U.S. Military Transgender Policy
- Thread starter cupper
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,172
- Points
- 1,260
And the CF seems to be taking advantage pretty quickly ...Jarnhamar said:
- Reaction score
- 1,359
- Points
- 1,160
Jarnhamar said:
And how in the hell would you know that?
- Reaction score
- 1,359
- Points
- 1,160
Agree there could have been some non straight people killed.
Next time you talk to the dead people let us know how things are, up or down.
Next time you talk to the dead people let us know how things are, up or down.
- Reaction score
- 4,172
- Points
- 1,260
Just for the record, since there's no detailed announcement at whitehouse.gov yet, here's what POTUS45 has said via Twitter - let the tea leaf reading continue!
Attachments
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
The number of transgender people serve in the US military is thought to be small. Unfortunately the Obama administration let this genie out of the bottle by allowing gays to serve in the military. I am glad that Trump has taken this opportunity to reverse the social engineering conducted by the democrats.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
tomahawk6 said:
'Unfortunately the Obama administration let this genie out of the bottle by allowing gays to serve in the military.'
These statements are still being made in 2017?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Reaction score
- 9,765
- Points
- 1,360
RocketRichard said:
In America they are.
Personally, I see both sides of the issue with respect to the original topic. The question of whether these people are mentally fit to serve in the Forces is a valid question. We don't have to ask it in Canada because we aren't a serious military force. We can literally be whatever we want to be because we've got no significant national military commitments and spend most of our free time administering ourselves while throwing the bare minimum resources at actual military problems.
The United States Military is the worlds strongest military machine and it wants to remain as such. When you're top dog, why change what works?
From my experience, the CAF never disciplines laggards, ineffective members, etc. As long as they do nothing to embarrass the service, they are left alone. The American military severely punishes professional failure, don't pull your weight, get ready for an ass whooping.
I've seen American NCOs do stuff that you'd get court martialled for in Canada for mistreatment. Down there, it's just called behaviour correction.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
UnsatHumphrey Bogart said:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Reaction score
- 4,662
- Points
- 1,160
Not sure why anyone is surprised, the US still hasn't opened all MOS to women while Norway has an all-Female SOF unit. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/inside-world-s-first-all-female-special-forces-unit-norway-n746041
The rationale Trump is using is interesting, if everyone can get away from the emotion of the topic. Despite the small number of serving transgendered pers, how much does it cost in the US healthcare system for a single gender reassignment (not all of these troops are going to want the surgery)? Trump could have went to the "I don't like you because you're different" angle, but he went to the "We can't afford to pay for all the medical care required". It's like a drop in the bucket of a giant defense budget, but when Mattis is trying to streamline non-essential training to put more money/time into the warfighter, the link (however small) is there.
Unfortunately we don't get to tell another country how to think unless we're willing to invade it. We can't drop our societal values and beliefs on another place and make it work.
The rationale Trump is using is interesting, if everyone can get away from the emotion of the topic. Despite the small number of serving transgendered pers, how much does it cost in the US healthcare system for a single gender reassignment (not all of these troops are going to want the surgery)? Trump could have went to the "I don't like you because you're different" angle, but he went to the "We can't afford to pay for all the medical care required". It's like a drop in the bucket of a giant defense budget, but when Mattis is trying to streamline non-essential training to put more money/time into the warfighter, the link (however small) is there.
RocketRichard said:
Unfortunately we don't get to tell another country how to think unless we're willing to invade it. We can't drop our societal values and beliefs on another place and make it work.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Yes, but we are commenting on Trump's decision. And on a Canadian forum to boot eh? Pretty sure invading the U.S. for Trump's tweets is not an option...PuckChaser said:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Reaction score
- 9,765
- Points
- 1,360
PuckChaser said:
Hence my point about us not being a serious military, vice the US military, which is a serious military.
- Reaction score
- 4,662
- Points
- 1,160
Humphrey Bogart said:
Concur, didn't catch your post while I was posting.
That being said, society would be unable to accept a modern-day equivalent to the Spartan (Unsullied for those who didn't take Ancient Civ and watch Game of Thrones) army where the soldiers are focused from birth on combat with the weak culled instead of coddled. We've basically created civilians in uniforms for most trades, with no warrior spirit or will to fight.
- Reaction score
- 9,765
- Points
- 1,360
PuckChaser said:
This is the big difference between our military ethos and certain organizations like the USMC. Go to a Marine base like 29 Palms, you'll see Marines up at 0500 doing Formation PT, unarmed combat training, forced marches in full battle rattle and this happens EVERYDAY. Everyone from the Commanding General on down is out doing it and if they aren't the Comds Old Man is on the phone ready to put a boot up someone's ass.
Outside a handful of line units (infantry and combat engineers mostly) this doesn't happen in the CAF ever. It's not say we don't have serious soldiers, we've got plenty. Our institution though, is not serious.
gryphonv
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 338
- Points
- 780
PuckChaser said:
Yeah I would think in a real world war where will have to commit fully, not some focused event. No more endless patrols but active combat all around. Our force will be wholefully inadequate. I wouldnt be surprised if as much as half of our numbers would pull the plug.
- Reaction score
- 9,765
- Points
- 1,360
gryphonv said:
All the Regular Force does right now is maintain what's called General-Purpose Combat Capability. Yes, we've got some limited engagements we occupy ourselves with from time to time; however, if another major conflict occurred you'd see a lid put on most of the political/social engineering crap for a few years because we would have no time to think about it.
I remember showing up at Battalion near the tail end of our combat mission in Afghanistan, the Battalion had generated three rotations worth of soldiers at different times during the war. The sole focus of the unit was generating sub-units for the task forces. I can tell you that any peacetime military administrator would have looked at that place and thought it was an absolute crap show. Once the combat mission ended, the next three years were spent getting the unit back to "routine business".
The attitude was funny, it was almost like "thank god that war is over so we can get back to doing the important stuff!"
- Reaction score
- 5,992
- Points
- 1,160
Navel gazing, hacking on the US. We'd do well to mind our business and put our own house in order instead of second guessing POTUS decisions for the US military.
We can't even figure out how to buy boots for our troops. Op Honour and similar initiatives have become the military's raison d'être, instead of war fighting. We best clean a bunch of black off our kettle before we start calling their pot out.
:2c:
We can't even figure out how to buy boots for our troops. Op Honour and similar initiatives have become the military's raison d'être, instead of war fighting. We best clean a bunch of black off our kettle before we start calling their pot out.
:2c:
- Reaction score
- 9,765
- Points
- 1,360
recceguy said:
Couldn't have said it any better.
Similar threads
