Transgender Military Ban

[Rattler]

LOL!  Tyranny is Tranny when you remove the ability to inject a y into the subject.

I crack myself up.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Rattler

[ATbuckhunter]

I am, but that fact is irrelevant and unrelated to the issue.  But I can tell you the current attitude of active military personnel.  Tranny's are creating issues and hurting morale.  Nuff said.

Interesting you should say that, because I have seen a lot support from current military members. Everyone of my friends in the military have come out in support of their fellow soldiers. Many of these friends are republicans and voted for trump as well. Seems to me the people having an issue with tranny's in the military are people who are not in the military.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greg54]

To answer someones question, yes I am a vet. And I talked to my nephew other day who is with the 82nd Airborne stationed in Afghanistan and he mentioned there is high support and morale in support of President Trumps decision to ban transgender from the military and he himself supports it also.

[The_Field_Ager]

2 hours ago, greg54 said:

To answer someones question, yes I am a vet. And I talked to my nephew other day who is with the 82nd Airborne stationed in Afghanistan and he mentioned there is high support and morale in support of President Trumps decision to ban transgender from the military and he himself supports it also.

Can't argue with that. These minority groups also cause issues and assert themselves in negative ways wherever they get a foot-hold,  be that in Colleges or the military

[Culvercreek hunt club]

8 hours ago, ATbuckhunter said:

Interesting you should say that, because I have seen a lot support from current military members. Everyone of my friends in the military have come out in support of their fellow soldiers. Many of these friends are republicans and voted for trump as well. Seems to me the people having an issue with tranny's in the military are people who are not in the military.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wonder how the support or resistance shakes out when you look at combat troops vs those that are support positions. 

[Five Seasons]

14 hours ago, Rattler said:

I am, but that fact is irrelevant and unrelated to the issue.  But I can tell you the current attitude of active military personnel.  Tranny's are creating issues and hurting morale.  Nuff said.

you haven't. Are you a vet or are you active military? To judge those who want to serve if you haven't laced up the boots yourself very much seems relevant to me. 

[Five Seasons]

2 hours ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

I wonder how the support or resistance shakes out when you look at combat troops vs those that are support positions. 

really my point on page 1. You can be in the military and support the troops without ever touching a gun.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Belo

[Buckmaster7600]

I wonder how the support or resistance shakes out when you look at combat troops vs those that are support positions. 

I was in the Marine Corps for 8 years from 05-14 as an infantryman with 4 combat tours I'll say this. I don't care where you fall on the "l-g-b-t-q...." Spectrum if you're any sex other than male or if you don't know what sex you are, I have absolutely no problem with you serving for our country but you need not be anywhere near the front lines. The combat arms should be filled with nothing but men whom know they are men.

I would say that 99% of the men I served with share my same same view.

If it matters my political views are very socially liberal and very fiscally conservative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ATbuckhunter]

I was in the Marine Corps for 8 years from 05-14 as an infantryman with 4 combat tours I'll say this. I don't care where you fall on the "l-g-b-t-q...." Spectrum if you're any sex other than male or if you don't know what sex you are, I have absolutely no problem with you serving for our country but you need not be anywhere near the front lines. The combat arms should be filled with nothing but men whom know they are men.

I would say that 99% of the men I served with share my same same view.

If it matters my political views are very socially liberal and very fiscally conservative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I certainly respect your views and weigh your opinion heavily as someone who has served in active combat, but I do have a question for you. Say a fellow soldier did identify as trans while serving over there and did his job adequately...would you want him to be removed from the frontline?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Buckmaster7600]

I certainly respect your views and weigh your opinion heavily as someone who has served in active combat, but I do have a question for you. Say a fellow soldier did identify as trans while serving over there and did his job adequately...would you want him to be removed from the frontline?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem with this whole bag of worms is that the juice isn't worth the squeeze, yes I'm sure there are a couple "place label here" that would do a great job but it is simply not worth the risk of having an added burden on an already extremely taxed brain and I'm not talking about the individual I'm talking about those around them.

No different than females being allowed in combat arms. Are there a very select few females that can do the job? Absolutely but the number is so few it is simply not worth adding all of the negative impact for such little gain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ATbuckhunter]

The problem with this whole bag of worms is that the juice isn't worth the squeeze, yes I'm sure there are a couple "place label here" that would do a great job but it is simply not worth the risk of having an added burden on an already extremely taxed brain and I'm not talking about the individual I'm talking about those around them.

No different than females being allowed in combat arms. Are there a very select few females that can do the job? Absolutely but the number is so few it is simply not worth adding all of the negative impact for such little gain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okay I can respect what your saying. I still would say you can't stop a person from serving in the military if they want due to their gender, but I can't say that my views should out weigh the views of the soldiers that have served and are serving in active combat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Buckmaster7600]

Okay I can respect what your saying. I still would say you can't stop a person from serving in the military if they want due to their gender, but I can't say that my views should out weigh the views of the soldiers that have served and are serving in active combat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree100%, gender should have absolutely nothing to do with being able to serve in the military but there are and should always be certain jobs that only males can do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rattler]

No one is being stopped from serving because of their gender if they qualify to serve.  People are being stopped for being gender confused, which is a cause to disqualify.  

For all who say they support trannys in the military if they can do the job, why are you not protesting the age limit for entry into the military if the older people can do the job?  There are many more older men capable of passing basic training and serving well, than there are trannys who could do the job.

[Buckmaster7600]

No one is being stopped from serving because of their gender if they qualify to serve.  People are being stopped for being gender confused, which is a cause to disqualify.  
For all who say they support trannys in the military if they can do the job, why are you not protesting the age limit for entry into the military if the older people can do the job?  There are many more older men capable of passing basic training and serving well, than there are trannys who could do the job.

What kind of statistics do you you have to back this claim? The reason for an age cap on military entry has absolutely nothing to do with ability to pass a physical test it is due likelihood of injury with increasing age.

Have some facts before making stupid claims or you make yourself look ignorant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rattler]

2 hours ago, Belo said:

you haven't. Are you a vet or are you active military? To judge those who want to serve if you haven't laced up the boots yourself very much seems relevant to me. 

I'm almost 62 now, so I am not active duty.  Navy from 80-84 after graduating college. I was in Washington, D.C. and never out of the country.  

People who wanted to serve then were always judged on physical conditions as to their fitness for duty.  Today they are still judged on physical conditions.  My son was denied entry into the Marines because he had tubes in his right ear until he was 18 and they wanted to wait 2 years to see if the issue was fixed.  He wasn't about to put his life on hold for 2 years, especially since the hearing in his right ear wasn't 100% anymore.  It didn't matter that many Marines come out of basic training with hearing loss.

 

[Rattler]

6 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

What kind of statistics do you you have to back this claim? The reason for an age cap on military entry has absolutely nothing to do with ability to pass a physical test it is due likelihood of injury with increasing age.

Have some facts before making stupid claims or you make yourself look ignorant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We can look at how many active duty military we have that are already above the entry age limit and still serving in combat roles.  We can also look at active duty Police and Firefighters above the military cut off age.  We can also look at the general population which includes many people very much into physical fitness and cardio vascular activity who are sometimes more capable of physical activity than many America college students are.  What kind of stats do we have that prove people who've had sex changes are not more prone to injury?

That's not the issue though.  If you are going to start looking at individuals on a case by case basis regarding their ability to serve, you should be supporting giving older people a chance to serve, based on whether they can do the job, just like you want to do with trannys.

[Five Seasons]

2 hours ago, ATbuckhunter said:

Okay I can respect what your saying. I still would say you can't stop a person from serving in the military if they want due to their gender, but I can't say that my views should out weigh the views of the soldiers that have served and are serving in active combat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think my stance with gender is the same as most. You're not a good fit on the front lines. Men are physically superior. Fact. Men are less of a hostage bargaining chip if captured. fact.

But there are many jobs in the military (more and more today than ever before) that aren't the front lines. And to that I say, let Americans serve. We're fighting all these boarder wars and chanting USA while wanting to deport all the illegals, but wont let our own citizens serve their country? seems hypocritical. 

[Five Seasons]

34 minutes ago, Rattler said:

There are many more older men capable of passing basic training and serving well, than there are trannys who could do the job.

that should be fixed to, but i would guess that age comes with unpredictable risk too. How many times have you heard of the guy in great shape who dropped dead of a heart attack?

[Five Seasons]

13 minutes ago, Rattler said:

What kind of stats do we have that prove people who've had sex changes are not more prone to injury?

 

so now we're concerned about those who already have had the change? I thought the origianal post was about the gov't paying for the surgery? You yourself said that if they need to take hormone pills they're dq'd. No argument. But if someone with a dick feels like a woman and wants to serve, pre-surgery and pills who cares? Same goes for homosexuals. I don't freaking care what you dream about at night. If you can shoot the wing off a fly at 100 yards and will jump on a grenade for me, you're welcome in my foxhole. 

[Buckmaster7600]

We can look at how many active duty military we have that are already above the entry age limit and still serving in combat roles.  We can also look at active duty Police and Firefighters above the military cut off age.  We can also look at the general population which includes many people very much into physical fitness and cardio vascular activity who are sometimes more capable of physical activity than many America college students are.  What kind of stats do we have that prove people who've had sex changes are not more prone to injury?
That's not the issue though.  If you are going to start looking at individuals on a case by case basis regarding their ability to serve, you should be supporting giving older people a chance to serve, based on whether they can do the job, just like you want to do with trannys.

The number of active duty military that are above the maximum entry age that are still in combat roles is an extremely small number from my experience in the marine corps.

To be a truly "combat" role in the Marines you would be an E-1-E-6 or 0-1-0-2 average age is probably 21-22 for a deployed infantry battalion with less than 5% of the battalion of roughly 1000 marines being over age 30. So that gives us 50 marines in the battalion over age 30. Battalion has 5 company's every company has a company commander "0-4" company 1st Sgt. "E-8", company Gunnery Sgt. "E-7" and a company "XO" Captain "O-3". With 5 platoons per company each platoon with a Platoon Sgt. Usually a Gunnery Sgt. "E-7" or senior staff Sgt. "E-6" that is likely over age 30 the platoon will also have a Platoon Commander that is a Commissioned Officer and is generally under age well under age 30 so we won't count him. So that work out to roughly 9 marines over age 30 in a infantry company. Multiply that number times 5 for the number of companies In a Battalion and you get 45 Marines over age 30. Then you have to add the Battalion Commander "O-5-O-6", Battalion Sgt.. Major "E-9", Battalion "XO" "O-4-O-5", Battalion Gunner "CWO3-4" battalion Master Gunnery Sgt., add in a handful of other unimportant high ranking people like the Battalion chaplain etc and we end up darn near the original 5% or 50 Marines. Now the Amount of all of these people whom are likely to actively engage in combat is very very small. Because other than the Platoon Sgt.'s. Very rarely will any of the other listed individuals be involved in an active combat situation.

So your point is simply not a valid one. Now I was only in the Marines so other might have different experiences. The marine Corps actively tried to keep the average age young for good reason. They do this by putting Capps on how long you can stay in at certain ranks.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Culvercreek hunt club]

1 hour ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

What kind of statistics do you you have to back this claim? The reason for an age cap on military entry has absolutely nothing to do with ability to pass a physical test it is due likelihood of injury with increasing age.

Have some facts before making stupid claims or you make yourself look ignorant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Marines I think cap at 28. So a 28 year old is that much more capable and durable than a 29 year old?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

44 minutes ago, Belo said:

so now we're concerned about those who already have had the change? I thought the origianal post was about the gov't paying for the surgery? You yourself said that if they need to take hormone pills they're dq'd. No argument. But if someone with a dick feels like a woman and wants to serve, pre-surgery and pills who cares? Same goes for homosexuals. I don't freaking care what you dream about at night. If you can shoot the wing off a fly at 100 yards and will jump on a grenade for me, you're welcome in my foxhole. 

I can buy that. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

26 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

 

 

The number of active duty military that are above the maximum entry age that are still in combat roles is an extremely small number from my experience in the marine corps.

To be a truly "combat" role in the Marines you would be an E-1-E-6 or 0-1-0-2 average age is probably 21-22 for a deployed infantry battalion with less than 5% of the battalion of roughly 1000 marines being over age 30. So that gives us 50 marines in the battalion over age 30. Battalion has 5 company's every company has a company commander "0-4" company 1st Sgt. "E-8", company Gunnery Sgt. "E-7" and a company "XO" Captain "O-3". With 5 platoons per company each platoon with a Platoon Sgt. Usually a Gunnery Sgt. "E-7" or senior staff Sgt. "E-6" that is likely over age 30 the platoon will also have a Platoon Commander that is a Commissioned Officer and is generally under age well under age 30 so we won't count him. So that work out to roughly 9 marines over age 30 in a infantry company. Multiply that number times 5 for the number of companies In a Battalion and you get 45 Marines over age 30. Then you have to add the Battalion Commander "O-5-O-6", Battalion Sgt.. Major "E-9", Battalion "XO" "O-4-O-5", Battalion Gunner "CWO3-4" battalion Master Gunnery Sgt., add in a handful of other unimportant high ranking people like the Battalion chaplain etc and we end up darn near the original 5% or 50 Marines. Now the Amount of all of these people whom are likely to actively engage in combat is very very small. Because other than the Platoon Sgt.'s. Very rarely will any of the other listed individuals be involved in an active combat situation.

So your point is simply not a valid one. Now I was only in the Marines so other might have different experiences. The marine Corps actively tried to keep the average age young for good reason. They do this by putting Capps on how long you can stay in at certain ranks.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

As mall as those numbers are it seems like they are still higher than the numbers of Tranny's from what I have seen. So his point still seems valid. 

Edited August 1, 2017 by Culvercreek hunt club

[Elmo]

I agree that if someone wishes to serve the country, they sex and sexual orientation should not matter but when it comes to the frontline, abled body males will get the vote each and every time.  I understand that there are some women out there that will out perform some men and there are some gay men who has more balls than some straight men but it's not like they have years to get to know each other.  If I told you that I am going to randomly pick a person and whether you live or die will be purely on this person's performance in the battlefield each and everyone one of you will hope that the person I pick comes out looking the The Rock.

[steve863]

On 8/1/2017 at 3:18 PM, Belo said:

 Same goes for homosexuals. I don't freaking care what you dream about at night. If you can shoot the wing off a fly at 100 yards and will jump on a grenade for me, you're welcome in my foxhole. 

Jeez, I had to read these couple of sentences again.  I somehow didn't see the fox before the hole when I read it the first time.  Glad I've now straightened out which hole you were welcoming them into!!