British Army invites male to talk about his 'lived experience' as a woman

You're assuming a fair amount. There are medical conditions which prohibit entry but depending on the role won't mean someone is necessarily medically discharged or even downgraded if developed during service. Why not write them a FOI to ask what the process is for managing this generally?

Nope something completely dull and boring, but they don't have time for that sort of thing so they don't have to do it. They are non deployable so it doesn't matter.

Thanks @ParticleLizzicist. That was what I knew from friends. The entry requirements say that you cannot join for a big long list of obvious reasons (such as poor eyesight etc) but it has this:

Other
• Food allergy or intolerance (e.g. gluten, peanuts).
• Raynaud’s phenomenon / disease / syndrome.
• Diabetes.
• Diseases requiring long-term medication or replacement therapy (except under-active thyroid).
• Covid.

Replacement therapy (is taking oestrogen to grow breasts therapy?). for a "disease" seems carefully worded to allow it for the purposes of transition. Although it is technically a supplement, and NOT as some TRAs would have you believe HRT.

I can only assume that rules on fitness and medical things are being ignored to allow this person to remain part of the military.

Really? Is he a Padre?

I’ve served for nearly 20 years and never heard of a role exempt from Mandatory Annual Tests, except padres. And then he would never have been near a rifle. Every day a school day.

No surprise who’s doing all the talking and who’s having to do all the listening

fitness tests are still mandatory, whatever role you are in. As are weapon handling tests. DH will be a red line on someone’s spreadsheet. And an angry article in a newspaper.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-army-chiefs-under-fire-30688633

It’s certainly possible to kick people out if they can’t pass but it’s rare and either accompanied by other discipline issues, or more likely, you’d get medically discharged.

Slightly complex rules on med discharge but it takes less moral fibre than other routes so commanders will often medicalise something rather than deal with it through other routes.

Not all army roles require you to be fighting fit. Many ate completely back room these days. I can't remember the last time DH needed to go near a gun (even for the annual test, his role is exempt)

That's part of a bigger discussion surely, there are plenty of overweight people- both men and women in the military. Are you suggesting this particular person is likely to get special treatment? If so anything to back this up beside ignorance of assuming there aren't any fat people still serving, or do you have evidence?

Thanks. Do you have to leave if you no longer meet the requirements?

The length of the old test was the same (1.5 miles or 8 miles, depending on the test) the standard for the shorter distance were lower for women.

The new test is neutral on sex, it’s based on your role and way more complicated than the old one.

Also, if this soldier is medically fully fit I would be astonished. Bound to be on some sort of restriction at that size and weight.

I think snorting or eye rolling is a difficult reaction to suppress when we are constantly being told we have to pretend not to notice these huge masculine bodies supposedly representing some aspect of womanhood. In an ideal world, we would not laugh at anyone’s appearance, but perhaps people have to take some responsibility for placing themselves in situations where they look ridiculous.

I wonder if this person has to pass the Army basic fitness test for a woman now. I assume (it used to be) that it is different from the men's one: shorter distance etc.

Certainly this person does not look physically fit enough to be in the military which retains the BFT to keep a healthy fighting force. Does anyone know?

Adults with a sexual agenda - even if it's presenting themselves as something they're not - have no business being in schools. They're taking a political stance - that facts and biology don't exist, just gender woowoo. Schools are meant to be politically impartial so unless he's visiting schools alongside Julie Bindel, he has no business talking to children about "inclusion" or any diversity issues.
By all means talk about tanks & munitions but I'll bet he's not.

Doing inclusion work means going into schools with the whole agenda of gaslighting children into a culture of submission to identity. It's on the profile linked in the thread. This is grim. Girls can only join the army if they sign up to pretend along with what men want, no exceptions.

It's more coercion and manipulation. This is not a positive.

I think it's important not to personally attack the individual concerned, if someone wants to talk about their experience in the army that is of course fine but that is a specific individual's experience.

I think a talk on the lived experience as a Trans man or woman could be interesting and play a role in diversity training.

Why can’t Transwomen value their own identity and experience? As Trans. I am a woman and wouldn’t dream of talking to a room full of Transwomen about what it was like for ‘us’ grieving up and developing our careers in the context of being a role model for Trans people.

Of course not. And she looks embarrassed.

Presumably no one asked her what it was like being in the army as a woman?

Yes, and it also appears to be a reaction to feeling they can't live up to the hyper-masculinity and macho military culture. So obviously that means they must be wrong and not really a man rather than the culture being wrong.

Men can’t talk about how it feels to be a woman in any set of circumstances or any professional context, because they’re not women.

Doesn’t the Army have enough female staff to talk about their own experiences as women?

As for the “taunting” comment: not “taunting” at all, but “snorting” (yet again) at the photo that proves that men who think they’re women “pass” as such. They don’t, however hard they shoehorn bulky shoulders into uniform intended for a female body.

"I think an army that accepts and validates transwomen has to be a positive step"

How and why does the army need to "validate" (whatever that actually means) the identity claims of its soldiers?

There seem to be quite a lot of men who transition post army. It seemed from some accounts to possibly be at least in part a response to trauma.

As a veteran I'm not convinced a trans person should serve. I would prefer them to have a psychiatric assessment, could I trust their judgement in a dangerous situation?

One of my officers transitioned after he left. He was not at mentally healthy individual I would have been very uncomfortable following his orders if he was still in.

I am absolutely not saying trans people shouldn't be in the military I AM saying there needs to be assessments on each individual case!

It was only recently we had Klinger on Mash dressing as a woman to try to get medically discharged from Vietnam.

(OMG mash was 50 years ago!! WTF, so not relevant at all!!)

The more articles I read the more my view become clearer - I am firmly of the view that people should not be able to change gender or sex at all. Campaigning for single spaces etc is important but in my view that is only superficial, I believe that the fundamental issue is biology. Biology in my view means you are male or female.