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

[FlowchartRequired]

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."

nope - this was 1983/84 and it was a blanket ban. Officers didn't do the job i wanted to do (officers don't tend to do trades) - they may have had the occasional female officer but i don't think so.

It changed not long after, but by then i was in the Army doing something, it turned out, that i REALLY wanted to do even more. So it was ok in the end.

that is both shit and a good outcome Bref.

The acceptance of gay people in the US armed forces was very extensively debated from the time don't ask don't tell was introduced until it was repealed in 2012. I would be surprised if the issue got revisited.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

I would doubt that there is any public discussion of doing it Dean.

It would be very unpopular and would not be able to survive a legal case if someone was able to contest it.

It is illegitimate discrimination and it always was.

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

I am too lazy to look, but 15 years ago t think women (in the US at least) could be fighter pilots. In my day not

But again: it should be judged on a level playing field. Are they physically able to be a fightee pilot? (or whatever) And do they meet the mental health criteria in the same way as everyone else has to? I have zero issue.

If they contribute to the "disruption of good order and conduct" (funny how those phrases stick) - out they go. Straight, gay, trans, general or private - the key 5hing is can they do their job? Do they prevent others from doing theirs? That is what counts.

And single sex facilities.

One of the main issues, in former times, of being gay was the possibility of being coerced by bad actors. Now being gay isn't generally an issue in the wider population, there should be no restriction on members of 5he military being LGB.

BTW - in my job if you had a disruptive adulterous affair, that was exposed, you could also be out on your ear.

Being trans is supposed to involve an inner feeling. Taking steps - from clothing, name changes through to hormones and surgery - is surely on a different level. They are the outward manifestation of the inner feeling.

Trans men often don't use these outward manifestations. They often still use the ladies and they play women's sport - like Quinn, the Canadian international soccer player, who still plays for the ladies team.

So is the issue being trans ie having the feeling, or the manifestations, or both?

Is it like in the Church of England where you can be gay (the feeling) as long as you don't act on it (the manifestation)?

So, could someone be trans in themselves while just keeping quiet about it?

My dad worked in the merchant navy in the 50s. All the catering stewards on all the ships were transvestites - this was well known as the way you could live your life as trans. They were totally male presenting at work, but off duty when the ship docked, they would dress up and go out.

Everyone knew they were trans but it didn't run over into their work. No one called them their female name or anything like that.

Maybe this is where we are heading?

Indeed, and don't ask don't tell, problematic as it was, was an open acknowledgment that lots of service men and women are gay (and always were).

Yes and I completely agree. And largely, it's making other people validate your belief that's the problem.

I think what I was getting it was that I don't believe they genuinely do believe it. That it's all about the validation.

"Third spaces in the military would ensure talent isn't wasted (I get that some don't want third spaces) I am not sure it matters that a male pilot is performing expertly at the peak female level as long as we're talking duties and service and not competition"

Genuinely, why should the military be lowering the fitness requirement that is dependent on sex category to accommodate someone who makes the claim that they are not the sex category they are?

And providing 'third spaces'? And what if that pilot is deployed? What third spaces do you think are to be provided? Then comes a question of what should be sacrificed in provisioning of anything to set up that specific third space. What do you think should be left off so that this person can have a special space for them? Should the provisions for the female people be reduced to provision that third space?

And if they are not fit for being deployed, then they will not be cleared to fly. Their flight status is contingent on them being able to be deployed in the fighter pilot role they have.

There really are some very practical reasons for the military decisions referred to in that EO.

I'm wondering if that's a bit of a master stroke.

Because if you're not claiming to be trans because you have gender dysphoria, then is it just a fetish?

Gender dysphoria is always used to leverage the door open.

Her we have another example of taking activists' sticky hands off the language, and grabbing it for ourselves 😁

As regards the military specifically I don't see any issue with calling Ian 'Linda' or Gemma 'Frank' if that's what he/she needs to feel better and they otherwise get on with it.

As regards peak fitness: This argument was employed against women joining the army in the first place (as well as elite security forces and the police - see controversy around the female security guard when Trump was shot and controversy around baby care for female police officers) and is still perceived by some as being problematic, ie the female peak would never reach the male peak upon which previous military standards had always been built around and those standards had to be lowered or changed to accommodate women.

There is also an argument as to a male soldiers finding it harder to tolerate a fellow female soldier being hurt (or raped) and therefore being more prone to compromise if captured by an enemy than if captured with a fellow male soldier or having to take on more load to accommodate the lesser physical strength, height, girth of a female soldier. Of course this would be an argument equally against allowing transmen amongst male military. But there is crossover. It isn't so clearly delineated.

If the transwoman pilot is performing to (probably outperforming, let's face it) what the standard for female pilots is, and females can not get past that level of performance, that is the peak it doesn't matter. They are performing within the expected guidelines for that sex. It might be more of a problem the other way round of course, where the peak probably would never be enough. So it might apply there. But overall Is the jet getting competently flown to expected standards for the sex category or not?

Some would say allowing women in the army is also playing with reality to a degree and ought to not be allowed. Some.

My point overall is vague arbitrary language can be employed and weaponised against other groups and I'm not sure I agree that it is fair to exclude all trans identifying people on the brushstroke basis of 'they are all mentally unwell' and not living an 'honourable life'.

I can't see why are fine with it.

I think you'd have trouble convincing anyone, let alone a court of law, that sexual orientation is a lifestyle choice. Given the number of lawyers, judges, and employment experts who are gay.

And if push came to shove they could easily base it on science.

If men want to enter women's spaces based on them thinking the truth is fluid, then let's nail it down with a sex test.

@GreenApplesRedApplesYellowApples

Because there are people believe it or not, who still think homosexuality is a life-style choice, grounded in ill mental health and at odds with subjective truth about sexual orientation. THEIR subjective truth.

Well, they're wrong, these people. Homosexuality is a thing.

How can person X's homosexuality being at odds with person Y's belief mean that person X is not being truthful? It's person Y who believes homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not the homosexual person X. Person Y may not believe that Person X is being truthful but that's their problem.

It isn't great therefore that this EO appeals to an arbitrary subjective truth as its' basis and not science.
The truth that is referred to is the science. It is not arbitrary and subjective. People are either one sex or the other and that is a material reality, fixed at conception and immutable. If someone is gay, how does that contradict any of that?

But the language is vague. Not appealing to science to back it up.

Anyway I can see that my concerns aren't being shared. I still feel uneasy about it but everyone appears to feel secure that this cannot be used to discriminate against other groups.

I have less optimism but we'll see.

Why should any other male person be excluded from their chosen career for failing a standard test, whereas another male with a gender identity is allowed to perform at a lower standard and be accepted in that role?

There are absolutely accommodations to be made for female people where that it possible because they are then being assessed within their category?

Why should someone who claims to be the sex that they are not materially be given special treatment over others of their sex category?

I think what I was getting it was that I don't believe they genuinely do believe it. That it's allabout the validation.

Validation .. and Power and Control. Male pattern behaviour all over it.

@GreenApplesRedApplesYellowApples

But the language of the policy is quite specific. The rationale of the EO makes clear that the special accommodations as well as the fact of having what they class as a psychiatric disorder are problematic.

I don't feel we've really got to the bottom of why a scientifically proven sexual orientation which affects nobody else and no-one has to accommodate is the same as a subjective feeling which everybody else has to accommodate. They're opposites, almost.

Edited to tag in Greenapples

Because it is convenient to use as a fear tactic to leverage acceptance of the legitimate discrimination.

which I know you know.

I saw a video yesterday (which I can find again) saying that there are over 15,000 trans people currently in the US military and they're all not allowed to be deployed.

Does anyone know more about this and if it's true or not?

@GreenApplesRedApplesYellowApples

If the transwoman pilot is performing to (probably outperforming, let's face it) what the standard for female pilots is, and females can not get past that level of performance, that is the peak it doesn't matter. They are performing within the expected guidelines for that sex. It might be more of a problem the other way round of course, where the peak probably would never be enough. So it might apply there. But overall Is the jet getting competently flown to expected standards for the sex category or not?

Fighter pilots, male and female, are held to the same standards. No military would send a substandard flyer up in a machine that cost tens of millions of dollars unless they knew they could do the job. Which is also why any doubt as to mental health peak fitness results an either redeployment or medical discharge,

Yep. The trans lobby are always using LGB as a cover and excuse. Same all over. Sickening.

Hence for example, Simon Fanshawe left Stonewall, the organisation he founded.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11564363/amp/I-helped-Stonewall-today-plead-business-public-body-reconsider.html

Actually, I've just found the video -
https://x.com/robsmithonline/status/1883957912747557046

There are 1,328,000 Active personnel and 799,500 Reserve personnel so well over 2 million. 15,000 still sounds a bit rapid onset. I wonder are the physical fitness requirements lower for women? That would be nice for blokes who want to be marines and eat donuts.

The speaker says he campaigned for the ban on L and G people in the military to be lifted "and the trans got added on at the last minute." Sound familiar?

Thanks for the elucidation👍🏽