AlleOpps,


Wow!, the solder in the stockings is funny as heck......lol

Bro, where is Eye???

1.The Obama admin was paying for gender reorientation surgery to all military people.
That goes away with President Trump.

2. Don think we pay for it???
When the USGOVcorp pays for something....we the American taxpayers pay for it!

3. I never said they were not people.
Just said they should pay for their own surgery.

4. Most transgender people make a great living to pay for the surgery??
I don't think so... if that were true transgender folk wouldn't be raising hell about the PRESIDENT doing what he did to save money and to make our fighting force more cohesive and effective. I don't say ban them...just remove them from front line combat...

MightyMoe,

Oh wow!

I do believe they should let anyone serve ...
if they are capable ... why change this now ...
has been going on for yrs ... so long as people have your back...
which I believe would be a priority ... and they do ... why try and fix ...something that is not broke ...


funny but in a good way ... I saw this guy today...

who was built like a weight lifter... very attractive to ...

I am sure I was very attractive too...
falling asleep in the chair lol
back to Mr wow ...

very nicely dress can't really say to much ...
but believe he was gay ... why becouse of his socks
they where the flag colors ... thought that was so cute ...
I could be wrong... but sure made me ...

RobXBox73,,

Im right here bro. That's right. He signed the gay manifesto. They always been there. Look at football maybe not a transgender but a gay player now.this country moving in a important future. Military isnt no different

serving in the Military is a Privilege,NOT a right!
Military is NO Democracy,and no place for misguided Social Experiments either!

<When President Trump appointed General Mattis to Secretary of Defense, he knew the man changed the way things work in America in regards to protecting this nation.

The former Marine only has one concern in his life. He wants to make the US military the biggest most lethal group in the world. It’s a good time to ruin the world’s bad guys and General Mattis is the person to do it.

That means eliminating everything that is wasteful. The sensitivity training needs to go because it doesn’t make the military stronger.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis has ordered a full review of any military training not directly relevant to warfighting.

Mattis will make sure there is a review of everything that was put into effect, especially under Leon Panetta and the Obama administration. It will likely all be gutted.

“I want to verify that our military policies also support and enhance warfighting readiness and force lethality,” Mattis said.

Mattis also asked for a review into what should be done about permanently non-deployable service members.

For years the politicians have ruined the US military. They wanted to make the military a social experiment. It’s been horrible that they think it’s appropriate to push political correctness and social policies that ruin the military ever seen on this planet.

Our soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors don’t need to be bothered with “sensitivity” training. They need to know how to take orders, operate their weapons, and win battles. They don’t have time entertain the stupid notions invented by liberals who never served their country.

The U.S. military is not a democracy. Nor is it a place for political nonsense. It is the single force that preserves our country and our freedoms.

The America military will be prosperous again. It’s too bad this didn’t happen sooner.<

http://worldsourcemedia.com/general-mattis-issues-new-orders-to-military-liberals-jaws-hit-floor-with-loud-thud/

Military has its own code. The point has been made that they pay for erectile dysfunction drugs and other 'non essentials' for enlisted, at a much higher cost than what these surgeries would cost.

Their budget , I imagine, takes into account expenditures that maintain morale, which I would also just imagine is vital to the strength of a military unit(no pun intended..lol)

Well if our Military has been paying for sex changes ect then I'm totally against that sorry it follows cosmic surgery to me..

I was just saying let them serve due to the fact the Military had to make changes when the first Blacks were allowed to serve then again when women were allowed to serve..

Just saying we have a lot more of the LGBT community within the Military then most want to admit.. And it has increased through the years... Sooner or later they will have to adjust and make the changes..

Yes, and he's reptillian as well.

I think Robx is on to something. If sex change is funded by the govt.
think of what that will open. Trannys will flock to the armed forces,
not to serve but ,oh yea,get those jewels removed. This is not what
armed force are about. If they really want to serve, they should do before serving or after. Trumps right, time to nip it in the bud so
to speak.

Yeah, this country's moving in a important future alright.

Remember the show M*A*S*H? Apparently they had some forethought into this issue and it had to do with the mash of people from all walks of life. My generation didn't have to worry about gay guys because they all died from aids, the military doesn't need to deal with anymore drama then they already do. When I was in high school I knew I would never be the football captain or quarterback, people just have to come to a realization that not everything is their cup of tea. There are just too many variables for people who are trapped between being a man and a woman mainly concerning the use of restrooms and sleeping arrangements. If transgender really is a natural occurrence then why do they need to.take hormones?And why should the military (American tax payers) pay for this decision that they can live without much less the actual mutation of the genitals? This PC, can't do anything wrong and everyone lives in peace generation that we are trying to create is backfiring on us and as a result we end up with everyone being a victim.

Klinger wanted OUT O W T,Out,Not in!
He hoped for a Section Eight.

There was a time gays weren't allowed. The soldiers were government issue (GI)

In the UK, maybe the same there,
In the 50s, 60s and 70s any military or government officials, ie spy's and other important people were viewed upon as a security risk if they were gay, being more open to black mail from foreign agents and governments.

I was thinking more about this, where anatomy is concerned

if there are height and weight requirements, perhaps a cysgender(anatomy matches the brain and hormones) requirement is no less/more reasonable....

or perhaps instead of a 'ban' a requirement that one accept they will share quarters based upon anatomy and not gender

after all, if you have a penis but think you are a woman, that would be a perk to be with other men , right? those men are not going to make advances on you that you don't want because you will be required to have a uniform look to them (no makeup, long hair, or dresses,,etc) and in the shower you are another person with a penis,,,,


and if you have a vagina but think you are a man, likewise, kind of nice for you to bunk with women, those women will not be bothering you when you are required to have a uniform appearance, and in the shower you will be another person with a vagina,,,

>> the most important thing to remember is that risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires of an individual is not only bad, but very dangerous military judgment. <<

Military
Institution
Job

The sole purpose of the military is to kill people.
They 'teach' you effective ways to kill the enemy.
Its purpose is to have a force of people that are effective in killing.

KILL, KILL, KILL

When they are not killing they are learning how to kill more effectively.
They are building up equipment and methods called 'readiness'.
Readiness for what...To KILL.

Anyone can be effectively taught to kill. It doesn't matter if you are not sure what sex you are any more than it matters if you think you are a canary. What matters is that you can KILL and that you kill the right people when you are told to do so.

The military doesn't care if you break a nail while throwing a grenade. Doesn't care if your hair gets seared by a rocket launch.
It only cares if you are able to kill on command.
If you are a man that thinks you're a woman or a man that thinks you're a farmer, a shoe maker, a banker or a movie star, it just doesn't matter as long as you can kill.

The incentives and allowances the military gives are there for one reason, to get you on the force so you can be trained to kill when they need you.

My recruiter 'lied to me' is a common saying after you get in the military. Yes, they did but they got you to commit your life by doing it so they were effective to their objective.
Boot camp is designed to 'break you' from your civilian lifestyle and condition you to a military mindset. It pushes, pulls, drags and slams you out of your comfort zone for a reason. That reason is to make you an effective killer.

The military is not there to teach you a trade. It is there to make you part of the killing force that defends the nation and its ideals. Your time is called 'Service' because while in the military you are in servitude to your country's needs. Their needs, not yours. What YOU WANT is not on the agenda.

If we pussify our military there might come a day when someone else's military may come HERE and show us just how pussified we are. Then, it won't matter what your 'orientation' is because they will kill you all the same. They will take your stuff and your way of life and put you in cages and throw you in the mud because they won't care about your rights or your dignity.

Anyone can serve in the military that can follow orders and kill. It doesn't matter if you have a penis or a vagina and it certainly doesn't matter if you are not sure. They will tell you when and what to be sure about.

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/us-marines-test-male-squads-mixed-gender-ones-results

US Marines Test All-Male Squads Against Mixed-Gender Ones – And The Results Are Bleak

August 6, 2017 By Brittany Soares


In 2013, the US military lifted its ban on women serving in combat. Shortly after, the Marine Corps began what it calls an “unprecedented research effort” to understand the impact of gender integration on its combat forces.

That took the form of a year-long experiment called the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, in which 400 Marines — 100 of them female — trained for combat together and then undertook a simulated deployment, with every aspect of their experience measured and scrutinized.

All branches of the military faced a January 1, 2016 deadline to open all combat roles to women, and the Marine Corps used this experiment to decide whether to request exceptions to that mandate. The Corps’ summary of the experiment concludes that combat teams were less effective when they included women.

Overall, the report says, all-male teams and crews outperformed mixed-gender ones on 69% of tasks evaluated (93 out of 134). All-male teams were universally faster “in each tactical movement.” On “lethality,” the report says:

All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4.

…

All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy.

All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who “evacuated” the casualty)

The report also says that female Marines had higher rates of injury throughout the experiment.

While the conclusions make it look like having women in combat isn’t a good idea, one important caveat of the tests is that many of of the male study participants had previously served in combat units, whereas female participants, by necessity, came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs.

Hopefully, with more training in combat, women will be a strength for the military, but the most important thing to remember is that risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires of an individual is not only bad, but very dangerous military judgment.

H/T Quartz

This is where I fall too. I have several friends who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of them didn't enlist until age 34, which meant they were behind the physical fitness curve compared to younger comrades. So I've heard the stories about fitness requirements during boot camp.

I think part of the problem is that different jobs require different physical abilities. But we train soldiers to meet one generalized fitness requirement regardless of the context in which they will be serving. It has only been recently that we created a separate physical standard for women, but should it really be based on gender? Should it not be a test for which *part* of the military they are best suited for? Not necessarily a pass/fail situation?

Plus transgender isn't necessarily the same as Bruce Jenner, i.e. having an operation. In many cases, it really is genetic. What guidelines should these people fall under? It isn't just about bunkhouses. What if the person is a brilliant strategist, a Top 100 marksman, or an unbelievable pilot? Should they be banned from serving their country in the most selfless way imaginable? Anyway you look at it, it's a form of state-sanctioned discrimination, just as slavery was prior to the 13th Amendment.

If a hostile force invades our homeland anyone able to fight will fight. The military shouldn't care what gender you are as long as you can kill the enemy and act on the orders given.

The problem IS the accomodations.
Military units must function like teams.
If all participants were housed in private quarters their gender would not be an issue but as a society living in often cramped spaces with limited facilities it makes sense to account for gender differences. If we were to allow for biases based on personal preference at the least were would need facilities for four populations. Males, Females, Males that think they are females and females that think they are males. But...Where do we draw the line?

Does a compromise in this open a precedent for other biases? Perhaps one day we will have lefties and righties. What about blonds, brunettes and redheads. Oh and then we have the baldies they have to be respected too. Then we have the ones that have tattoos and those that have piercings.

By the time we work out all the individual accomodations for all the different distictions we no longer have an effective fighting force.

You are either a man or a woman. I think that is as far as it should go.
If you want to be a man that becomes a woman, become a woman BEFORE you enter service and stay that way until the enemy kills you or your term of service is completed.
If you are a man when you enter service you should be expected to serve as a man until your comittment is fulfilled.

Or, just stay away from the military.