Posted on Aug 29, 2017
2
2
0
The Russian perspective on this is interesting.
"The bloody business of US imperialism is thus strangely coupled with politically correct concern for rights within its ranks. While dropping bombs on civilians, the Pentagon chiefs endeavor to give the impression that they are concerned about the rights of non-white people and whether service members have a bathroom facility for their gender persuasion. Of course, the hyper-politically-correct stance is absurd."
"The bloody business of US imperialism is thus strangely coupled with politically correct concern for rights within its ranks. While dropping bombs on civilians, the Pentagon chiefs endeavor to give the impression that they are concerned about the rights of non-white people and whether service members have a bathroom facility for their gender persuasion. Of course, the hyper-politically-correct stance is absurd."
Trump’s transgender ban and the Pentagon’s politically correct absurdity
Posted from rt.com
Russia
Transgender
LGBTQ+
Office of the President (POTUS)
DoD
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
5
5
0
Dump the political correctness, it's only acting as a divider to this country.
(5)
(0)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
No, POTUS is the divider to this country. This was a non issue to the military before his policy was issued.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Byron Oyler
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen - Actully Sir it was a non-issue before Obama made feel good changes to the military. Now that someone is trying to keep the military healthy and ready, it is a division.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
Obama made feel good changes to military because that's what was happening with society in general during the time.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
So why isn't McCain objecting to Marines being barred from reenlistment because of tattoos?
(3)
(0)
Cpl Thomas Kifer
Why pick on Marines. Every service member has those with tattoo's in their ranks. Got a problem with Marines. Lol
(1)
(0)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff
The Army relaxed its tattoo standards when SMA Dailey came on board though - he actually made a lot of changes when he came on.
(1)
(0)
LTC David Brown
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - as I have said, these standards can be and sometimes are arbitrary !
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
It is always interesting to me that when the numbers are provided on "TG"'s in the military the left wants to inflate the number when talking about how many are already serving and the detrimental impact there might be on readiness. The number normally bandied about is 12,000ish. Then, when we talk about the cost, the very low number from Rand of 1,200 is used.
This article was a mish mash of topics from TG in the military to racial issues and targets of ordinance in bombing raids. I am not sure what the point of the article was exactly other than, perhaps a Russian pot stirring operation.
This article was a mish mash of topics from TG in the military to racial issues and targets of ordinance in bombing raids. I am not sure what the point of the article was exactly other than, perhaps a Russian pot stirring operation.
(2)
(0)
LTC Stephen B.
Similar to their recent claims that Trump is trying to set up an invasion of Venezuela. I'm surprised CNN/MSNBC hasn't made it the topic du jour yet.
(0)
(0)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff
It's hard to get an accurate number (just like with rape or sexual assault) when not everyone will admit to being transgender or doesn't report it.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - It also depends on you willingness to be honest. The numbers are clearly inflated when talking about how many there may be and the impact of readiness of they all went away. It is like the puffer fish filling itself to look larger than it is. Then when we talk about the cost we use the lower end number to calculate impact. Let's split the difference and say it is 5,000 or so (which I think is over inflated too). We could fill a 5,000 person gap without much of an issue. There are waiting lists for many MOS's and moving folks around to get them in quicker would work too.
Bottom line is anyone on regular, daily, required medication is harder, perhaps impossible to deploy. Anyone going through a sex change operation could be non deployable for 2+ years, maybe never. There is no advantage to national defense to do this. If you look at this in the context of the average time in service in the armed forces it would render people non deployable for a large chunk most of their time in service. If they need regular treatment and medication they may never be deployable.
Bottom line is anyone on regular, daily, required medication is harder, perhaps impossible to deploy. Anyone going through a sex change operation could be non deployable for 2+ years, maybe never. There is no advantage to national defense to do this. If you look at this in the context of the average time in service in the armed forces it would render people non deployable for a large chunk most of their time in service. If they need regular treatment and medication they may never be deployable.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google