What's your opinion on the U.S Navy moving towards being gender-neutral?

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 17:07:46 -0400

So, I think we all pretty much know that the Navy doesn't usually do anything for its Sailors unless it also benefits itself as well. With this in mind, I've been trying to figure out what the benefit of re-naming all the rates to 'petty officer' would be. I think I've got it- As a force, we are moving towards being GENDERLESS. Soon females will be wearing the same uniforms as men (it's already happening, females are being issued dixie cups in basic training, etc.) and now man/men has been removed from every single rating title. Anyone want to bet that at some point in the near future we will be calling female officers 'Sir', just like the males? Is it a coincidence that the rates are all renamed according to gender-neutrality on 29 September, then on 1 October, transgender people will be able to serve openly? What's your POV on this subject?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 30 at 2016 5:14 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 17:14:36 -0400

If we stay professional about it , then I see no problems as far as transgender. I think we all need to get to the point like in that movie Starship troopers and just be equal male/female co-living and sharing stuff and just co-exist.

Response by PO1 Michael Fullmer made Sep 30 at 2016 6:50 PM

PO1 Michael Fullmer — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 18:50:27 -0400

I think it's a load of Equine Fecal Matter.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Oct 1 at 2016 12:27 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sat, 01 Oct 2016 00:27:04 -0400

Served with Gays my Whole Time didn't have a problem with it. Gender-less, S**t we were already moving in that direction during the Zumwalt years amazed it took this long. Time to put on our Big Boy pants.

Response by Cpl Robert Robertson made Oct 1 at 2016 5:49 PM

Cpl Robert Robertson — Sat, 01 Oct 2016 17:49:48 -0400

If it is a MOS that both have the ability to serve in I see no problem as LONG as professional discipline is maintained and there is ONE standard for all

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2016 7:50 AM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Oct 2016 07:50:33 -0400

Well I think we should leave some things alone in all branches if it really didn't cause any harm to anyone. I like some of the Navy traditional stuff that was in place when I came in (1992). Now the things that where actually causing harm like hazing and drunken Sailors, that's a different story. "Yeoman" and "Seaman" are traditional Navy terms and found nowhere else. They should just keep the ratings, it didn't hurt anyone.

Response by PO3 Terry Miller made Oct 4 at 2016 10:14 AM

PO3 Terry Miller — Tue, 04 Oct 2016 10:14:01 -0400

People aren't gender-neutral so why should the military be so? We have different physical characteristics and differing environmental needs. One Size Fits All doesn't really fit anyone.

Response by CWO2 Roger Lamb made Oct 4 at 2016 12:59 PM

CWO2 Roger Lamb — Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:59:47 -0400

It is much a do over nothing. Either way it is a tempest in a teapot.

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2016 1:29 PM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Oct 2016 13:29:31 -0400

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Oct 4 at 2016 2:04 PM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Tue, 04 Oct 2016 14:04:34 -0400

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member I do not agree with it. Don't think it's right...calling a female "SIR" is okay, I guess...but Genderless is just WRONG!...in my opinion.

Response by LT Bob McFarland DC USNR (Ret'd) made Oct 4 at 2016 3:30 PM

LT Bob McFarland DC USNR (Ret'd) — Tue, 04 Oct 2016 15:30:56 -0400

Bob J. Mc Farland LT DC USNR (Ret'd)

I agree with PO1 Michael Fulmer, The whole conversation smells like a fricking six hole outhouse. The U.S.Navy was formed over 200 years ago for men of our country to defend any invasions by foreign armies. All of this including women in all of our armed forces has been one hell of a mess. We get into enough trouble with women just being forced to live around them. We don't need to work with them too. The good Lord put women on this earth to have our babies and to love them and to raise them to adulthood..

Enough said. No questions in my mind about this subject.

Bob J. Mc Farland LT DC USNR Ret'd

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2016 6:19 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:19:18 -0400

Lowering standards to accommodate never improved the performance of any organization.

Response by PO1 Scott Cottrell made Oct 4 at 2016 6:35 PM

PO1 Scott Cottrell — Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:35:10 -0400

The thing that is pissing me off more than anything is they are removing the Ratings, BUT E-3 and below will all be referred to as SEAMAN. So how is that gender-neutral?

Response by PO3 Rod Arnold made Oct 5 at 2016 3:04 PM

PO3 Rod Arnold — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 15:04:33 -0400

Short and sweet, gender-nuteral is nothing more than the Navy caving in to Politically Correct BS.

Response by PO3 Sidney Gaertner made Oct 5 at 2016 9:58 PM

PO3 Sidney Gaertner — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 21:58:10 -0400

I will always be a Gunners Mate Third Class Petty Officer. I think it is stupid to get rid of the rates just because they are not gender neutral. The navy is part of us and our history, if we go away with rates we are taking part of our history away. Whoever thought of this change did not think about morale of the force at all.

Response by PO2 Sybil "TT" I. made Oct 6 at 2016 1:09 AM

PO2 Sybil "TT" I. — Thu, 06 Oct 2016 01:09:28 -0400

In general, it's just more professional, and more consistent with the direction society is going. But, I don't see it as a priority. Change as you go. For example, since, they were doing away with the rating system anyways, why not tighten it up while there at it? Uniforms are easy. Of course, everyone should be wearing the same one's (covers). There's simply no good reason not to. I'd draw the line at being called Sir tho.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Oct 6 at 2016 11:44 AM

MSgt James Mullis — Thu, 06 Oct 2016 11:44:01 -0400

I'm guessing it's similar to what happens when the Air Force constantly changes it's uniforms, stripes, name tapes, patches, and hats or when they renamed and renumbered their regulations to instructions. In other words its a diversionary tactic, the important stuff is going on in the background and not being talked about.

Response by PO1 Timothy Harcey made Oct 14 at 2016 1:26 PM

PO1 Timothy Harcey — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:26:09 -0400

I think everyone need to go and read and understand the dictionary. They are trying to get rid of the word man as they think it means male. It dos not mean male at all it means human which is a species that encompasses male and female. The word man has nothing to do with the gender at all. So yes there trying to make thins gender natural but do not understand the word man. So the only reason to change is to try and mitigate the noise made by those that have a misunderstood conception of the word male so they do not have to hear it. If a rate was to denote male it would be like this "radiomale, corpsmale ect". It is not so all the rates are already gender natural in there wording. What is needed is the same standards for male and female personal as far as uniforms, job performance, housing, physical fitness to name a few. It also needs to be blind in the promotions of personal. For what it is worth just my 2 cents after 40 years in the military and civilian side of the government. As we said in BLT 3/3 suck it up butter cup.

Response by PO3 Cris Smyth made Jul 20 at 2017 10:34 PM

PO3 Cris Smyth — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 22:34:55 -0400

I give a rats ass what you think you are. You are whatever the plumbing you were born with! When it comes to fit test women have a higher % of body fat then guys. So if you "identify"as a woman then you get the % of body fat. That just makes excuses for men to pack on a few lbs and not be accountable.

Response by SSgt Gerald Davis Jr made May 22 at 2018 4:52 PM

SSgt Gerald Davis Jr — Tue, 22 May 2018 16:52:29 -0400

Silliness but the Marines are already gender neutral.