Transgenderism - A Thread of Its Own
- Thread starter Tim Steelersfan
- Start date
@Sarge gonna love this one.
Diversity is our strength. Except, apparently, the more diversity the military seeks, the less strength it requires.
That seems to be the lesson of the Army’s physical fitness standards, which do not apply to people who are getting “gender-affirming” care.
One of the shibboleths of the Left is the claim that increasing the acceptance of “gender-diverse” individuals into the military merely extends the same opportunities to transgender folks as those afforded to people who identify with their natal sex (man, finding the right words is impossible when discussing these issues!).
Combine this idea with the claim that “diversity is our strength,” and you are led to believe that the military will be improved by expanding opportunities to transgender applicants.
Yeah, right. Even the Army doesn’t believe that, and they are the ones saying it.
Notice that Maj. Rachel Jones is a bit…fat? Yeah, well, there is a reason for that.
Jones doesn’t have to meet physical fitness standards that apply to everybody else in the Army. Fancy that.
Apparently, the military doesn’t believe that transgender soldiers are just like everybody else, and in order to keep them on active duty they have thrown standards out the window.
The military is going through a crisis with weight–since 2001 the number of soldiers who are classified as overweight has skyrocketed by over 400%, and much of that has to do with accommodating a more “diverse” military. Women, Blacks, and Hispanics have higher rates of obesity in the military than Whites do, suggesting that the standards apply differently to different categories of people.
“Diversity is our strength” seems the opposite of the truth, at least as the military seeks to achieve it.
One of the lies we are being told, relentlessly, is that when the military makes efforts to expand the types of people admitted into the services the standards applied will remain the same. This has been clearly false forever. This has been particularly true when it comes to sex differences. As we know, different standards of physical fitness are applied to men and women, in opposition to what we were told when recruitment opened up, and now we see that the standards have been changed even more drastically for transgender people.
On its face, the argument that being transgender would present no barrier to military service is absurd, simply because transgender soldiers require constant medical care in order to maintain their gender treatments. Regardless of any other potential issues, this alone should make policymakers leery of including transgender-identifying people in the rolls of active duty personnel.
The military, though, is a social scientist’s playground. Under total control of the government, it is easy to use as a laboratory for ideological experiments.
In a sense I am sympathetic to the impulse–it is just so tempting, and in some cases, the military has been a proving ground for beneficial social change. Race integration is a great example of this.
But the impulse is dangerous; it is just too tempting, and the consequences of getting it wrong are especially high. Lives are literally at stake.
Exempting an entire class of people from physical fitness standards is the opposite of proving that “diversity is our strength,” both because in this case “strength” is in this case the opposite of the truth and because it will heighten not lower resentment toward transgender people who are as usual getting a better deal than everybody else.
As you know, the military is having a recruiting problem simultaneously with the changes they have made. Any chance that the problem is related? You decide.
This is in line, though, with other claims related to transgenderism, which are all based upon the rejection of biological facts. Alphabet ideology and also critical theory is based on the idea that reality bends to our will and is infinitely flexible.
Neither is true, and that will be made abundantly clear when the bullets fly.
Army exempts trans service members from physical fitness standards
Diversity is our strength. Except, apparently, the more diversity the military seeks, the less strength it requires.
That seems to be the lesson of the Army’s physical fitness standards, which do not apply to people who are getting “gender-affirming” care.
One of the shibboleths of the Left is the claim that increasing the acceptance of “gender-diverse” individuals into the military merely extends the same opportunities to transgender folks as those afforded to people who identify with their natal sex (man, finding the right words is impossible when discussing these issues!).
Combine this idea with the claim that “diversity is our strength,” and you are led to believe that the military will be improved by expanding opportunities to transgender applicants.
Yeah, right. Even the Army doesn’t believe that, and they are the ones saying it.
Notice that Maj. Rachel Jones is a bit…fat? Yeah, well, there is a reason for that.
Jones doesn’t have to meet physical fitness standards that apply to everybody else in the Army. Fancy that.
Apparently, the military doesn’t believe that transgender soldiers are just like everybody else, and in order to keep them on active duty they have thrown standards out the window.
The military is going through a crisis with weight–since 2001 the number of soldiers who are classified as overweight has skyrocketed by over 400%, and much of that has to do with accommodating a more “diverse” military. Women, Blacks, and Hispanics have higher rates of obesity in the military than Whites do, suggesting that the standards apply differently to different categories of people.
“Diversity is our strength” seems the opposite of the truth, at least as the military seeks to achieve it.
One of the lies we are being told, relentlessly, is that when the military makes efforts to expand the types of people admitted into the services the standards applied will remain the same. This has been clearly false forever. This has been particularly true when it comes to sex differences. As we know, different standards of physical fitness are applied to men and women, in opposition to what we were told when recruitment opened up, and now we see that the standards have been changed even more drastically for transgender people.
On its face, the argument that being transgender would present no barrier to military service is absurd, simply because transgender soldiers require constant medical care in order to maintain their gender treatments. Regardless of any other potential issues, this alone should make policymakers leery of including transgender-identifying people in the rolls of active duty personnel.
The military, though, is a social scientist’s playground. Under total control of the government, it is easy to use as a laboratory for ideological experiments.
In a sense I am sympathetic to the impulse–it is just so tempting, and in some cases, the military has been a proving ground for beneficial social change. Race integration is a great example of this.
But the impulse is dangerous; it is just too tempting, and the consequences of getting it wrong are especially high. Lives are literally at stake.
Exempting an entire class of people from physical fitness standards is the opposite of proving that “diversity is our strength,” both because in this case “strength” is in this case the opposite of the truth and because it will heighten not lower resentment toward transgender people who are as usual getting a better deal than everybody else.
As you know, the military is having a recruiting problem simultaneously with the changes they have made. Any chance that the problem is related? You decide.
This is in line, though, with other claims related to transgenderism, which are all based upon the rejection of biological facts. Alphabet ideology and also critical theory is based on the idea that reality bends to our will and is infinitely flexible.
Neither is true, and that will be made abundantly clear when the bullets fly.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,733
- Reaction score
- 22,725
- Points
- 113
Well Army can't pick on Navy about drag shows anymore.
Do the Marine have a trans mascot as well. I've yet to see that one.
Do the Marine have a trans mascot as well. I've yet to see that one.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,595
- Reaction score
- 17,729
- Points
- 113
You gotta be shittin me. Just one step closer to the fall of the empire.
The Army is also doing away with organized PT. Soldiers will PT on their own. Gonna be awesome when a brigade worth of people fall out of the next Division run.
The Army is also doing away with organized PT. Soldiers will PT on their own. Gonna be awesome when a brigade worth of people fall out of the next Division run.
@Sarge gonna love this one.
Army exempts trans service members from physical fitness standards
Diversity is our strength. Except, apparently, the more diversity the military seeks, the less strength it requires.
That seems to be the lesson of the Army’s physical fitness standards, which do not apply to people who are getting “gender-affirming” care.
One of the shibboleths of the Left is the claim that increasing the acceptance of “gender-diverse” individuals into the military merely extends the same opportunities to transgender folks as those afforded to people who identify with their natal sex (man, finding the right words is impossible when discussing these issues!).
Combine this idea with the claim that “diversity is our strength,” and you are led to believe that the military will be improved by expanding opportunities to transgender applicants.
Yeah, right. Even the Army doesn’t believe that, and they are the ones saying it.
Notice that Maj. Rachel Jones is a bit…fat? Yeah, well, there is a reason for that.
Jones doesn’t have to meet physical fitness standards that apply to everybody else in the Army. Fancy that.
Apparently, the military doesn’t believe that transgender soldiers are just like everybody else, and in order to keep them on active duty they have thrown standards out the window.
The military is going through a crisis with weight–since 2001 the number of soldiers who are classified as overweight has skyrocketed by over 400%, and much of that has to do with accommodating a more “diverse” military. Women, Blacks, and Hispanics have higher rates of obesity in the military than Whites do, suggesting that the standards apply differently to different categories of people.
“Diversity is our strength” seems the opposite of the truth, at least as the military seeks to achieve it.
One of the lies we are being told, relentlessly, is that when the military makes efforts to expand the types of people admitted into the services the standards applied will remain the same. This has been clearly false forever. This has been particularly true when it comes to sex differences. As we know, different standards of physical fitness are applied to men and women, in opposition to what we were told when recruitment opened up, and now we see that the standards have been changed even more drastically for transgender people.
On its face, the argument that being transgender would present no barrier to military service is absurd, simply because transgender soldiers require constant medical care in order to maintain their gender treatments. Regardless of any other potential issues, this alone should make policymakers leery of including transgender-identifying people in the rolls of active duty personnel.
The military, though, is a social scientist’s playground. Under total control of the government, it is easy to use as a laboratory for ideological experiments.
In a sense I am sympathetic to the impulse–it is just so tempting, and in some cases, the military has been a proving ground for beneficial social change. Race integration is a great example of this.
But the impulse is dangerous; it is just too tempting, and the consequences of getting it wrong are especially high. Lives are literally at stake.
Exempting an entire class of people from physical fitness standards is the opposite of proving that “diversity is our strength,” both because in this case “strength” is in this case the opposite of the truth and because it will heighten not lower resentment toward transgender people who are as usual getting a better deal than everybody else.
As you know, the military is having a recruiting problem simultaneously with the changes they have made. Any chance that the problem is related? You decide.
This is in line, though, with other claims related to transgenderism, which are all based upon the rejection of biological facts. Alphabet ideology and also critical theory is based on the idea that reality bends to our will and is infinitely flexible.
Neither is true, and that will be made abundantly clear when the bullets fly.
Well, we all feel safer now.
They’re also not going to test for weed anymore, so you can get stoned to bejezus now. It’ll be interesting to see how accurate bombs are with everyone pie-eyed.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,595
- Reaction score
- 17,729
- Points
- 113
I hadn’t heard that. Not sure why weed isn’t legal nationwide.
Agreed. I just heard about it on the radio yesterday.
To name a couple we've had Illegal immigrants become "undocumented citizens" and pro-abortion being "reproductive rights."
We now have pedophiles being re-named MAPS- Minor Attracted Persons.
In liberalism there are no lines that can't be crossed.
We now have pedophiles being re-named MAPS- Minor Attracted Persons.
In liberalism there are no lines that can't be crossed.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,733
- Reaction score
- 22,725
- Points
- 113
Yep. They normalize the abnormal,evil is good and good is evil.
This type of society has been seen many times in many empires over thousands of years. They all met their demise because of it. Ours will be no different and while the idea of America is a unique moment in time, what destroys us will not be unique.
I mean we're watching it in real time and it's happening fast.
UK cancer trust suggests 'bonus hole' as term for 'vagina'
Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust, a United Kingdom-based non-profit, is offering alternative vocabulary for women's genitalia to increase what the organization is saying is inclusivity in medical language.
According to the cancer trust's official glossary of LGBT-inclusive terms, "bonus hole" is an optional term for "vagina" in the context of cancer treatment.
According to its website, the trust offers the following definition and guidelines: "An alternative word for the vagina. It is important to check which words someone would prefer to use."
The glossary also offers "front hole" as an alternative term for a vagina.
"Using the correct language when referring to someone’s gender identity is a simple and effective way to demonstrate support and recognition," Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust states in the glossary section of its official website.
"If incorrect language is used without being corrected, it can cause someone to feel hurt or distressed. This may lead them to leave and to eventually seek support elsewhere."
Fox News Digital reached out to Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust for clarification on the term and on what basis the recommendation is made.
"The information is from a webpage written for health professionals to support trans men and / or non-binary patients with a cervix to attend cervical screening," Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust told Fox News Digital. "The page includes a glossary of terms they may hear from their patients and was developed with expert organisations who work with the LGBT community."
The statement continued, "Our mission at Jo’s is to prevent as many cervical cancers as possible, and a big part of that is increasing uptake of cervical screening. Women are our main audience for this, however some trans men and / or non-binary people have cervixes and to reduce as many cervical cancers as possible we also provide information for this group."
Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust began operation in 2000 after being founded by British businessman James Maxwell.
The trust was named after Maxwell's wife, Jo, who died of cervical cancer in 1999.
two for one - kick Barry in the chin
"Shouldn't vagina just be termed 'money pit',?"
/Ogurr
Many of those great empires were around for hundreds if not thousands of years.
America? Not even 250 yet. How quickly that cancer of liberalism spreads, eh?
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,733
- Reaction score
- 22,725
- Points
- 113
And it's all self inflicted. Nobody is conquering us. Well at least not yet. Eventually when we've weakened enough by our own foolishness, someone will come for a chunk of this prime real-estate we occupy.
Oh come on, Sarge, it's not like soldiers may have to walk or run significant distances. We have Uber for that! And solar-powered buses! And it's not like soldiers can be stuck in a location for hours, even days or weeks, at a time and have lower body fat to reduce the craving for food that fat causes. Also, there is no conceivable benefit to being fit and strong, such as being able to carry heavy items for long distances or having a slower heart rate associated with being fit!
I mean seriously, does anybody think an elevated heart rate makes it more difficult to do tasks like reload a rifle, or hold the iron sights or reticle steady?!? I know that when I am shooting at something 200 yards away, the reticle is absolutely still, just like in the movies, so if my heart rate is 90 or 160, no difference! It's not like my heart rate makes the reticle bounce up and down like a ******* 6-year old on a trampoline!
Long live the trans-Army! The soldiers might be fat, wheeze going up stairs, unable to walk let alone run long distances, unable to keep the iron sights focused due to a hammering heart rate, unable to endure 48 hours without a meal and without their bodies screaming for more calories, unable to carry heavy packs for 20 miles, unable to change ammunition under harsh conditions, but damn it, man, the equity will overcome!*
* Offered by someone who has worked out most of his life, now works out 7 days per week, has run a marathon, multiple half-marathons, too many 10k's to count, shot a 5.56 at 200-yard distances with a 3x scope (4x and higher just bounced around too damn much because of my lack of equity), and has a body fat of a little over 12% at age 62. My wife rowed crew in college and both my kids played Div 1 sports. We care about fitness. I learned very early on that being fit mattered and that being EXTREMELY fit was very beneficial. When we face stress, our heart rates increase. When our heart rates increase, every task becomes a bit more difficult. When the stress is substantial - like somebody shooting at you and trying to kill you - your heart rate increases substantially, your body just does not work the same and as a result your mind does not work the same. The best deterrent to having your heart rate become a potentially debilitating issue is to start with a very low resting heart rate, i.e., being fit.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,733
- Reaction score
- 22,725
- Points
- 113
I think this joke has gone on long enough. Somehow we need to curb stomp this bullshit out.
Similar threads
