It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court Lets Trump's Transgender Military Ban Take Effect

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Taxpayers should never foot the bill because some confused individual wants to mutilate their genitals.

That, should be on them. Why would I pay for your fake dick or vagina?

Are you going to pay for my ammunition?

Having said that, I don't personally care what gender/sex people have a preference for or identify as. I served in 07 with a gay man, none of us knew until we got back stateside. Didn't change a thing.

He served with honor, and bravely.

I also served with women, who are just as brave as the next man and in some cases braver. I don't have a problem with them, if they can perform the task.

Just don't go into the girls room if you don't have a uterus. Grown men don't need to be peeing with girls. Try that with some dad's and see how it goes.

As for those who get bent out of shape by gender, like that troll othersideofthecoin for example, they need to get a life.

They are stressing over an imaginary issue that is laughable when compared to people who have real problems in third world countries.

So while people like coin, are tripping out about some ones assumed gender or those of us who don't give a rats ass, real people with real problems like finding clean water, that trolls take for granted, are fighting every day to get basic necessities.

All trolls worry about is when their mommy brings them another hot pocket down to the basement.

The military is for alpha minded people.
That's just a fact, no one wants a bunch of betas fighting for their Country. Truth is what it is.




posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
I'm torn on this one personally. I get why some people would have concerns of people going through hormone treatment to be in compromising situations where lives are at stake, but I also understand someone courageous enough to volunteer wanting to serve.



The deal is there are a lot of conditions that prevent people from serving. One of my sons is 90% blind in one eye and he can't join, so he is going to be a electrical engineer... You can't be over weight, can't have medical issues, even some small ones, so on and so on.

Hell I'm not sure if you can still not join if you have flat feet as it was in the past, so the point is not everyone fits the mold of that they want, and transgenders have a lot going on that fits many categories of conditions the military will not accept.


That though is because you are unable to meet the standards or have a health condition that limits you're effectiveness.

So for example you might say you can't join because you're blind in one eye...you can't shoot, you need to be able to shoot to join up. You're fat, so you can't meet the physical requirements, you have high blood pressure, well you might stroke on the battlefield and so on. I mean we could get into the "ahhh but what about this exemption" debate and go round in circles all day but the point right now is about individuals with gender dysmorphia

Simply put there is nothing that physically makes anyone who is transgender unable to preform the roles of a solider.


You don't think that wanting to be a boy if you're a girl is a mental health condition?


At what point are we discriminating from supposed mental health conditions. If a boy who wants to be a girl/ or vice-versa can outshoot and beat their compatriots in PT and mental aptitude, then whats the real reason we wouldn't want them serving?



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan




I know several men who are Vietnam vets. Not a single one of them would hold a grudge against anybody who didn't want to go there. They all say that their experiences in Vietnam were horrible.


I agree with that right there... Who in their right mind would want their children or anybody else for that matter to experience that. I signed up for the Army in high school in the delayed entry program... wanted to be an Army Ranger ever since I read about them scaling the cliffs before the D-day landing... bad car wreck put an end to that...

What does irk me though is when guys like ted nugent are so pro war and all patriotic but # and pissed himself for 3 days to not go to viet nam... or most politicians for that matter...

What is amazing is seeing hollywood "celebrities" and actors that did fight in WW11....



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Xtrozero

I've elaborated on that as well.

Hell, I got turned down by the army at around 20.

20/13 vision, I was 6 ft 190 with an athletic build, no tattoos and got top 5 percentile on the ASVAB.

But I got caught with pot when I was 17, so they said no since their numbers weren't down.

I probably could have gotten a waiver, but I took it as a sig and didn't try further.


I tried to join the Air Force when I was 26, they didn't accept me because I would've turned 27 by the time boot camp ended. I decided to join the Army and requested Ranger school before battle and they said I might get to do that. So I backed off. I was within 1 point from being guaranteed Ranger school before being shipped off to battle, IF that's even a possibility.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ADVISOR
a reply to: CriticalStinker


The military is for alpha minded people.
That's just a fact, no one wants a bunch of betas fighting for their Country. Truth is what it is.





Isn't following orders totally BETA? Like, if you're commanding officer/drill-sergeant tells you to lick his boots, how can you be ALPHA for following those orders?

Don't good soldiers follow orders?



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 03:30 PM
link   


The military is for alpha minded people.


So you were specops? Because aren't those the Alpha?



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
No one seems to mention at all the fact that its an ELECTIVE surgery, that takes time out of your service.....

I agree on this....Do it after you get out......

I dont care one way or another what someone wants to be, or if they want to transition, whatever......

But this could affect deployments and many other things, for something , again, that is ELECTIVE......

Wait till your time is up then get it done.......


Not to mention the change your body and mind goes through when you're taking the hormone pills, etc.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: headorheart

The military pays for Viagra, hormone therapy is much cheaper. They also pay for childbirth which is more costly than the surgery.


Child birth is normal. Nobody in the middle of battle, however, gets viagra or gives child birth.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Wtf does that have to do with anything?

Soldiers follow lawful orders.
Everything isn't a debate you know.

Alpha's don't have to disagree or contest everything everyone does.

"This classification was first done for studying the animals, where the alpha animal is the leader of the group because they are usually the strongest and the most aggressive. When it comes to people, however, those who are perceived to have an alpha personality are those who have dominant personalities."

Military is about making leaders, at least it was while I was active duty.

True leaders can follow orders, only blue falcons will sham about and act like everything is an issue.

People need to be alpha minded, because if and when the leader goes down, next guy must step up.

No one will follow a wishy-washy incompetent.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: tinner07

No LMFAO

Um, any one can be, it's a state of mind bro.
Cooks can be alpha personality, or even the mechanic.

Do alpha's make better combat arms, of course.
Are they the only people in combat arms, no not always.

Why does it seem so many people are confused or misinformed about definition these days?

Oh yeah I know, it's because these days people are being taught the opposite of what things are.

At least that's how it seems to me.




posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ADVISOR
a reply to: Wayfarer

Wtf does that have to do with anything?

Soldiers follow lawful orders.
Everything isn't a debate you know.

Alpha's don't have to disagree or contest everything everyone does.

"This classification was first done for studying the animals, where the alpha animal is the leader of the group because they are usually the strongest and the most aggressive. When it comes to people, however, those who are perceived to have an alpha personality are those who have dominant personalities."

Military is about making leaders, at least it was while I was active duty.

True leaders can follow orders, only blue falcons will sham about and act like everything is an issue.

People need to be alpha minded, because if and when the leader goes down, next guy must step up.

No one will follow a wishy-washy incompetent.



Then I'd say we have a different understanding of Alpha/Beta. Appreciate you taking the time to explain your viewpoint.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer


Is it really venomous? Trump was a star athlete who's bone-spurs he claimed prevented him from serving? How does one reconcile that as anything other than cowardice (not to refute the others you mentioned and the varieties therein)?


It sounded venomous...I see it as nothing better or worst than what Bush or Clinton did, and I kind of hold Kerry in lessor respect for what he did.

I also can't debate medical conditions, wasn't there, so I have no clue to it at all, but being an athlete back in that era might not have been the best thing injury wise. If we look at Clinton, he got college deferments starting in 1964, then he enrolled in the Army ROTC to work another 4 more years of deferments, he then never joined but it gave him a good deal of delay to finally enter the draft in 1968 and then at that point he got political help such as a delay of 10.5 months for his initial physical, preferential treatment from draft boards etc to end up never being selected...

Bush joined the Texas ANG and basically did almost nothing...lots of political help there too.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
I'm torn on this one personally. I get why some people would have concerns of people going through hormone treatment to be in compromising situations where lives are at stake, but I also understand someone courageous enough to volunteer wanting to serve.



The deal is there are a lot of conditions that prevent people from serving. One of my sons is 90% blind in one eye and he can't join, so he is going to be a electrical engineer... You can't be over weight, can't have medical issues, even some small ones, so on and so on.

Hell I'm not sure if you can still not join if you have flat feet as it was in the past, so the point is not everyone fits the mold of that they want, and transgenders have a lot going on that fits many categories of conditions the military will not accept.


That though is because you are unable to meet the standards or have a health condition that limits you're effectiveness.

So for example you might say you can't join because you're blind in one eye...you can't shoot, you need to be able to shoot to join up. You're fat, so you can't meet the physical requirements, you have high blood pressure, well you might stroke on the battlefield and so on. I mean we could get into the "ahhh but what about this exemption" debate and go round in circles all day but the point right now is about individuals with gender dysmorphia

Simply put there is nothing that physically makes anyone who is transgender unable to preform the roles of a solider.


You don't think that wanting to be a boy if you're a girl is a mental health condition?


At what point are we discriminating from supposed mental health conditions. If a boy who wants to be a girl/ or vice-versa can outshoot and beat their compatriots in PT and mental aptitude, then whats the real reason we wouldn't want them serving?


Mental aptitude and mental health are two different things. With an IQ of 145, Jeffrey Dahmer could likely have scored very well on aptitude, but would you have wanted him serving in the troop alongside you?



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Wayfarer


It would take a real despicable coward to get out of military service because of bone spurs.


How many years did you serve. I forget...


I tried to enlist after 911 but literally no service (and I tried them all except for coast guard) would accept me (due to substantial hearing loss).

How about you?


Ah, yet you sit here and bash the president for something that kept him out. Something you have no proof of, but hate him enough to call him a coward for it. But I guess we're supposed to take your word that hearing kept you out, instead of calling you a coward.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer


Isn't following orders totally BETA? Like, if you're commanding officer/drill-sergeant tells you to lick his boots, how can you be ALPHA for following those orders?

Don't good soldiers follow orders?


Those would not be lawful orders, so I would not need to follow them. I'm a senior manager today...I give "orders" all the time, people follow them too...Not much different back in the military or in civilian life.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
I'm torn on this one personally. I get why some people would have concerns of people going through hormone treatment to be in compromising situations where lives are at stake, but I also understand someone courageous enough to volunteer wanting to serve.



The deal is there are a lot of conditions that prevent people from serving. One of my sons is 90% blind in one eye and he can't join, so he is going to be a electrical engineer... You can't be over weight, can't have medical issues, even some small ones, so on and so on.

Hell I'm not sure if you can still not join if you have flat feet as it was in the past, so the point is not everyone fits the mold of that they want, and transgenders have a lot going on that fits many categories of conditions the military will not accept.


That though is because you are unable to meet the standards or have a health condition that limits you're effectiveness.

So for example you might say you can't join because you're blind in one eye...you can't shoot, you need to be able to shoot to join up. You're fat, so you can't meet the physical requirements, you have high blood pressure, well you might stroke on the battlefield and so on. I mean we could get into the "ahhh but what about this exemption" debate and go round in circles all day but the point right now is about individuals with gender dysmorphia

Simply put there is nothing that physically makes anyone who is transgender unable to preform the roles of a solider.


You don't think that wanting to be a boy if you're a girl is a mental health condition?


At what point are we discriminating from supposed mental health conditions. If a boy who wants to be a girl/ or vice-versa can outshoot and beat their compatriots in PT and mental aptitude, then whats the real reason we wouldn't want them serving?


Because they could have a mental breakdown at any second regardless of how well they can shoot.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: CriticalStinker

How about showing some courage by knowing you are a liability and abstaining.

That's how I feel.


And I understand that sentiment.

I said they are courageous because anyone who wants to volunteer to go to a war is.

I personally think we need to know more before we allow them to serve, at least in war theaters.


Even basic is stressful.
edit on 22-1-2019 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 06:00 PM
link   
They would just keep getting "code reds" anyways right or wrong.
The court made the right call




posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker
Trump is missing the perfect opportunity to get rid of them, if he doesn't like them. Put them on the front lines. Cannon fodder is cannon fodder.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I think the problem is that people are mistaking standards for equality.

What's next? Are we going to start demanding that paraplegics be allowed to serve too? I'm sure there are plenty of non-combat roles for them.

Why not allow in people with certain cognitive disabilities? I'm sure there are things they could do while they serve.

The military is being discriminatory by not allowing these people in.

And that is all so much stupidity. There are reasons, sound reasons, why the military has its standards. They have standards that would disallow me for having migraines and needing daily medication, they have standards that would disallow people who don't have functioning limbs or fully functioning mental capacity, and they have standards that disallow people who are emotionally not as stable as you need to be to handle combat and dependent on daily hormone treatment.




top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join