military is not to fight a war, but to avoid a war by being sufficiently strong to prevent potential opposition from being willing to engage. It's like Fonzie in Happy Days. He never had to fight beats he was perceived as being too tough to mess with.

Finally! Someone with a decent goddamn answer instead of sarcastic one-liners. There's hope for this forum after all!
 
When disaster strikes, US military assets often key to relief efforts

By TRAVIS J. TRITTEN | STARS AND STRIPES

CAMP FOSTER, Okinawa — It was a familiar scene as the USS George Washington reached the Philippines this week: the U.S. military rushing to the aid of hundreds of thousands suffering from a natural disaster.

U.S. aircraft carriers loaded with equipment, supplies and thousands of troops have shown up early to some of the world’s worst disasters over the past decade, including tsunamis in Japan and Indonesia and a deadly earthquake in Haiti.

The massive ships are a potent symbol of U.S. power — and charity. Disaster relief has become a key mission for the United States and a way to exercise the softer side of its military influence overseas.

...

The U.S. humanitarian assistance often includes Marines on the ground within hours or days of a calamity to clear supply routes and airports, then a larger force, led by the Navy and one of its carrier groups. Sailors can use helicopters to airlift disaster victims to safety, take part in search-and-rescue operations and provide medical treatment.

...

In 2011, the USS Ronald Reagan arrived off Japan’s northeastern coast following a massive earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster that claimed more than 20,000 lives and scraped away communities along hundreds of miles of coastline. Marines were among the first to reach the Sendai airport, working to clear hundreds of jumbled vehicles and help Japan reopen the key transportation hub.

The effort was named Operation Tomodachi, which means “friend” in Japanese. The mission was widely hailed by the military and U.S. government as proof of the two nations’ close relationship and security agreement.

But the good will isn’t limited to just allies — the military has rushed in to help others, too.

The aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson arrived in Haiti in January 2010, days after an earthquake killed 230,000 people, injured about 300,000 and destroyed or severely damaged a quarter-million homes. The carrier brought 19 helicopters to deliver badly needed relief supplies. About 2,000 Marines also assisted the island nation in the aftermath.

...

In Haiti, the U.S. had little to gain strategically. The small island nation is mostly known in the United States for its ineffective government and illegal immigration. A recent coup had led to limited military intervention.

The Navy was also called to action in December 2004 when one of the worst tsunami disasters on record occurred following an earthquake in the Indian Ocean.

About 286,000 people died in the surge of water that struck 14 countries, according to the World Bank. In less than a week, the USS Abraham Lincoln was deployed off the coast of Indonesia’s Aceh province, which suffered most of the deaths and destruction. The crew ferried food, water and medical supplies to survivors.

...

With Typhoon Haiyan, disaster struck an old U.S. military partner — and a potentially valuable host for forward-deployed military forces in the future.

Up to 10,000 are thought to have died and more than 600,000 displaced due to Haiyan.

The initial disaster relief mission this week, headed by Marines and the George Washington, provided blankets, food and some evacuations for Filipinos in the Tacloban and Samar area who saw their coastal communities battered to rubble and splinters by the super typhoon on Nov. 8.

The United States, in coordination with the Philippine government, provided plastic sheeting for shelter, toothpaste, soap and feminine products. The lack of basic necessities such as fresh water and food led to desperate pleas and looting in the days after the storm.


https://www.stripes.com/news/pacifi...n-key-to-relief-efforts-1.253245#.WXrOeIjyuUk

eagle23n-1-web.jpg
 
And special or extreme circumstances notwithstanding, the purpose of the Military SHOULD primarily be for war

So you agree with me that saying the ONLY purpose of the US military is war is not accurate? Because that is what that article said, that's what I said is BS. That's what others are disagreeing with me about.

Only purpose.
 
So you agree with me that saying the ONLY purpose of the US military is war is not accurate? Because that is what that article said, that's what I said is BS. That's what others are disagreeing with me about.

Of course I agree with you. As I made clear, I was stating MY OPINION that the PRIMARY PURPOSE of the military SHOULD be for war and defense of the homeland. Not humanitarian aid.

There are plenty of civilian organizations whom, with funding from their respective governments, would be better suited to giving humanitarian aid, rather than the military. And that is MY personal opinion.

I will say this though: when it comes to giving humanitarian aid, you can't get much better than responding with an entire Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.
 
The military is primarily a peace keeping force....war is an unfortunate side effect of peace keeping...we have military so that other militaries back the fuck off...hence....peace keeping
 
The military is primarily a peace keeping force....war is an unfortunate side effect of peace keeping...we have military so that other militaries back the fuck off...hence....peace keeping

River, with respect, I believe "peace-keeping" is the language of politicians, not soldiers. Because let's be honest: the US military is a giant stick.

I don't carry a gun as a tool of peace. I carry it as a tool of defense.
 
Wild out-of-control teen steals a truck and leads police on a pursuit, refuses officers lawful orders, and rams a police car.

Not helping your case here. But yeah, keep hating those evil, smelly police.

Did you think my case and Sly's were the same because we don't help Bannon suck his own cock?

I actually kind of agree with you that the army's first job is usually war; we send them in to serve defensive interests. Though, their second, third, and fourth jobs in the same location are usually humanitarian, civil engineering, or some combination of the two. My grandfather did a second year-long tour in 1946 de-fusing the depth charges in the Yangtze River; it's how he lost hearing in his left ear (and apparently gained a temporary "overseas wife" and I may have an uncle in China? Anyway...)
 
Transgenders.....

I'm 100% behind LBGT rights but the trans issue ....is an issue.

Their bone structure is still male. Joe Rogan makes a great point on this very subject about their roles in his area of expertise - fightning. No matter how much spironolactone they take they still have the male bone/muscle structure.

I once made the 'mistake' of calling a "Mrs" a Mr at Best Buy a few years ago. Clearly the dude was a dude with makeup on. Meh, I guess it's a complex issue. But I'm going to call a spade ....a spade.
 
Last edited:
Their bone structure is still male. Joe Rogan makes a great point on this very subject about their roles in his area of expertise - fightning. No matter how much spironolactone they take they still have the male bone/muscle structure.

Wouldn't that be a good thing for the military? Or at least a non-issue?

(points of clarification: spiro is only the testosterone blocker; trans women also take estradiol.)
 
Did you think my case and Sly's were the same because we don't help Bannon suck his own cock?

...............what? What the hell are you talking about now?

This thread has now gone from Transgenders in the military, to hating the police......and now something about you and Bannon's cock?

What the hell is your issue? Or are you just looking for another excuse to turn this into yet another pointless Conservative bashing thread like the countless others in the OT?

Because if that's the case, then it's your loss, not mine. Unless there's an actual topic you want to debate. Because personally, I've got better things to do than read such whiny drivel.

Now....getting back on topic.....somewhat....

Transgenders.....

I'm 100% LBGT rights but the trans issue ....is an issue.

Their bone structure is still male. Joe Rogan makes a great point on this very subject about their roles in his area of expertise - fightning. No matter how much spironolactone they take they still have the male bone/muscle structure.

I once made the 'mistake' of calling a "Mrs" a Mr at Best Buy a few years ago. Clearly the dude was a dude with makeup on. Meh, I guess it's a complex issue. But I'm going to call a spade ....a spade.

Speaking only for myself, it's pretty simple: penis = Male. Vagina = Female.

I'm all for treating people respectfully with how they wish to be addressed. But special treatments? Nope.

Maybe it happens, but I've yet to hear of a case of a transgendered person (man to woman) having their penis and testes removed, and a vagina formed through surgical means.

If that happens, then I could consider that person a woman; sure. I don't know if it happens that way or not though.

In regards to the military, what many in this thread are not taking into account is that transgendered people DO have to be given special treatment to an extent in the military. A transgendered man cannot shower or bunk with women, and vise-versa. So are they comfortable sleeping or showering with those of the "opposite" gender?

And that's just one issue. Imagine what it's like for sailors on 8-month deployments out at sea. The military neither has the time, patience, or the priority to give special treatment to such cases, nor do they want to deal with the legal nightmare of screwing something of this nature up.

If transgendered folks can serve in the military without being a burden (financially or strategically) to the tax payers or their comrades, and without being given special treatments, then I support it 100%.
 
Maybe it happens, but I've yet to hear of a case of a transgendered person (man to woman) having their penis and testes removed, and a vagina formed through surgical means.

If that happens, then I could consider that person a woman; sure. I don't know if it happens that way or not though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_reassignment_surgery

It does happen; the woman veteran I talked about before had the full meal deal done, "top" and "bottom" surgery, as it's colloquially called. A lot of folks do it, but not everyone.

The rest of your opinions on the subject are worthless trash, except for the basic concept that you're okay with trans people serving if they aren't an undue burden. Your definition of undue burden is garbage, but at least you're on the right track.

As for the rest of what I've been talking about, I decided that if you guys can post your shitty-ass opinions about me and my people, I can post shitty-ass opinions about things too. I'm tired of playing nice and being good to somehow maintain the respect of people who view me as less than human. Fuck them, and fuck that. I'm staying as long as I can, and I'm going to be louder and more obnoxious than the people who spout bullshit like they have the fucking moral high ground over me.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_reassignment_surgery

It does happen; the woman veteran I talked about before had the full meal deal done, "top" and "bottom" surgery, as it's colloquially called. A lot of folks do it, but not everyone.

The rest of your opinions on the subject are worthless trash, except for the basic concept that you're okay with trans people serving if they aren't an undue burden. Your definition of undue burden is garbage, but at least you're on the right track.

As for the rest of what I've been talking about, I decided that if you guys can post your shitty-ass opinions about me and my people, I can post shitty-ass opinions about things too. I'm tired of playing nice and being good to somehow maintain the respect of people who view me as less than human. Fuck them, and fuck that. I'm staying as long as I can, and I'm going to be louder and more obnoxious than the people who spout bullshit like they have the fucking moral high ground over me.

So my opinion is trash because I believe that those who go into the military to serve their country shouldn't be a burden to the country they're serving?

Okay. I can live with that, thank you.

But hey....you believe in taxing anyone who's successful at 100% and having the government take their earned property. So fuck you too.
 
So my opinion is trash because I believe that those who go into the military to serve their country shouldn't be a burden to the country they're serving?

Not at all; that opinion actually isn't trash! It was actually kind of humane. Your definition of burden is trash, that's all. :ghoti:
 
I agree.

Time to close the VA! It's enabling burdens.

futurama-fry-you-win-this-round-but-we-shall-meet-again.jpg


Not at all; that opinion actually isn't trash! It was actually kind of humane. Your definition of burden is trash, that's all. :ghoti:

My definition of "burden" is special treatments given while enlisted, such as $100,000 surgeries for a new gender (which is not a NEED), and special privileges given by the military to accommodate your new gender, such as a separate bathroom and dorm.

No other soldier gets special accommodations when they sign up, so why should you?

And if you feel that you NEED a new gender in order to survive, and you instead choose to go into the military, then you need to reevaluate your priorities in life.
 
As for the rest of what I've been talking about, I decided that if you guys can post your shitty-ass opinions about me and my people, I can post shitty-ass opinions about things too. I'm tired of playing nice and being good to somehow maintain the respect of people who view me as less than human. Fuck them, and fuck that. I'm staying as long as I can, and I'm going to be louder and more obnoxious than the people who spout bullshit like they have the fucking moral high ground over me.
this line caused a question to come to my mind, and I apologize if it comes off as disrespectful, but I've got to ask.

How does the trans community view the notion of species dysphoria in relation to gender dysphoria? Is the former considered less valid than the latter? Or is someone who legitimately self-identifies as a dog to be treated and accepted as such comparably to how you are to be as a woman?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top