Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

US executive order - relating to gender identity and the armed forces.

138 replies

FlowchartRequired · 28/01/2025 21:11

Apologies if I missed this being discussed.

https://archive.ph/4zC91

"Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness
EXECUTIVE ORDER
January 27, 2025"

An extract:

"Recently, however, the Armed Forces have been afflicted with radical gender ideology to appease activists unconcerned with the requirements of military service like physical and mental health, selflessness, and unit cohesion. Longstanding Department of Defense (DoD) policy (DoD Instruction (DoDI) 6130.03) provides that it is the policy of the DoD to ensure that service members are “[f]ree of medical conditions or physical defects that may reasonably be expected to require excessive time lost from duty for necessary treatment or hospitalization.” As a result, many mental and physical health conditions are incompatible with active duty, from conditions that require substantial medication or medical treatment to bipolar and related disorders, eating disorders, suicidality, and prior psychiatric hospitalization.

Consistent with the military mission and longstanding DoD policy, expressing a false “gender identity” divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service. Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life. A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."

OP posts:
Datun · 29/01/2025 12:14

And what makes them transwomen?
Their own inner subjective feeling about themselves.

and this is where I get a bit of a snorting reaction.

If a man genuinely thought he was a woman, he would have severe mental health issues.

It would be like including someone who genuinely thought they were Napoleon, although they understood that lots of people can't see it, so you will keep calling them Private Smith, however wrong that makes you.

Snowypeaks · 29/01/2025 12:13

Different rules apply to civilian life of course but if you have gender dysphoria (for whatever reason), that is being classed as a psychiatric condition which disqualifies you along with other psychiatric conditions. I don't think it's unfair that a psychiatric condition affecting your perception of reality would disqualify you from joining the armed forces.

And if you just enjoy experimenting with gender expression, you can do that in your own time.

Datun · 29/01/2025 12:09

SerafinasGoose · 29/01/2025 12:04

In an ideal situation those cases would be considered in accordance with individual circumstances.

We all know this has always been a far from ideal situation. Refusing to employ trans people because they're trans is illegal in the UK - rightly so - and the above concessions would be made on the basis of ability to do that specific job, not trans status. 15 years ago, I'd have said that was very fair, and to a point, I still believe it fair. This comes with a caveat.

The MRA/TRA lobby has come after women with all guns blazing. Women have been doxed, threatened, 'cancelled', fired from upstanding jobs, denied our rightful achievements in sporting and business categories (the latter of which are at a premium anyway), had our medical language diluted, lost the right to our free choice of a female HCP for delicate procedures, our spaces co-opted, and our presence in those spaces viewed as (at best) as validation. Women (cf. Caroline Farrow, Sarah Phillimore) have been persecuted by the police for saying that sex matters; had their names listed on a database of wrongthinkers who have not been tried or convicted of any criminal offence. This lobby is turning us into the kind of society that has black lists of 'undesirable' people. This lobby has levelled the most disgusting, misogynistic language at women - the sort that became a short-lived taboo around the time of the 1990s - and even had it coopted into everyday NHS discourse and literature.

Had the vociferously aggressive MRAs not inserted themselves into trans rights activism and ruthlessly persecuted women in this manner, I'd have a lot more sympathy now.

Set within the above contexts? I'm all out of fucks.

Show quote history

Well said.

there's a time for being fair, and then there's a time for just fuck the fuck off.

Helleofabore · 29/01/2025 12:09

Danja2010 · 29/01/2025 11:49

Do you have stats for this ? I just saw an interview with a trans woman who is a fighter pilot of over 15 years . You wouldn’t want to lose the experience and money invested which is what Trump is suggesting . That would be a lot of talent wasted .

Show quote history

And does that fighter pilot expect all personnel to use their preferred language? Do they do this under the threat of military legal action if someone doesn't?

If they are deployed, are they accommodated with the male pilots or the female pilots? Are there even any female pilots in that squadron?

Does that male pilot have to maintain their physical fitness at a male standard meaning they are at peak fitness, or at the female standard, meaning that they are not in the same zone of fitness as the other male pilots. Female pilots at their peak fitness are still female pilots at peak fitness. A male person who is not at peak fitness is getting special treatment.

There are many military people who have to cease their chosen career stream which the military has invested heavily in, due to health and other reasons. It may mean that that person has to make decisions. The military may choose to use that person in other project as a serving member or as an external contractor so that they don't lose that talent that they have invested in.

Peregrina · 29/01/2025 12:05

I too was puzzling over the fighter pilot, and I would suspect that the experience could only have been gained as a man.

And what makes them transwomen?
Their own inner subjective feeling about themselves.

OK, many of us wouldn't mind this, if it stayed internal but it's when some aggressive transwomen insist that they are women and demand admission to women's spaces thus trampling over our rights that we object to.

SerafinasGoose · 29/01/2025 12:04

FlowchartRequired · 28/01/2025 23:04

I believe that people should have the freedom to be gender non conforming (within sensible reason - so not the massive fake boob teacher mentioned earlier).

I don't believe in compelling speech or making people go along with the fantasy that humans can actually change sex against their will. I have huge issues with the ethics of 'gender affirming care'.

Even if I was pro the current incarnation of 'gender affirming care' I do wonder if the armed forces is the correct place to be emloyed if you are going through extreme body modification? If there were complications and the soldier (for example) was left with incontinence, would they need to be discharged? What if hormones weren't available on active duty? Would that solder be unable to be deployed?

Show quote history

In an ideal situation those cases would be considered in accordance with individual circumstances.

We all know this has always been a far from ideal situation. Refusing to employ trans people because they're trans is illegal in the UK - rightly so - and the above concessions would be made on the basis of ability to do that specific job, not trans status. 15 years ago, I'd have said that was very fair, and to a point, I still believe it fair. This comes with a caveat.

The MRA/TRA lobby has come after women with all guns blazing. Women have been doxed, threatened, 'cancelled', fired from upstanding jobs, denied our rightful achievements in sporting and business categories (the latter of which are at a premium anyway), had our medical language diluted, lost the right to our free choice of a female HCP for delicate procedures, our spaces co-opted, and our presence in those spaces viewed as (at best) as validation. Women (cf. Caroline Farrow, Sarah Phillimore) have been persecuted by the police for saying that sex matters; had their names listed on a database of wrongthinkers who have not been tried or convicted of any criminal offence. This lobby is turning us into the kind of society that has black lists of 'undesirable' people. This lobby has levelled the most disgusting, misogynistic language at women - the sort that became a short-lived taboo around the time of the 1990s - and even had it coopted into everyday NHS discourse and literature.

Had the vociferously aggressive MRAs not inserted themselves into trans rights activism and ruthlessly persecuted women in this manner, I'd have a lot more sympathy now.

Set within the above contexts? I'm all out of fucks.

Datun · 29/01/2025 12:04

Snowypeaks · 29/01/2025 11:58

Their own inner subjective feeling about themselves. Which is as it should be.
Nobody else should have to perform for them.

Show quote history

I'm thinking of Klinger in MASH.

He pretended he thought he was a woman, precisely in order to be discharged from the army!

Funnily enough, they didn't believe him, and he had to stay.

Now men aren't believed and they have to go

How times have changed!

Helleofabore · 29/01/2025 12:02

GreenApplesRedApplesYellowApples · 29/01/2025 11:47

I am not sure if it can be extrapolated to include other groups.

Fair enough.

I disagree though. After all, as long as you're not taking cross sex hormones being trans identifying doesn't affect your military ability either, does it? Yet mental health and an arbitrary composite truthfulness of existence is being used as an argument for exclusion here. So why can't it be used in other contexts?

By the way mental health has been used as an argument against gay and lesbian people in the past. Not that long ago.

Show quote history

Sorry, I think I should be more clear.

There are mental health issues that people are currently excluded from recruitment for already. Why do you think that Gender dsyphoria should be not on that list when it requires extensive treatment and has been said to be so debilitating that it requires people to treat the person as if their identity is a material reality?

There are named other reasons for not allowing the inclusion of someone who expects to be treated as if they are the opposite sex (or neither sex). One relates to language used.

Others are far more practical. Single sex spaces that include living and sleeping arrangements. And sports and physical testing aspects. Health professionals are another - if a female person can request a same sex health professional, this most definitely is an issue. These are just some.

And if exceptions are made for one group's philosophical belief about themselves, what other groups should be able to demand to have special treatment.

Snowypeaks · 29/01/2025 12:01

Of course, Trump might do anything. But I can't see the connection. I can't see what in this executive order makes it inevitable or even likely that LGB people will be targeted.

334bu · 29/01/2025 11:58

just saw an interview with a trans woman who is a fighter pilot of over 15 years . You wouldn’t want to lose the experience and money invested which is what Trump is suggesting . That would be a lot of talent wasted .

Was this experience gained as a man and and now that they have transitioned are they still on active duty or have they excluded themself because of surgery/ medication?

Snowypeaks · 29/01/2025 11:58

Datun · 29/01/2025 11:52

If they're not allowed to use the wrong pronouns, or use the spaces of the opposite sex, or expect people to think they've changed sex, then I'm not sure what about them would even be considered 'trans'.

Edited

Their own inner subjective feeling about themselves. Which is as it should be.
Nobody else should have to perform for them.

Datun · 29/01/2025 11:54

GreenApplesRedApplesYellowApples · 29/01/2025 11:52

Truly?

Maybe I spend too much time on the internet in the wrong places for you to see such attitudes as impossible. Especially in a right leaning, conservative ultra-religious funded administration.

There is nothing in the way language is being employed in this EO to rejoice over. Just because it appears to be a victory against the nonsense that has made women's lives (and objectively their own lives) incredibly difficult doesn't mean it's automatically great. It isn't detailed enough. It is couched in subjective language and even I can see why some trans people will have issues with it.

Show quote history

Well can you be more specific?

You highlighted the word truthful?

How is homosexuality not truthful? How would it be described as not truthful.

i'm not denying homophobia exists, and there are many ways to promote it. I just can't see what you're getting at in this particular order.

Datun · 29/01/2025 11:52

If they're not allowed to use the wrong pronouns, or use the spaces of the opposite sex, or expect people to think they've changed sex, then I'm not sure what about them would even be considered 'trans'.

GreenApplesRedApplesYellowApples · 29/01/2025 11:52

Datun · 29/01/2025 11:45

After all. Maybe I think being Lesbian or Gay isn't grounded in reality either

it is though. It's verifiable.

Maybe I think their personal life isn't honest on the basis of their sex preferences

Again, the honesty is provable.

Maybe I think it's selfish for a Gay person to demand I 'honour' their sexuality.

I'm not sure what that would constitute, to be honest.

Truly?

Maybe I spend too much time on the internet in the wrong places for you to see such attitudes as impossible. Especially in a right leaning, conservative ultra-religious funded administration.

There is nothing in the way language is being employed in this EO to rejoice over. Just because it appears to be a victory against the nonsense that has made women's lives (and objectively their own lives) incredibly difficult doesn't mean it's automatically great. It isn't detailed enough. It is couched in subjective language and even I can see why some trans people will have issues with it.

Helleofabore · 29/01/2025 11:49

GreenApplesRedApplesYellowApples · 29/01/2025 11:47

I am not sure if it can be extrapolated to include other groups.

Fair enough.

I disagree though. After all, as long as you're not taking cross sex hormones being trans identifying doesn't affect your military ability either, does it? Yet mental health and an arbitrary composite truthfulness of existence is being used as an argument for exclusion here. So why can't it be used in other contexts?

By the way mental health has been used as an argument against gay and lesbian people in the past. Not that long ago.

Show quote history

Yes, it does though.

Some of which are directly mentioned in the EO.

Danja2010 · 29/01/2025 11:49

guaranteedpersonality · 29/01/2025 01:42

I think it’s an excellent and well written EO - nearly as impressive as today’s Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation EO.

I believe by far the majority of trans people in the military do not serve in frontline active combat positions. They are in auxiliary/support/associated services roles.

Do you have stats for this ? I just saw an interview with a trans woman who is a fighter pilot of over 15 years . You wouldn’t want to lose the experience and money invested which is what Trump is suggesting . That would be a lot of talent wasted .

Beekeepingmum · 29/01/2025 11:48

GreenApplesRedApplesYellowApples · 29/01/2025 11:18

"conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life. A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."

Does no one see this as problematic? It's not very well grounded

Who says what is truthful or not? I mean what is the underlying foundation upon which saying one is female or male is not truthful? It isn't being made clear. It isn't saying: in contrast to ones biological gamete selected sex. It reads as arbitrary. An opinion.

The humility and selflessness part is also arbitrary in the context in which it is written. Will a trans identifying person not also lay their life for their country as well as their fellow soldiers? It's questionable.

This is ambiguous and leaves room for other groups to be excluded.

After all. Maybe I think being Lesbian or Gay isn't grounded in reality either. Maybe I think their personal life isn't honest on the basis of their sex preferences. Maybe I think it's selfish for a Gay person to demand I 'honour' their sexuality.

It's problematic. Wholly deliberately vaguely put and unmoored from scientific facts as a backup.

I completely understand the problem but this has issues imo.

And that is precisely the conversation that was had, what 50 years ago, and still is going on in some countries.

GreenApplesRedApplesYellowApples · 29/01/2025 11:47

Helleofabore · 29/01/2025 11:34

But where does a person's sexual orientation impact ability to do military duties?

What is the issue with 'honouring' their sexual orientation? What impact does that person's sexual orientation have on you (generally)? Whether you believe they are homosexual or bisexual or heterosexual, that is their personal reality and it is not supported by anyone else's validation.

I do think that the wording of this EO seems to be less strong than the EO produced with May Mailman. I agree but I don't think that your analogy works, as in I am not sure if it can be extrapolated to include other groups.

Show quote history

I am not sure if it can be extrapolated to include other groups.

Fair enough.

I disagree though. After all, as long as you're not taking cross sex hormones being trans identifying doesn't affect your military ability either, does it? Yet mental health and an arbitrary composite truthfulness of existence is being used as an argument for exclusion here. So why can't it be used in other contexts?

By the way mental health has been used as an argument against gay and lesbian people in the past. Not that long ago.

Datun · 29/01/2025 11:45

After all. Maybe I think being Lesbian or Gay isn't grounded in reality either

it is though. It's verifiable.

Maybe I think their personal life isn't honest on the basis of their sex preferences

Again, the honesty is provable.

Maybe I think it's selfish for a Gay person to demand I 'honour' their sexuality.

I'm not sure what that would constitute, to be honest.

Helleofabore · 29/01/2025 11:43

GreenApplesRedApplesYellowApples · 29/01/2025 11:40

It's not me who doesn't believe this.

But ok. Lets just trust that this deliberately ambiguous language will only ever applied to trans identifying people.

Show quote history

I think though it is good to have the discussion as to how it could be misapplied and why and whether there is any intention to extend this EO or to create another EO separately that will exclude LGB people.

I do think interrogating how it could in practical terms, not vague terms, is a very worthwhile exercise.

But I don't understand how you are applying it to sexual orientation. Edit: it reads very clear that it is relating to gender identity, is there any wiggle room to extend this EO?

Datun · 29/01/2025 11:42

GreenApplesRedApplesYellowApples · 29/01/2025 11:40

It's not me who doesn't believe this.

But ok. Lets just trust that this deliberately ambiguous language will only ever applied to trans identifying people.

Show quote history

I don't see it ambiguous. Is it the word truthful?

How could someone who is gay be accused of lying about being gay?

And why would it matter to anyone?

GreenApplesRedApplesYellowApples · 29/01/2025 11:40

Datun · 29/01/2025 11:34

Claiming you're the opposite sex clearly isn't truthful.

Claiming you're attracted to your own sex, when you're dating your own sex, clearly is.

Show quote history

It's not me who doesn't believe this.

But ok. Lets just trust that this deliberately ambiguous language will only ever applied to trans identifying people.

Helleofabore · 29/01/2025 11:35

JanesLittleGirl · 29/01/2025 11:26

Women were not allowed to serve in HM Ships until 1990. The first ones to actually go to sea served on HMS Brilliant.

Show quote history

Thank you.

Datun · 29/01/2025 11:34

GreenApplesRedApplesYellowApples · 29/01/2025 11:18

"conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life. A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."

Does no one see this as problematic? It's not very well grounded

Who says what is truthful or not? I mean what is the underlying foundation upon which saying one is female or male is not truthful? It isn't being made clear. It isn't saying: in contrast to ones biological gamete selected sex. It reads as arbitrary. An opinion.

The humility and selflessness part is also arbitrary in the context in which it is written. Will a trans identifying person not also lay their life for their country as well as their fellow soldiers? It's questionable.

This is ambiguous and leaves room for other groups to be excluded.

After all. Maybe I think being Lesbian or Gay isn't grounded in reality either. Maybe I think their personal life isn't honest on the basis of their sex preferences. Maybe I think it's selfish for a Gay person to demand I 'honour' their sexuality.

It's problematic. Wholly deliberately vaguely put and unmoored from scientific facts as a backup.

I completely understand the problem but this has issues imo.

Claiming you're the opposite sex clearly isn't truthful.

Claiming you're attracted to your own sex, when you're dating your own sex, clearly is.

Helleofabore · 29/01/2025 11:34

GreenApplesRedApplesYellowApples · 29/01/2025 11:18

"conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life. A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."

Does no one see this as problematic? It's not very well grounded

Who says what is truthful or not? I mean what is the underlying foundation upon which saying one is female or male is not truthful? It isn't being made clear. It isn't saying: in contrast to ones biological gamete selected sex. It reads as arbitrary. An opinion.

The humility and selflessness part is also arbitrary in the context in which it is written. Will a trans identifying person not also lay their life for their country as well as their fellow soldiers? It's questionable.

This is ambiguous and leaves room for other groups to be excluded.

After all. Maybe I think being Lesbian or Gay isn't grounded in reality either. Maybe I think their personal life isn't honest on the basis of their sex preferences. Maybe I think it's selfish for a Gay person to demand I 'honour' their sexuality.

It's problematic. Wholly deliberately vaguely put and unmoored from scientific facts as a backup.

I completely understand the problem but this has issues imo.

But where does a person's sexual orientation impact ability to do military duties?

What is the issue with 'honouring' their sexual orientation? What impact does that person's sexual orientation have on you (generally)? Whether you believe they are homosexual or bisexual or heterosexual, that is their personal reality and it is not supported by anyone else's validation.

I do think that the wording of this EO seems to be less strong than the EO produced with May Mailman. I agree but I don't think that your analogy works, as in I am not sure if it can be extrapolated to include other groups.

Swipe left for the next trending thread