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

[MenWearOrnaments]

The co-chair of the Army Servicewomen's Network tweeted out some photos of a Women in Leadership event yesterday.

Cue many women pointing out the elephant in the room, so to speak, in the last photo of the Lived Experience Panel:

https://twitter.com/ASN_CoChair/status/1689310145770135553

Perhaps a subtle act of protest?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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)

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

There is comprehensive policy. I expect it’s open source.

Some conditions which are easily manageable in normal work would be impossible to manage during training for so many reasons.

Yes but the person in question was already in service when they transitioned? I developed asthma and wasn't discharged, although I was temporarily downgraded whilst they assessed it. PP using the joining criteria to assume this soldier should be discharged and that they're receiving special treatment without knowing the policy feels unfair.

To say if I'd have had it prior to joining it would have been a bar to entry. The same criteria isn't necessary applicable to both.

@Pandaflop Just seeking to understand. Like you, my expertise is courtesy of Dr Google but @ParticleLizzicist has actual experience.

Some of the things barring entry might well develop during a long career. However, being overweight is surely an aspect of fitness a soldier would be expected to manage. We need soldiers who can do their jobs, not poster boys for diversity.

I wonder whether Hannah is healthy using BMI and waist measurement. Calculated as the women she is of course.

I also have lived experience, 8 years worth although I signed off in 2016. Even when I was in there were lots of overweight personnel, only a small % were ever discharged because of this. There are FOIs and all sorts of reports online in regard to this. I agree with you that weight and maintaining fitness standards should be compulsory, but it often isn't. The 2 are different things (what shpuld be the case and what is the case), age in my experience is the biggest denominator rather than sex.

I am GC but I feel uncomfortable about the discussion of an individual who has served their country for 4 decades and questions being asked beyond 'what was their role in this event' which I agree is wrong as it should be women. Sure I understand the curiosity for discussions around what logistically happens to someone in the forces who transitions, and around weight and medication and fitness to serve etc, but personally find it uncomfortable in this context- separate threads on those would be interesting perhaps. Just my opinion.

Me thinks the lady next to him is suppressing a snigger 🙄

I have to confess that if I had served for 40 years as an EOD technician with countless combat tours behind me then I would be looking for a cosy little number to end out my days.

The person seated second left in the photo seems to have seen the joke.
Pity some others haven’t.

I agree that the discussion should not be personal - I respect the individual for their service and do not wish to say anything in regard to them.

My opinion is that to should not be possible to. move from one sex to another in any context.