???? (someone lied to you)

A baby's genetic sex is determined at the time of conception. When the baby is conceived, a chromosome from the sperm cell, either X or Y, fuses with the X chromosome in the egg cell, determining whether the baby will be genetically female (XX) or male (XY).

Genetic Traits. A phenotype is an individual's observable traits, such as height, eye color, and blood type. The genetic contribution to the phenotype is called the genotype. Some traits are largely determined by the genotype, while other traits are largely determined by environmental factors.


No it isn't.
It is a distinction made by physical observation.
They DO CHECK.

You can go in dressed as a woman, acting like a woman but when you take your clothes off and their doctor checks you for a hernia you are then considered a man. Then you go to the shrink. He determines if you are able to follow orders and pull a trigger.


Billeting
No matter what your job assignment is, in the military it all comes down to physical fighting ability. That is because even tho you might have the job of sitting in an office drawing blueprints or typing code, your primary function is to fight. If needed, you can be ordered to the battlefield with no prior notice.
I was a mechanic. I went to military school to work on military equipment. I worked in a shop. They pulled me out of the shop and placed me on a team and sent me to the field. They took the wrench out of my hand and put a weapon in it. They didn't care if I wanted to be deployed or not. They never asked me once. I was there to fight and they needed me to fight.
Fitness requirements are set globally by gender to establish a baseline readiness of all military personnel to physically able to fight.

Look up "hermaphrodite".

Look up albinism.

An albino is the result of genetic mutation. Hermaphrodites are as well. They are mutated from the normal population. I once worked with a man that had two penises. Was he twice the man I was, yup. Problem was, he could not get either excited enough and his children were born from artificial insemination. It twisted his take on the whole male sexual experience. He was a good mechanic and a nice person.

The issue is not about hermaphrodites in the military. It is about MEN and WOMEN that think they are not that which they are. The issue is that they want to be afforded an equal opportunity to serve and expect everyone to adopt their delusion and make special allowances for it.

If that happens, what other delusions will be expected to be allowed for?

In 55 years I have never once met a hermaphrodite personally. I know of no person that knows one personally. They are not common.
But then I have never seen a two-headed frog personally either.

Tom4UHere,

I think people should do whatever we want. The times are different. Im not gay but transgenders are minorities too. It shouldn't matter if a man lives his life as a woman and want to serve. We have bigger eggs to fried with trump in office. Jeff Sessings also. Personally i dont have a problem with transgenders making power moves. We as people have our own periods where our heritage have the spot light sort to speak. Now its there turn.

In that case, the right diction needs to be used. Transgender has been used as such an all-encompassing umbrella term that it has no clear meaning. This only helps to confuse issues like this.

A person who has a sex change operation really isn't "trans" anything. Such a person was born with a definite gender, as you have pointed out. Just because they have altered the physical shape of their anatomy does not alter their biological gender. At a genetic level, they are still the same gender as they were born, regardless of how they identify mentally or psychologically. They cannot procreate as anything but their original gender, and once the surgery/transformation is complete, they cannot even do that. They no longer have the equipment to do so. Therefore, when it comes to physical standards, fairness necessitates that they be held to the same standards as their pre-op gender. As far as bunkhouses go, yeah....it can cause problems. Deeper problems than just "homophobia". It has psychological effects for both sides, and generates self-doubt for both parties in an unhealthy way. But that doesn't mean they should be discriminated against.

Somebody here mentioned that serving in the military is a privilege, not a right. Tell that to all the people who have been pressed into the military as recently as Vietnam. I'm not just talking about the draft. I'm talking about the people who were facing jail time. They were given a choice: go to jail, or enlist in the military. So if it is a privilege, then why is it good enough for thieves, rapists, and murderers, but not for law-abiding citizens who simply have a different sexual preference, gender identity, or were just born physically in-between? And before questioning the level of criminal offense for dismissal, take into account that there actually was a time when such hardened criminals really were sent into the military because they were expendable, not just in the U.S. but all throughout Europe too.

Serving in the military **should be viewed as** a privilege and an honor, but that does not make perception a reality. Furthermore, prior to development of a standing army in this country, military service actually was a right and an obligation. The definition of "militia" at the time of framing of the Constitution was "all able-bodied males between ages 16 and 65". The age range is fluid and subject to amendment as needed, but otherwise that definition still stands as the basis for the draft whenever it is enacted. If it were a privilege, there wouldn't a random lottery for the draft. It would be much more selective than the process actually is.

Back to the original topic though, I personally find "gender identity" to be an over-romanticized and over-politicized concept. Even though I have known people who struggled with such an identity, I have also known people who had no such struggle but consciously chose to alter their sexuality or identity. I believe that such choices undermine and obfuscate the problems of those who really do struggle. It confuses the issue, and diverts attention from what truly needs address. There was a cover article in Time Magazine about this a few months back. I did a facepalm while reading it because the amount of indoctrination happening on this subject was practically oozing off the pages. It sickened me, not because of the people who legitimately struggle, but because of the people who hop on the bandwagon like it's the next "in thing". And that's due to a level of brainwashing that it happening unnoticed. Anyone who actually has real gender identity problems should be shocked, dismayed, and outraged by this.

Now if someone has an operation, then enters the military as something other than his or her birth gender, that person should not use gender as the basis for his or her objections. There is no black and white. They are in a grey area. As such, they will be fighting a losing battle so long as they focus on gender. If they instead argued competency to be a mechanic, or transport pilot, or medic, or some other support role, then they could generate a much more persuasive argument for circumventing prejudices and stereotypes.

There are professors and advocates who lecture that "gender" is not a biological fact. You can view the lectures on TED Talks. Their lectures do not hold up to logical scrutiny because their underlying premise is false. Right away they begin by altering the definition of "gender" to suit their purposes. They denounce and then ignore biology and physiology. Gender and identity are really two different things. A person may identify as a different gender, but that does not actually alter the person's gender. Nor does an operation or hormone treatments. You can change the clothes and the equipment, but you cannot change the chromosomes. I understand that they want to get people to change the way they think, but they take such an irrational, unsound, radical approach that they can only convince people who are desperate for something to believe in. And that's how brainwashing begins.

ActionLynx,

I certainly agree . i like the data knowledge you bring.

MightyMoe,


Well I think the picture with the solder in stockings to be hilarious..i mean suppose there are solders live there life like that. they want be able to dress like that during battle.

I don't know a lot about the subject but,
what is so different about a transgender
and a transvestite? Don't they want the
same thing?

No. A transvestite is a simply a cross-dresser. Not all cross-dressers are gay or have problems with gender identity. Quite a few closet cross-dressers are heterosexual with families. We, as a population, tend not to notice the distinction because the most famous cross-dressers often are either gay or have a gender identity problem, but those are only a tiny sample of the whole.

I think transgenders who have already gone through surgery and hormone therapy should be allowed to interview and test according the guidelines used for all. If they qualify, they should be permitted to enlist. Gender dysphoria is a feeling of conflict between a persons biological sex and their emotional and psychological identity which makes it a psychiatric issue that could put their ability to serve in question.

Some of the comments on this thread made me think about the movie Hacksaw Ridge. It was based on the true story of Seventh Day Adventist Desmond Doss. If he had been denied because of his refusal to use a weapon, 75 men would have perished in that battle.

Lexican,

Hello welcome to my cyber mansion. You make perfect sense. I think it should be strictly about mental abilities. Physical capabilities as well on how well your learn and been trained. If a transgender operate a black hawk copter or operate a drone. Or be at best as a foot soldier than i would feel safer than an all american hot shot with a ego and something to prove.

Actionlynx,

To answer your question yes but transgender is a hipster word used today. But its the same depend on what generation you part of.

Well, I guess it takes all kinds to make up the world.
Me, I'm just now getting over the fact that Liberace
was gay.

AlleOops,

Well i like his music. I dig wayne newton, frank sinatra and elton John.

I didn't mind that he was gay, but Matt Damon playing his lover in the movie "Behind The Candelabra" crossed a red line!

Hello EyeAm! Your Welcome Mat is beautiful!!

Lexican,

I liked that movie as well

Thinking more upon it. I believe the historical ANATOMICAL distinctions should suffice. Those who are capable should serve, with the understanding that no special accomodations will be made. Anatomical males will serve with anatomical males and anatomical females will serve with anatomical females.

Equal treatment based upon the dynamics of service life that already exist. Not based upon some overhaul of uniforms/bunking,,,etc,,.

I agree

There is a thing, a real thing, in the service
Military Bearing
The Code
Dress Right Dress

It has to do with uniformity. Standards are held with high regard.
There is a reason for wearing the uniform, standing at attention, marching. The reason is uniformity. "Uni" being the goal.

We don't see soldiers that are hippies, farmers or bankers, we see soldiers. You look at the ranks of troops and they all look the same (uniforms), are meant to walk the same (marching) and act the same (drills).
Boot camp is designed to take your individuality and suppress it in favor of uniformity.
Any lifestyle that breaks the uniformity of the ranks is dangerous to military conditioning. In combat, a flair for individual expression can not only get you and your squad killed it can compromise certain operations.

There is nothing wrong with personal expression but the military is not the time nor the place. If there is a problem with conforming to military standard one should not join. It is wrong to expect the established whole to change methodology that works to accommodate a fraction of the whole. In this case, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

The military is not a social group. It is an establishment of a fighting force with rules, regulations, codes and standards. Its not supposed to accommodate so you can serve, you accommodate so you can serve.

Do you think that the corporate sector will welcome them to?
I wonder how many work in Trump tower?

There was a policy about government issue (GI against gay practices) then don't ask don't tell.

I do have an issue with people joining just for education, or in this case, surgery. You are a soldier or not. My BIL joined only for benefits and then got out on a medical disability (should have been a dishonorable discharge imo)