New Dress Regs 🤣

[btrudy]

You don’t get to decide that.


So while debating inclusion, respecting others…you feel justified in doing the opposite.

Like I said, credibility and all that…

Credibility? How about "don't pass a fault"? Aren't we professionally obligated to be calling out unacceptable behaviour?

Bigotry has no place in the CAF, and I'll be damned if I'm going to refrain from using the word just because it makes bigots and their pals feel bad about themselves when they do. You're supposed to feel shame when you do shameful things.

The point of respecting others is respecting them for who they are.

The things they choose to do, on the other hand, you're allowed to judge them on that. Bigotry is a choice. Choosing to express bigotry, be it in the workplace or online is likewise also a choice. I'll judge people who choose to express hatred, just as I'll judge people who choose to assault others, or drink on the job, or harass people in the workplace, or invade Ukraine.

Unacceptable behaviour should be called out. And expressing bigotry is unacceptable.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

And that what I am not doing; passing yours.

My mom used to say “2 wrongs don’t make a right”.

“…at all times / places”. There’s a shall in there too. We don’t get to edit the policy to support our personal stances or opinions.

 

[btrudy]

Agree to disagree then I guess, I refuse to refrain from calling out bigotry for what it is.

2 wrongs don't make a right, but I strongly believe I'm in the right here.

 

[Weinie]

That'd be the Paradox of tolerance at work, now wouldn't it?

When someone's literally saying that we shouldn't bother recruiting trans people, because they come with too much baggage.... well, that is a clearly transphobic viewpoint, that should not be tolerated.

Because the one thing that'll destroy the concept of respecting the dignity of others? Ignoring it when people are not doing so.

Being a transphobe (or any other form of bigotry while we're at it), is not after all a protected class under the charter. I'm under no obligation, legally or morally to consider that to be a legitimate viewpoint worthy of respect. It, by its very nature, is indeed inherently disrespectful, and I'm morally obligated to treat it as such.

Tolerant: showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

Tolerance: the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

I think we have all been tolerant, to some extent, of the opinions that have been listed on this forum.

Tolerance may be a bridge too far, for some folks on both sides of the equation.

And in rebuttal of your Paradox of Tolerance. The same site lists an article that completely disputes your citation.

Balance theory - Wikipedia

 

[btrudy]

I can tolerate a lot of differences of opinion.

People would prefer that short hair be mandated for men? Fine by me.

People love military parades? Groovy.

People think purple hair is unprofessional? That's just, like, your opinion man.

People think it's perfectly reasonable to call everyone else in the Navy "shipmate" like we're damned Americans? Ugh... fine. You do you (I sure as hell ain't saying it back though!)

People wish they'd bring back the beer fridges in the main cave? Understandable.

Bigotry? Oh hell naw. That is indeed my bridge too far.

And in rebuttal of your Paradox of Tolerance. The same site lists an article that completely disputes your citation.

Balance theory - Wikipedia

Honestly, I don't really think that either article "disputes" what I've been saying. At best it describes the impact that trying to ensure that the Paradox of Tolerance doesn't take root would have on those who are fighting against intolerance. Doing so might be alienating. That's fine. I'm not exactly here seeking approval.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The only people discriminated against by uniform design were women, the 1980's skirts and bowler hats were quite bad. I also be blunt and say that the majority of trans people I have met are not worth the logistical and mental health costs to actively recruit.

@btrudy

This is, I’m assuming, the post CP made that you saw as bigotry.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but while the wording might be “rough” to you/some, I see a valid concern as a taxpayer and CAF member who exists in a highly operational focused world.

Health requirements - if they are higher than average for trans mbrs and detracts from their employability and deployability, that is a legitimate consideration that directly impacts or has the potential to directly impact the CAFs ability to carry out assigned missions; domestic and international. That is why we have recruits medical category requirements, PCATs and medical releases for people who can’t meet minimum requirements for UoS.

I’ve attached a screenshot of Jarnhamers post that you quoted and your reply.

He simply gave a stat in reply to something else you’d said; “get out of the CAF bigot and take your kind with you”.

 

[Weinie]

Honestly, I don't really think that either article "disputes" what I've been saying. At best it describes the impact that trying to ensure that the Paradox of Tolerance doesn't take root would have on those who are fighting against intolerance. Doing so might be alienating. That's fine. I'm not exactly here seeking approval.

Yes, but you still must be mindful of discussion and differing opinions, which is what this site is all about.

 

[btrudy]

This is, I’m assuming, the post CP made that you saw as bigotry.

The one I'm most irate about was this one:

The only people discriminated against by uniform design were women, the 1980's skirts and bowler hats were quite bad. I also be blunt and say that the majority of trans people I have met are not worth the logistical and mental health costs to actively recruit.

 

[OldSolduer]

We’ll see how this works out in a shooting war. I reckon most folks will adopt a more moderate operational dress code, shorter hair, clean shaven (CBRN), etc.

Stop fucking arguing and get on with it FFS.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A set of dress regulations was not designed to discriminate against transsexuals. I suppose it's finitely possible that there's a document somewhere in which someone states that dress regulations should discriminate against transsexuals, but I'd have to see a transcription to believe that.

Media and other public fora are full of discussions about the mental/emotional problems of trans folk, including opinions of people who claim to be or have been trans. It's disrespectful to sweep that under the carpet, dismiss it as illegitimate, or pretend that if we just play along with things in one particular direction, all will be well. People with difficulties are not a means to serve the agendas of others.

 

[OldSolduer]

I honestly don’t think many trans people will be swayed to join.

 

[CBH99]

The one I'm most irate about was this one:

Genuinely curious as someone who is just catching up on the various threads - what was it about either of those posts that made you irate?

Sincere question - one can only learn/grow if their mind is open to it, so I try to make sure mine always is

 

[ArmyRick]

@btrudy
Dude, you need to open your mind to what people are saying. I will be blunt, your very close minded and hell bent on your views. Take my advice or ignore this former old infantry WO, your choice and based on my experiences, could be at your peril.

Have you noticed your comments have almost or basically NO likes? Should be a clue. And the crowd here at army.ca is both left, right, center, liberal, conservative, new thinking, old fuddy duddy, etc. We have all of the spectrum of personalities here.

Right now, your standing on your soap box and telling everyone to share your views or your a bigot/racist/homophobe/transphobe, etc. Not on. At all. If your doing it here, are you shoving your views on others in life too? I hope not.

What your doing is why no one takes the "woke" movement seriously. There is being compassionate, tolerant, accepting and open minded that anyone can adopt and use said traits. And there is also the ability to formulate your own opinion without being hateful, vengeful or in spite of others. We can agree to disagree. Get it yet? Or am I just another privileged white "CIS" male who opinion is so outdated and not worth yours?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

The one I'm most irate about was this one:

@btrudy

I agree the statement was in poor taste and rather blunt. I don’t think it was meant to be malicious, most likely a case of "foot in mouth." Ignorance is not intolerance.

In every case, we have the option of enlightening folks (I.e. "actually, the needs of Trans folk are no more than XYZ group...") or we can call them out on their opinion being bunk (" yeah... unless you can back your opinion with fact, you're kind of being an ass.")

Attacking a person, calling them a bigot, and doubling down on it doesn't inform them of why you found their opinion harmful or upsetting.

Even then, some people just can't be reached. Some people don't listen to reason and some people just don't give a shit. Trying to argue your point with them is like trying to administer medicine to the dead.

@Colin Parkinson made a blunt, off handed comment, and I dont agree with what he said. I also am grateful that hisbpersonal opinion is not what governs CAF Recruitment. He shared his thoughts, they're bunk from where I'm sitting (frankly), but he can hold them dear to his heart all he wants as he no longer serves the CAF.

Not everyone will share your opinion. Not everyone will be beholden to the same values, ethics, and ethos (or their interpretation) as us Trusted to Serve. At the end of the day, we're here to share opinions and thoughts. Some of which are from folks nowhere near the CSD or other regulations we have within the CAF.

If you find issues or are offended by something said, you can address the statement, contact a Mod, or you can ignore it. Keeping the argument going over multiple pages gets us nowhere.

 

[lenaitch]

There is no such thing as "in our private capacities" when it comes to hateful conduct.

Personal comments and views are not hateful unless they fall under the 'hate speech' provisions of the Criminal Code.
Comments and views are not conduct.
Personal grooming and appearance isn't Charter protected (at least not to my understanding)
Personal comments and views are Charter protected unless they cross a very few legally-defined lines.
The Charter binds the State and its agencies but it doesn't bind individual citizens acting in their own capacity.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I stand by my statement that we should not be actively recruiting Trans people. By all means if they happen to apply they should have to go through the same process as anyone else. I also point out that I am not alone in my opinion on mental health issues and the papers support what I have seen with my own eyes.

Suicidality Among Transgender Youth: Elucidating the Role of Interpersonal Risk Factors - PubMed

Data indicate that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide, with suicidality highest among transgender youth. Using minority stress theory and the interpersonal theory of suicide, this study aims to better understand suicide risk among...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Intervenable factors associated with suicide risk in transgender persons: a respondent driven sampling study in Ontario, Canada - BMC Public Health

Background Across Europe, Canada, and the United States, 22–43 % of transgender (trans) people report a history of suicide attempts. We aimed to identify intervenable factors (related to social inclusion, transphobia, or sex/gender transition) associated with reduced risk of past-year suicide...

bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com

The whole situation is not helped by elementary schools pushing gender exploration unto kids that have not even reached puberty and don't know what they don't know yet. Both my daughters have wannabe Trans friends, and they are a mess, mostly wanting to be special and treated as special. Only one of them seems to really know what they want and act as the gender they wish to be. The others are typically confused kids that have to much crap pushed onto them by the education system and groups hell bent in upping their influence, at the expense of the kids they claim to be helping.

 

[Quirky]

and they are a mess, mostly wanting to be special and treated as special.

Poor parenting.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Poor parenting.

A lot of parents here both work full time to stay solvent and they are fighting the education system that jumps onto every bandwagon that comes along, plus determined social media campaigns to push gender exploration onto young kids. Plus as a parent you work with what you get, I have seen bad kids come from good parents and some good kids come from bad parents.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Partly a consequence of smaller families (1 of 4 kids less likely to receive much "special" reinforcement than 1 of 2 or an "only"), and older parents (more prone to overprotective behaviour).

Obvious question: why do so many people believe that kids should be given directional reinforcement away from the mean?

 

[QV]

I came across this article a while back and thought it might have some relevance to this discussion: A retired Marine 3-star general explains 'critical military theory'

The condition is exacerbated and enabled when the most senior military leaders — those who ought to know better — defer to the idealistic judgments of those whose credentials are either nonexistent or formed entirely by ideology…

To be true to its purpose, the U.S. military cannot be a mirror image of the society it serves.Values that are admirable in civilian society — sensitivity, individuality, compassion, and tolerance for the less capable — are often antithetical to the traits that deter a potential enemy and win the wars that must be fought: Conformity, discipline, unity…

Direct ground combat, of the type we must be prepared to fight, is only waged competently when actions are instinctive, almost irrationally disciplined, and wholly sacrificial when required. Consensus building, deference, and (frankly) softness have their place in polite society, but nothing about intense ground combat is polite — it is often sub-humanly coarse…

There is only one overriding standard for military capability: lethality. Those officeholders who dilute this core truth with civil society’s often appropriate priorities (diversity, gender focus, etc.) undermine the military’s chances of success in combat. Reduced chances for success mean more casualties, which makes defeat more likely. Combat is the harshest meritocracy that exists, and nothing but ruthless adherence to this principle contributes to deterrence and combat effectiveness…

more at link