Jump to content

oldtanker

Members
  • Content Count

    10,861
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

oldtanker last won the day on May 25

oldtanker had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,971 Excellent

About oldtanker

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    rlkfam

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Minnesota
  • Interests
    Old tractors, hunting, fishing. Home Brewing! SCUBA.

Recent Profile Visitors

5,788 profile views
  1. Ah but they are barred from swapping and you can bet if they are serving that they have to be billeted per birth gender not how they associate. Yep, restrictions. "Applicants with a history of gender dysphoria are presumptively disqualified unless they have been deemed "stable" after 36 months and willing to detransition under their birth sex". Did you miss that one all important word? STABLE? Plus they are required to serve under their biological birth gender, plus they are barred from transgendered activity for 36 months prior and the duration of service. Sorry, that bars a trans person from serving. They are asked if they are trans or ever been trans. IF they say yes an investigation has to be conducted. If they so much as attended a drag show they are done. If they lie and get caught, like when they apply for a security clearance or request mental health help and it comes out they are subject to court martial for fraudulent enlistment. So effectively can't serve. I don't think that they have a DB brown female clothing issue in mens sizes.........(don't know about now but many years ago the clothing issue for prisoners at Ft Leavenworth KS as brown and the military prison was called the "detention barracks". Hence DB brown). Don't be emotional and post all the facts, not just the ones you want to present. I actually wonder how many trans people lied to get in and are currently serving? Bet it ain't enough to warrant spending the time and effort to come up with that policy. So IF, just how much tax money are you willing to spend on this? I mean as many times you have railed about taxes this issue should make you at least think about allowing a truly trans person serve and the possibility of the potential expenses involved. And what they want is to be able to openly serve. That changes everything. Then you have to accommodate them as they "associate". Still mad cause no one is willing to waste a vote on the Libertarian party? Rick
  2. What's a preconceived notion of mental illness. Being trans gendered (politically correct name) is gender dysphoria. Not may be. That is not something that the mental health experts tag on one person and not the next who are trans gendered. So nothing emotional about it. And nothing emotional about the 41.8% suicide rate either. Now add that to the already high rate among serving people and veterans and you have one group who's going to have a in/post service rate of over 50%. Nothing emotional there either. If you have a history of mental illness of any type you are barred from serving. So it follows if you let one group who has a mental health issue (gender dysphoria) serve then you have to allow everyone with mental health issue serve following your notion of equal opportunity. Now add in the additional cost associated with this. Extra uniforms, extra berthings/barracks space and such. It's a cost and effect matter. Nothing emotional there either. The military gets X amount of money each year. You either stand ready to pay more to maintain readiness or degrade that readiness if you do something that is going to cost more. Right now we as a nation can't afford the extra expense. You are not talking a few bucks but millions. Again nothing emotional. Now as far as the EO statement from the various branches? That's equal opportunity AFTER you meet the SELECTIVE criteria to serve and are sworn in. The selection process has no equal opportunity in it at all. Pre-existing mental health/medical conditions, height, weight, physical fitness, criminal background and education can all be disqualifying things. There isn't any bar to serve based on sexual orientation, race, national origin or religion. You can even join if you area foreign national in the US with a work permit. Again nothing emotional Heck 2 local kids here that I know of were rejected because of their test scores alone yet both graduated high school. Both failed multiple times. Where is the EO there? And why do they reject people like that? Cost. If they didn't learn enough in school experience in the military shows that it's much more difficult to train people like that and therefore cost more money. Same reason if someone flunks a school that most often they are separated from service rather tan retrained in a different job. Nothing emotional about that either. Now they say you can present facts in matter like this or you can ridicule. So don't get emotional when fact are presented. Rick
  3. Bottom line Seth I honestly believe that any advantage military might gain for allowing a trans gender person to serve would be far out weighed by the potential cost. Kinda goes back to the Clinton day when he initiated the "don't ask/don't tell" policy. Coming out and admitting that you were gay was grounds for a discharge. Young soldiers who decided they didn't like the military were claiming to be gay to get a discharge. Hate to think the cost of that was to the military and tax payer. That was corrected when the military was told they would allow gays to openly serve. But there was nearly 20 years that service members could "opt out". Kinda like the Army never really came out and admitted that more than a few female soldiers who were assigned to Iraq and Afghanistan got pregnant shorty after arriving in country. They knew if they got pregnant they would be shipped out of the hazardous duty zone. Basically the brass wasn't allowed to bring that up because it wasn't politically correct. And I have absolutely no problem with females in the military. I don't have a problem with them in combat jobs as long as they have to rise up to the standards. The standards should not be lowered to allow them to pass. The problem there is if they don't pass advanced training the policy is to discharge them. They found out years ago that retraining them in a different career than what they chose results in a disgruntled service member that's just going to be trouble down the road. So it's cheaper to kick em out and train someone else in the long run. It's been that way ever sense they figure out how expensive it is to actually jail folks for minor misconduct. Rick
  4. The thing of it is that gender dysphoria is a mental health issue. Gender dysphoria is a recognized condition, for which treatment is appropriate. The LGBT community claims it is a medical condition but mental health professionals disagree because of the suicide and other mental health issues. Did you miss the part that 41.8% become suicidal even after gender realignment surgery? Did you also miss that that once they have served 180 days they can claim to be having mental health issues which will see them booted out and because you let them knowingly join you now have to pay them disability for life? So we don't allow someone known, prior to enlistment/swearing in, to have certain conditions or diseases. For example if you test positive for AIDs they won't let you serve. If someone tried to join with a history of mental health problems they are barred from serving. Not tall enough? Can't serve. Too tall? Can't serve. Overweight? Barred from service until you meet the standards. Heck you even have to pass a physical fitness test to join now. And depending on demands anything more than a couple of traffic tickets can be a bar to service. Heck in the late 80 you had to have a high school diploma (GED didn't count) to join and 3 minor traffic tickets were enough to bar you from serving. And at the same time we were kicking people out right and left. For example 3 NSF checks over 6 months off or on post was enough to boot you even if you made them good right away. Heck you are the one always yelling about taxes too. You want to pay for every trans gendered person to be issued 2 sets of dress uniforms? You want to have to pay for gender realignment surgery? You want your daughter assigned to a room with a biological male who associates with being a woman (only way to solve that is to build all new barracks with individual private rooms)? I really don't care if someone is gay or transgendered . But I do care about my taxes and military readiness. Based on what I know I cannot see one good reason to knowingly let transgended people serve. In fact I can see far more problems and expense in letting transgendered serve with no extra benefit to the military than of say letting a straight or openly gay person serve. Rick
  5. oldtanker

    78 years ago

    Interesting! Thanks! Rick
  6. I don't believe that. If that were true I'd be slim with as much coffee as I drink!😲 Rick
  7. I wanna see him walk into a bar full of Marine or Rangers and tell em they are snowflakes🤣🤣! It seems to be easy for some to call names while hiding behind a computer. Rick
  8. Seth studies have placed the transgender suicide rate at 41.8%. Now a service member who has served 180 days who attempts suicide will be medically discharged an receive benefits until death. That suicide rate stays the same even if they have "gender realignment surgery". That's one reason. Add that to the service members who suffer from PTSD? Now you have a situation where you just enlisted someone who has over a 50% chance of committing/attempting suicide. For your general information until very recently a transgendered person was diagnosed with "gender dysphoria" making this a genuine mental health issue. The only reason they no longer state that openly is the LGBT community raised a hue and cry about it claiming discrimination. It still is considered a mental health issue behind closed doors. Does that mean that they could serve till just before discharge then claim disability as having a mental disorder? Lot of issues at play here. I really doubt that having them sign a disclaimer before enlistment would stand up in court and this would wind up in court if disability compensation was denied. So to start with I'm willing to bet a large number, once in service, would demand gender realignment surgery at government expense. Another is the issues on housing and supplying personnel with barracks/berthing space and uniforms. How you you feel about your daughter having to share a berthing space on a ship or a barracks room with a biological male who associates with being female? I can also see a transgender person disgruntled after not being selected for assignment/promotion one day demanding to be in a male room and the next associating as a female just to be a pain in the backside. Another question would be uniform issue. Do they get an extra issue of both uniforms? The male and female dress uniforms are different. The military would have to treat them as whatever their biological birth gender is. They would yell and scream discrimination about that too. So IMO there are good reason to deny them the opportunity to serve. Rick
  9. How will you tell em apart?🤣 Rick
  10. Yea but now he's a former president, you know, a has been. When he was in England he was the President. Rick
  11. Never said I agree with that policy. I said it's been going on for a very long time. I doubt that there is a workable long term solution. I'm not shocked that someone tried to meddle in an election. In fact that's been going on a long time too. And most often when we meddle troops are not involved. Other times we do send in the troops. But we have used foreign aid a club far more often than not. Obama making speeches in England urging them to vote to stay in the EU was meddling. Blatant right out in the open. Rick
  12. Sneaky little devils ain't they? Just wait........they turn into teenagers and it all goes downhill from there🤣🤣😈 Rick
  13. OK and what about the negative effect 100% gridlock normally has on the economy? No farm payments, no law enforcement, the military won't get paid either. You would have absolute anarchy. Anarchy until either the Russians or Chinese marched down Pennsylvania Ave. We have been meddling in other countries ever sense we deployed troops to help put down the Boxer Rebellion at the turn of the last century. We have tried to influence elections. We were the ones who pressured the European nations to disband their empires. I've been telling people that the Russians trying to influence an election is nothing new. We too have been doing that for over 100 years. Influencing elections, propping up despot dictators and even supporting coups against foreign leaders we didn't like. The only solution to that today is this one world nonsense that you won't make happen. Rick
×
×
  • Create New...