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:
lifeturnsonadime · 28/01/2025 22:08

@GrumpyPanda I didn't know that either.

Bannedontherun · 28/01/2025 22:05

@GrumpyPanda Every day is a school day ….

GrumpyPanda · 28/01/2025 22:04

Bannedontherun · 28/01/2025 21:49

as an aside it really would not do for Trump and his mates to stick their hand up a woman’s skirt only to discover some dangly bits.

Maybe that is in part is his motivation.

Also i seem to recall some military higher up, admiral level in a military ceremonial skirt.

Levine isn't a soldier but a physician. Wears uniform.because the medical service he's part of is formally a separate branch of the armed forces, along with the meteorological service.

Bannedontherun · 28/01/2025 21:59

@lifeturnsonadime i accept your flame.

lifeturnsonadime · 28/01/2025 21:56

I do think that role that Admiral Rachel Levine played in throwing children to the alter of trans medicine has clouded my view to a certain degree.

Anyone who can't pass a health test because of their fragile mental health on the basis of their gender identity should be excluded on the same grounds as any other mental health disorder.

If the person cannot cope with correct sex pronouns then they are not robust enough, and do not have a firm enough grip of reality, to be in the armed forces

But I think that this is problematic in the sense it will feed into the notion that trans people can be discriminated against in relation to their gender presentation in the workplace which is something that I think feeds into the 'gender roles' argument. Clearly, unacceptable presentation such as that worn by the teacher in Canada with the fake boobs which is a clear public fetish display should be deemed unacceptable in any workplace.

@Bannedontherun I do not agree that women in the armed forces is problematic. I have a female family members who have been active in the British armed forces so you'll get a flaming from me for your comment about the suitability of females.

Bannedontherun · 28/01/2025 21:49

as an aside it really would not do for Trump and his mates to stick their hand up a woman’s skirt only to discover some dangly bits.

Maybe that is in part is his motivation.

Also i seem to recall some military higher up, admiral level in a military ceremonial skirt.

GailBlancheViola · 28/01/2025 21:48

They are certainly not pulling their punches in these Executive Orders.

Original poster
FlowchartRequired · 28/01/2025 21:42

Just to check that Hermione, do you mean that they were not even allowed to cover themselves up?

OP posts:
HermioneWeasley · 28/01/2025 21:40

Female soldiers in the US army were told they were even allowed to cover themselves up if undressed in the presence of a TW because that might upset/offend/‘other’ the TW so I have zero sympathy and fucks to give.

this is a direct consequence of the massive overreach by TRAs

Original poster
FlowchartRequired · 28/01/2025 21:38

Snowypeaks · 28/01/2025 21:29

This Executive Order seems rational and fair.

I also think this is an interesting and profound point:
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. (my bold)

I agree that that is an interesting point,

There is text about pronoun use too:

"Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States Government to establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity. This policy is inconsistent with the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria. This policy is also inconsistent with shifting pronoun usage or use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex."

And:

"(b) The Secretary shall promptly issue directives for DoD to end invented and identification-based pronoun usage to best achieve the policy outlined in section 2 of this order."

OP posts:
Mmmnotsure · 28/01/2025 21:35

Snowypeaks · 28/01/2025 21:29

This Executive Order seems rational and fair.

I also think this is an interesting and profound point:
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. (my bold)

Oh wow, @Snowypeaks 😄

Wonder when the new administration are going to tell us what they REALLY think!

Snowypeaks · 28/01/2025 21:29

This Executive Order seems rational and fair.

I also think this is an interesting and profound point:
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. (my bold)

Bannedontherun · 28/01/2025 21:25

Well i do think it is a bit barking to have equality and diversity in the armed forces, as soldiers are cannon fodder, so how one can send someone in to war and conflict with a psychiatric disorder is well odd.

Did inclusivity stretch to disability, maybe soldiers in wheelchairs.

Not mad on the idea of female soldiers either, may get flamed for that.

Swipe left for the next trending thread