Mods forgive me.

FUCKING CIVVIES REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Most people will never see anything more than a mortar landing near their FOB, if they even ever deploy. A trans 42A isn't going to cause Brigade to stop working. A trans mechanic isn't going to cause anarchy in the motor pool. A trans 92F isn't going to make all the fuelers go on strike and hold up the entire Army from maneuvering. A trans 68w is not going to make soldiers refuse medical care.  Jesus fucking Christ.

Besides, the DOD had a memo going around last summer with a timeline outlying some kind of program that ends with the dismissal of the trans ban in May. Recent news points to a very likely repeal of the ban come Spring this year.

Assuming you're replying to me:
Your opinion on this is worth far more than mine since I've never served. But I am only talking about life/death situations. I don't give a damn if someone can do their job and is also trans/gay/black/whatever, but if that makes it harder for other people to do their job and if the consequences of screwing up is death (or any other serious injury), then I don't think that's a concern that should just be laughed off.

Quote from: Cadenza on February 03, 2016, 12:29:54 PM

Quote from: Kal on February 03, 2016, 12:10:41 AM

And lol, unit cohesion. That's the same stupid excuse people use every time. First it was black soldiers, then it was women, and now this.

To be fair, if you're going into a life/death situation, you would want to have the best chance of making it back alive. The fact that you're laughing at people's concern only proves their point.

Having black or gay men doesn't break cohesion unless the squad is made up of racists and homophobes. The same principle applies to trans men.

And what do you stand to gain by forcing gays and blacks to be part of a squad of racists and homophobes? Maybe they'll drop their prejudices but why take the risk? I'm posting in this thread because I don't understand why some people want to force politics into a life/death situation.

Assuming you're replying to me:

Can't really say it's to anyone in particular.

Quote from: BUILD DAS WALL on February 03, 2016, 04:11:05 PM

Quote from: Cadenza on February 03, 2016, 04:06:12 PM

Assuming you're replying to me:

Can't really say it's to anyone in particular.

Was it to me?

If you want it to be, I guess.
Really just a general reply to what seems to be a collective train of thought.

Of course, this depends entirely on what kind of trans person is being considered. FtM? Absolutely not, female anatomy is suboptimal for combat roles.

Y-you understand why men have more muscles than women right?

It starts with "T" and ends with "estosterone".

Quote from: Cadenza on February 03, 2016, 04:06:12 PM

And what do you stand to gain by forcing gays and blacks to be part of a squad of racists and homophobes? Maybe they'll drop their prejudices but why take the risk? I'm posting in this thread because I don't understand why some people want to force politics into a life/death situation.

If you're going to exempt someone from service maybe it should be the people who stand to prevent a criteria of people from being able to do their job.

That's my point; if a certain demographic puts lives at risk (be they trans/gay/black/women/etc...) then just don't put lives at risk, send them somewhere else. And if there's nowhere else (which according to DAS is unlikely) then tough shit, the purpose of the military isn't to kill it's own soldiers by pandering to political whims.

See if the military was predominately composed of trans people and they were just as effective as a military composed of non-trans people, then the only sensible idea is to not allow people prejudiced against trans people to be put in roles where it could get people killed. But that isn't how it is.

You don't keep someone who puts prejudice before the mission.

Removing people that are capable of doing their job in the name of your personal politics is counterproductive.