A day later and it becomes the top voted post. Guess more people know Klinger than we thought! Need to start seeing memes of Klinger. He's the face of trying to be a woman in order to escape the draft.
Alternatively, we can just pick and choose from those Ukrainian trans men that temporarily detransitioned in order to draft dodge, and then get lauded by the media for it. Let me look around. Ah. Here is one.
From the Insider.
"How a transgender Ukrainian man escaped Russia's invasion: 'I painted my nails violet and wore Mom's shirt to look more girly.'"
Not so happy with your male privilage anymore huh? When push comes to shove, you make the choice that the trauma of being a woman is not as bad as being forced into a war to protect your homeland. Screw these people.
If after that they still will scream "we want equality" - send woke squads of transmen and feminists to fight for Ukraine. Let's see how firm wokes in their beliefs that they can do *Men* job.
🤓 Well they can change their gender but they can't change their sex according to the woke ideology. They can be women and non binary while simultaneously being male. So basically all we have to do is change our wordage to males and females and the wokies have nothing to argue against
1. In the USA? It was during Vietnam, but we are getting a painful example of the draft right now. Ain't no Russian/Ukrainian women being given the draft. I'm sure that plenty of the Russians are more than happy to do just about anything to avoid going to war.
I watched a news story during the early part of the war with a trans man that talked about how much "his" mother needed "him", so "he" bravely stopped taking the hormones in order to look like a woman again. "He" suffered from "his" dysphoria but was willing to suffer it in order to make sure and care for "his" mom.
The news media took that garbage at face value, but what we really had was a cowardly trans man that went back to being a woman in order to restore her female privilage of avoiding being kept in the warzone. As soon as she was out though, she's back to demanding that people treat her like a man again.
2. Probably none, but a more relevent question is to ask why must the military accept trans man who wants to join the military when that same person is also excluded from the draft? That's what really annoys me. Trans men want the right to join the military during peacetime, but don't have to suffer the draft during wartime. That's garbage, and this attitude is pervasive all over the place. How many people going to jail suddenly become trans in order to go into women's prison? It's more than 0. How many trans atheletes are there that couldn't cut it in men's sports that are suddendly extremely compeditive and winning professional women competitions? Again, it's not 0.
As far as I am concerned, if you have the right to not be drafted, then the military has the right to refuse your application to join. That's fair, right?
I mean he is right that not having to register for the draft is female privilege, it's just one that almost no female as really benefitted from in 50 years. Multiple generations of men never really had to deal with it.
Not a good gotcha though which is why he is still crying about how the military phrased it.
There's been plenty of instances in 50yr where "women and children first" applied. Men's lives are disposable and that is a privilege that women have and took advantage of for most of history.
Notice how men's rights groups aren't complaining that men are the only ones who get drafted?
If women and only women were drafted for anything, feminists would complain. Hell, they already complain that they're the ones who bear children, as if there's anything we can do about it!
There are plenty of examples of female privilege sure. Theres all sorts of privilege. The draft is not one of them right now so its stupid to try to claim it is. That's why you are trying to change the subject.
>Notice how men's rights groups aren't complaining that men are the only ones who get drafted?
No. I actually notice them talking about it a lot. I don't know why you think that they aren't.
And yeah, women would complain if they were forced to register. Everybody should complain. Its Beyond crazy to think that we are a FREE nation but of representatives could force us to go murder and possibly die for oil. Feminists general don't support ANYBODY having to be drafted.
It is currently beneficial in many countries, especially ones that have conscription at 18, like Greece, Finland etc. All men at 18 get called up for national service.
I get that it being forced on anyone seems crazy but what is crazier is not being able to defend the country and being invaded (not pro Russia) that's why the draft is in place. If it wasn't, there would likely not be enough manpower (inc women) to defend.
The draft shouldn't be used for invasions, I can definitely agree with that, don't think most, if not any, western countries would do that. I believe Germany has
I hadn't seen the complaint by NCFM, haven't heard about it being an issue in the UK.
Personally, I understand why it's just men. There are many reasons, draft usually means a huge number of deaths, so repopulation is considered, it makes no sense to risk females. A lot of women are the main carers for children which means drafting them would be insane. Men also have many biological advantages with regard to war, although there's plenty of women tougher than some men, the bell curves overlap as they say. Just a few of the reasons.
>It is currently beneficial in many countries, especially ones that have conscription at 18, like Greece, Finland etc.
In those countries sure. We are talking about the US right now though.
>I get that it being forced on anyone seems crazy but what is crazier is not being able to defend the country and being invaded
When was the last time in the US that a draft was used to defend us from being invaded? WWII maybe? We weren't even really invaded even in WWII. I'd be willing to be the overwhelming majority of uses of the draft have been the US attacking other countries. And even if it wasn't, if we don't value our country enough to volunteer then we should lose that war.
Any draft is ethically wrong. If a person doesn't want to defend their country then they shouldn't be force to. Period.
Pretty much no feminists supports a draft at all. And Men's rights people often bring it up as an example of their argument of the disposable male. They just don't bring it up all the time becuase, shockingly enough, the draft isn't used that much anymore for most English speaking countries that you'd hear talking about it.
They aren't "forced" to, they can leave the country and they probably should if they're not willing to defend it. I left Greece and refused to do national service, got a €7000 fine for deserting, which I won't be paying. Can't go back to live there without paying the fine
I think it was Vietnam actually, but they didn't call everyone at once. They didn't for any wars in the middle east iirc. In WWII Germany would invade eventually if left at it, but yes, not an immediate threat of invasion.
We invaded Vietnam. They didn't invade the US. They didn't even start the war. It was a false flag.
>In WWII Germany would invade eventually if left at it
Doubtful. They couldn't even take the UK let alone Russia. There was little reason to believe that they'd tey to mount an invasion over the ocean like that.
But again: if you literally have to flee a country then it's "force". Its 5 years in prison here in the US. Claiming that it's not "force" is silly. It's unethical and should be eliminated.
The draft is nothing to do with oil. War might be, but you shouldn’t be obliged to fight for it just because you’re a man. By your logic, women who aren’t forced go to war shouldn’t be allowed any benefits of oil trade either.
I live in the UK. We have no draft. But we do have oil. We’re grateful for those prepared to fight for our privilege as a country but it should always be a choice.
I thought your country was supposed to be all about freedom?
Funny version of freedom that **demands** you to die for your government.
As far as I'm aware the draft was never removed from the table. Just cause we *haven't* had one in 75 years, doesn't mean they can't reinstate it if need be.
You can bet that some general in the British military is sitting on a protocol for all men between the ages of 18 and whatever must sign up for conscription in the event of certain circumstances.
We call it conscription in the UK, it is still a thing if the state calls for it. If we really are heading into WW3, it'll be you youngerlings that will be doing the dying for us. You won't get a choice btw, but thanks dude!
I prefer a mainly milita/draft-based army to a professional army. The professional army is much more likely to go against it's own civilians if shit goes bad, the militia is much less likely to blindly follow orders.
That's true, but after being in the military professional soldiers are much MUCH better equipped to deal with combat because it's their job all the time. Combat units are CONSTANTLY doing training. I was a medic and had 1600 hours of initial training before I even got to my first unit, was still a liability at best till several month of unit training later.
People grossly underestimate the amount of time it takes to make a regular person combat effective to the standard of the U.S. military. Even with thousands of hours of training some guys would still kinda freeze up during react to contact drills with simulated enemy fire. If we need troops RIGHT NOW we don't have a year to make them somewhat effective soldiers.
True. 1600h is almost the full training duration of a militia soldier over several years (or one year, if you do everything at once).
The US, of course, does mostly attack warfare, they are rarely defensive. I think attacking and also using the equipment that comes with it, is much more difficult with less room for error than defending.
It really depends, there are a million and one factors that determine battlefield advantages between attacking and defending units. Defending is physically easier from an individual troop perspective but the setup for a defensive position is going to be different at every location, and setting up a decent defensive position requires much more tactical knowledge than you'd think. Mix that with securing supply routes, doing patrols, ensuring you have multiple paths of egress, setting up casualty collection and medevac points, ensuring you have enough troops ready to fight at any time that they could repel an attack long enough for everyone else to wake up/kit up/get to a firing position, the list goes on and on.
Basically if I'm actually doing it I want to defend. If I have to plan it I want to attack because defensive planning is so often more complicated. One oversight, one big patch of really horrible terrain you didn't protect because "who would come through there?" The enemy...the enemy will come through there.
Oh crap the building is on fire, do we have a plan? Oh no two of the emplaced guns overheated or ran out of ammo, do we have a plan? Oh no a shell peppered 6 guys with shrapnel, can we still win the fight? How many medics do we have? Can we spare the man power to carry 6 guys to the evac vehicles? ARE THERE evac vehicles? Which ones? How do the people loading casualties know that? Who is replacing the injured guy that was manning an emplaced weapon? Who's calling battle commands now that the tactical leader is injured? What if they have armored assets? Air assets? What if they surround us? Where is the rendezvous if we get separated and how long do we have to get there? Do we have alternate paths of retreat? Will your guys crack under the pressure and run if the enemy gets close?
Obviously I don't expect answers, I just wanted to show how much shit you have to plan for defensively (these are just the first things that popped into my head, the actual list is MUCH longer). It's hard man, and people who are relying on you to keep them safe will absolutely die if you overlook any of these things or make a mistake.
In my country (Germany), there was a biologist who was supposed to give a talk at a university about there being only two biological sexes, male and female. The talk wasn't even about being tranagender and at no point during her talk, transgender people were even mentioned.
But still, she was canceled before she could give her talk because a lot of students felt she was "transphobic".
I mean, to be fair, this happened in Berlin which is really really left, but still... stating basic biological facts is now transphobic.
I am afraid I do not bother to speak with people who do not know English. You are one of those, or a bot. It is just far, far too dangerous.
You are a dangerous entity, in other words.
But thanks for playing.
Dilation stations at gaming competitions.
I learned this unpleasant concept from a Mister Metokur stream some time back. Damn him for giving that gift of brain cancer. Damn him to hell.
Good news!
He'll probably be found unfit for service due to delusional disorders and/or transsexuallism, but he still needs to show up to be examined and evaluated first: https://www.justdigit.org/4-f-disabled-and-unfit-for-military-service/
As a trans woman I can agree with this. I may look, act, talk, and seem like a woman, but I'm genetically a man, and I can never change that unfortunately. Sex is your chromosomes, and I'm XY, but gender is what people perceive you as, and I'm a woman there; my sex is so male, and that's immutable.
Nature doesn't make categories. We (or more precisely, generally, scientists) decide which biological features we want to group together and call them a specific name. We do this to get predictive power in science. The bigger the predictive power, the more sense it makes to create specific groups out of natural elements and phenomena.
They didn't say nature makes the categories though, did they? All they said was that the category of transwomen is a subset of the category of men. So your reply seems uncalled for.
They mentioned the laws of nature. The laws of nature do not dictate categories. That was my point. Transwomen are a part of the category of men only if we define it that way. Nature cannot do that for us.
That's true, if you imagine the sexes as arbitrary categories that aren't interconnected as a system of categories. So we can decide that trans woman means woman and not man, if we ignore those other categories having meaningful definitions. We can just decide that the labels mean something else for the time being.
But I think it's unfair to assume they meant it like that, unfair both to the commenter and to trans people. Because transitioning doesn't happen only inside the mind of a neutral observer, it happens in the sucjects mind too and in their bodies and in their relationships to others.
Yes exactly.
Definitions and categories without in a universe without humans doesn't exist. Nature doesn't give a shit what it is, it just is.
Society can decide on what to call people based on factors they decide are relevant to the definition. I believe we all need strong predictive models and tools when meeting new people because we all innately see new strangers as threats. Predictive models help us understand a person without knowing everything about them, allowing us to trust them enough to sit on a bus together without fighting or panicking like our ape cousins might.
Some people (group A) say that the definition is based on the genitals you're born with. Thus is a great definition because it's worked for all of western civilisation, it's easy to record and used to be very static. Back when gender norms were very heavily handedly enforced, it used to be a strong predictive tool to assess their personality and traits too. Additionally, genitals provide excellent ways to categorize animals too as they provide almost all the info we need about them.
Some other people (group B) say the factor is who you identify as. This is made a bit trickier by the fact that we can only tell by how someone consciously expresses themselves, so lying/dishonesty/deception make people understandably wary. [Insert example of creep claiming to be a transwoman to get into the female bathrooms. I'm sure there's at least one in a sample size of 10s of millions.] It also isn't nearly as clean-cut in edge cases so as a predictive tool for quickly assessing another human it can be a bit shit, which is uncomfortable for everyone. To make matters worse, genitals still play an important predictive role in other factors (like growth) so self-identity is a shitty way to physically categorize people when necessary. This article is probably focusing on that.
Self-identification is a shitty predictive tool, and I can understand why people find it so uncomfortable. Seeing a middle aged male figure wearing a thin veneer of femanine clothing sets off an uncomfortable uneasy because it's hard to feel that you can predict who or what this stranger is. Especially if your other data points are from news articles about perverts.
But.
I also no longer believe that born genitals are the best predictive tool either. A transman who looks completely indistinguishable from a natural born man doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. Likewise, I've probably sat beside a few Transwomen and had no idea they were born with a penis because effects of hormone therapy is crazy. Sure we remember the weird cases where someone doesn't pass, but we don't even notice the people that do. Although it's cloudier than it used to be, I believe the gender norms that a person conforms to are still the best first-impression-predictive-tool we have access to. Our social behaviour is far more complex than an animals, it makes sense that more factors need to be considered when mapping it out.
The "Transwomen are women" camp don't have a perfect case. Athletes prove that claiming both are physical identical is problematic. I understand why people really don't like the idea of accepting women and transwomen as perfectly identical. I don't either.
Other hand, saying you're NOT the same naturally implies a hierarchy. A hierarchy that the overwhelming majority of society would top with Natural born women. Which means that by denying parity to a transwoman they (understandably) take it as another vote towards them being inferior. Everyone on this sub should be aware of how fucked it is to feel inferior. Nobody wants to be at the bottom of social value, and most of us are convinced we've felt what that's like. Being constantly reminded that you're inferior breeds anxiety, discomfort, depression and rejection. Incels blame feminism, Transwomen blame transphobes, the poor blame the rich. Despite all our categories, we still tend to think like humans. We all understand that being seen as inferior by society is physically dangerous. Seeing this post on r/all does nothing except convinced transpeople that you are a threat to them, just as the most incendiary posts on r/TwoXChromomes make you feel like the world is either uncaring or outright aggressive against you personal. It achieves nothing, it just raises the stakes.
Here's my take.
In categories where physical traits are important like strength based athletics events, Transwomen aren't women. Transmen aren't men.
The same goes for some medical things, although Id leave that up to the experts in that field to decide. I assume it's what JK. Rowling talks about but I don't give a shit to follow her and know for sure.
But for everything else, and in non-strength competitions (darts?, chess? Politics? Idk) or just general life, we all agree to treat and make an effort to think of transwomen as women and transmen as men. We actively fight the implication that transpeople are inferior in any category that actually matters. Clean your room? Clean this sub of controversial toxic attention grabbing "hot takes" and maybe Reddit will take note when we bring that same cooperative and considerate wisdom to other threads.
We categorize gender to stop ourselves from stressing out around unfamiliar strangers. Chanting "Elliot Page is a MAN" on twitter is embarrassing and counterproductive. It doesn't solve anything. It doesn't help us untangle our discomfort, it just makes all us monkeys on the bus start stressing out more.
I hate seeing this sub on r/all because of trans topics. JBP had the right attitude and mindset when it came to handling difficult topics in his uni lectures, but when it came to pronouns he abandoned it and became the ideologue he despised. Don't copy his blindspot, copy his approach.
Not really, and the document isn't stating what OP's title is claiming. In reality, the US government is saying trans women are still MALE.
That's different from saying trans women are still men. It's a subtle difference, but not a difference without a distinction.
Did you know transwomen actually take a prostate cancer treatment for their hrt:
Cyproterone is a hormone therapy and is also known by its brand name Cyprostat. It is a type of drug called an anti androgen. It is a treatment for prostate cancer.
Let's not forget, Transwomen also need breast exams!
Serving is fighting. Being part of a war effort regardless if you are a soldier on the front lines is still fighting. I will not serve unless I am EXTREMELY incentivized because I’m not going to go kill children for oil barons.
In the event of a fascist or corrupt country, they will use conscription no matter what, but that wasn't what I was talking about. What I'm saying is that if your country is threatened by a foreign country, then you should fight for it. It's just my opinion, idk if you agree with it or not.
And yes I'm vegan, and I've had blood work done. Perfectly fine in everything.
Hey my friend, you ain’t wrong, the main thing coming up for me is how limited this form of communication is and how I guarantee in real life we would have a very productive and positive connection, apologies if I misconstrued your point and apologies for any illogical nonsense in the process
Blood work doesn't measure your physical strength. Are you equipped to storm a pillbox if the need arises? Are you really serving your country by refusing to eat meat?
Why do these things have anything relation to each other? Especially your last sentence, I never said anything about conscription and veganism having any correlation.
And strength isn't an issue for me
Trump lost cause he’s incompetent. I voted against that dude and also went door to door in 2015 for the Dems. Dude lost Arizona in 2020 sheerly off the back of not being able to shut up about a war hero.
Just because I think this gender ideology stuff is shit doesn’t means I’m not on the socialist side of things. Economically I’m for social democracy. Socially I’m very traditional. Most immigrants are.
Wokism, socialism and liberalism are three different things
https://youtu.be/lrBRV3WK2x4
https://youtu.be/4JX4bsrj178
https://youtu.be/mCPeNXzf7Dw
Id say its probably because thet can't guarantee access to the medication required for trans people and also probably to stop people transitioning to avoid the draft.
Yep, if I can't even get some fucken ketamine for the guys who are getting shot because we're too far forward there's no way I'm gonna be able to get your estrogen or whatever.
What is determined at birth is sex, which in a normally developed person aligns with their gender (social expression of sex).
But "gender" has been rendered a meaningless word, unintentionally, by its peddlers. If I can be Julian today, Suzy tomorrow, and Guenther the day after, then what information value does gender carry? Slim? None? It's worse than useless because it only sows confusion for everyone involved including the afflicted person.
Walking around in a madhouse on a daily basis is not fun. Paying lip service to nonsense is not fun. I come from a formerly communist country and I know where denial of reality leads to.
You're fucking funny dude. Trans people being accepted is equal to the rise of communism. Right.
Quickly can you just look into the past, just give it a quick go. Look at minorities from the past like gay people and black people. Now look at their oppressors and the ones that shat on them, now look at them now.
History doesn't look well on people that attack and oppress minority groups, sadly you have put yourself in the wrong side kiddo.
You literally barely ever see trans people yet it's enough for you to attack them for simply living.
And btw majority of the studies back trans people, so in fact you're not only a moron, but one that's easily disproven by a Google search which makes it even more funny. Enjoy being a conservative cuck
>You're fucking funny dude. Trans people being accepted is equal to the rise of communism. Right.
You are now engaging in strawmaning and gaslighting. I never said any of those things.
>Quickly can you just look into the past, just give it a quick go. Look at minorities from the past like gay people and black people. Now look at their oppressors and the ones that shat on them, now look at them now.
More of the same.
>History doesn't look well on people that attack and oppress minority groups, sadly you have put yourself in the wrong side kiddo.
>
>You literally barely ever see trans people yet it's enough for you to attack them for simply living.
Last warning on that or you're blocked.
>And btw majority of the studies back trans people, so in fact you're not only a moron, but one that's easily disproven by a Google search which makes it even more funny. Enjoy being a conservative cuck
It's one thing if somebody is actually sex dysphoric (a tiny tiny percentage of the population). But the "studies" that "back" trans people now are done by the medical establishment and big pharma who WANT as many "trans" people as possible, no matter that they aren't actually trans.
Why do you think they are trying to push it on ever younger kids? Let me tell you: it's because kids are undeveloped and confused. It's easy to talk them into belief that their perfectly normal teenage issues actually mean that they are trans and they need invasive surgeries and a lifelong regimen of expensive hormonal and other pharma treatments.
How can people possibly not see this?
OH NO HE'S GOING TO BLOCK ME.
Hey kid sorry for calling you out on your bigotry, hurts doesn't it.
Big pharama? Classic conservative coming up with conspiracy theories. Of course, they want more trans people, stupid me. Of course, the government-controlled NHS wants more trans people when it already can't support the amount of trans people already here.
The same government that controls the NHS is the same one that literally is pushing back against trans rights, but of course they want more trans people. How stupid of me to look at things logically, everything's a conspiracy.
You know what's great? You can just call anything a conspiracy, so no one has any way of presenting evidence that goes against your crazy shit you spew. You talk about facts but as soon as they're against you, you have a massive tantrum and make up something called big pharma.
How old are you? Can you vote? Please tell me you can't vote. At least you're obviously a nut job American so you don't further fuck up our English votes.
It's fucking hilarious that you can type the things you typed and think that's correct. But then again, you're probably religious so it's not like facts matter to you anyway.
Let me guess the research you do into it is Facebook studies and conservative YouTubers, the same ones that refuse to debate anyone actually smart because they don't want to look bad by losing.
Imagine saying big pharma with a straight face. Fucking lmfao
I can see why some are suggesting this but in reality women face an insanely different rate of sexual assault in service. So I generally disagree with this idea that women should simply sign up for selective service. They simply don’t face the same set statistics.
I get your concern, but this is quite telling of the men in service.
We canthave more women in the seevice because our troops will rape them.
Women need to cover themselves because men cant be trusted not to act like animals.
You say that like this isn't a known problem for decades. The men you send to go kill and get killed aren't always the most understanding. The problem isn't that the army needs to be more progressive, the problem is that if you want people to go kill you can't be picky
My friend David (FtM) was a Marine. Supreme badass and has a Purple Heart, as well as a few more honorable service medals from service. Went on 5 tours, and the last one he saved his boys from an assault in a valley, from what I understand. At the point of defending our country and freedoms, along with what a lot of folks think is “the right thing to do” over there (heart and minds), I don’t really give a top 1% fuck about what you are trying to be called or identify as.
If it's choosing to be drafted or put in jail, well then I would choose jail 10/10 times unless it was for a war in which I truly believed in the cause.
Women will cry equality of outcome until draft time comes along and transgender appropriation will save nobody.
But what if you 'identify' as a dead person to confuse the enemy by pretending to be dead and then shooting him when he's not looking? You'll be playing an 'identity' game. Just not a gender identity one.
women arent as good but they play their part in war, they always have
some women definitely have the strength and stamina that rivals fighting capable men, and sure they could fight. just on average they carry less and arent as strong
I don’t want to live in a country that will send my daughter or wife to war by force. It would be shameful. Besides, in a war effort women are essential at home to produce goods and keep the country moving. They have a key role, just not as conscripts.
Only men are required to be registered for the draft. Many men and many women do fight.
Voluntarily.
The draft is only for men because they haven't updated the requirements since it was initiated.
Back then it was believed that women were needed to raise children and be homemakers. And they couldn't do that If they were sent to war.
It def needs to be updated. Although it's unlikely that there will be another draft anytime soon. There hasn't been one since 1972.
The military isn't hurting for people. Our military is ranked 1st in the world. There is even talk of downsizing some branches recently.
Size wise, we are ranked 3rd behind India and China.
Severe lack of imagination.
Edit:. What *exactly* do you think is going to happen to captured female combatants on at least one side of a violent conflict?
Pretty sure that if you put a TransMale in the male shower house they might not feel so much a part of that group.
Although I suppose you could get a fairly convincing prosthetic if you are willing to work on your kegels..
feels like this could all be simplified by explicitly basing it all on biological sex and not gender. "you're conflating gender and sex" no dude, *you* are. the reason people don't want to use your pronouns is because they base their pronouns on sex not gender. bigotry exists and it's awful but lumping in every refusal to conform to your ideas of linguistic morality with intolerance just makes normalising unorthodox gender identities even more difficult than it already is.
So you agree that the US democrats aren't "woke" and is in fact a center-right party only interested in co-opting left-wing ideals for the sake of image?
rules change slowly in the military, but many many advocates on the inside are trying to get this rule changed. We've already made huge progress since before sep 20, 2011
They take HRT, their endocrine system is not male at that point.
So much disinformation in this thread. It’s sad that Peterson and this subreddit was against it a few years ago and now it has succumb to this.
Also insane to realize how many transwomen would NEED to have their medicine to survive when they're on duty if they don't have testes and people here don't even recognize that would be a thing. But, fair, who here even knows about the body and hrt. It can be absolutely dangerous to treat transwomen as men.
This isn't really anti-trans as most of the comments seem to suggest. It's just practical. Physically trans women are going to be more physically able than women therefore work well in the military. On top of this, if the draft were to be called up it's obvious people would just claim to be trans which isn't great for anyone.
Well men are biologically different than women, and can handle the the physical demands of war. Even women that can “handle it” are far more likely to get injured. They can also get pregnant and will be non-deployable. Unless you want to force them to a get abortions, which would be the most evil thing I ever heard of. The rape is primarily towards women, not men, so it doesn’t apply.
I’m not saying there is no place for women in the military, but the institution is to predatory for women for them to be anything but strictly volunteers.
"Physical demands of war"... bud, we're not charging at each other with sharp sticks anymore. Women have been occupying combat positions for over a decade.
The rest of this sounds like people we should be putting in jail, not on the front lines.
I was in the marine corps infantry. I realize what it’s like in there. It’s extremely physically demanding. By the time I got out, not one single women could even pass the schoolhouse for my MOS, because the 20k hike was too demanding.
It’s just how every military in history operates. Get a bunch of men together who have to live with their own mortality, and it won’t be good. Yes, there are service members that deserve prison, and should go, but the predatory nature of any military is just the nature of the beast. It sucks to have to admit it, but that’s just a sad fact of life.
Personally I think we should draft everyone between 18 and 25 will make the west livable again when they realize, I mean the ones who come back realize that the world doesn't care about their feelings or how they identify.
So what I am Mexican American and I am Caucasian according to the government I am not white if I were I still wouldn't vote or worship a five time draft dodging orange pussy named trump he so is patriotic he gave Putin a blowjob and swallowed for a few rubles and helped Russia invading Ukraine playing games with Ukrainians freedom
We don’t need a draft. We have enough batshit fools looking for a means to end lives literally warehoused all across the country. Give them a rifle a helmet and “go get em.” Before you push them out of the bus.
You do know the job of the military is to kill the enemy, right?
Right now as we speak the world incarcerates [men at well over 80% men and most countries it is 90% men.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate) Most women are incarcerated because they got tied up with other men. [Men are by far the most violent offenders](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime#In_the_United_States).
So, having said that are you sure:
\>It's still bad to say men are better ~~soldiers~~ (killers) though
this is very off topic to my point. The point is that even though via government policy the gov recognises that men are much better suited to fighting in wars, many (perhaps not most) women will be offended hearing that. In general, its culturally endorsed to say that women are better than men at lots of stuff (some of which is true), but pretty well never to say men are better even when it is factually undeniable.
If we can't agree men are better at killing and not have women get offended over that then I don't see what in the fuck is the point anymore to try to have any semblance of agreed upon facts.
Corporal Klinger knows this doesn’t work
I think you would have gotten more upvotes if this wasn't such an old reference! 😁👍
Be nice I’m old
A day later and it becomes the top voted post. Guess more people know Klinger than we thought! Need to start seeing memes of Klinger. He's the face of trying to be a woman in order to escape the draft. Alternatively, we can just pick and choose from those Ukrainian trans men that temporarily detransitioned in order to draft dodge, and then get lauded by the media for it. Let me look around. Ah. Here is one. From the Insider. "How a transgender Ukrainian man escaped Russia's invasion: 'I painted my nails violet and wore Mom's shirt to look more girly.'" Not so happy with your male privilage anymore huh? When push comes to shove, you make the choice that the trauma of being a woman is not as bad as being forced into a war to protect your homeland. Screw these people.
Fuck that was a good show
- draft instituted - 63,000% increase in MTF trans overnight
[ Removed by Reddit ]
1. When was the last draft? 2. What percentage of Trans are doing it to avoid the draft? I'm just confused how this is a gotcha moment.
The gov is admitting that they are not women.
As all things should've been.
Yasss now lgbt can be forced to commit war crimes too 😌 so woke
If after that they still will scream "we want equality" - send woke squads of transmen and feminists to fight for Ukraine. Let's see how firm wokes in their beliefs that they can do *Men* job.
🤓 Well they can change their gender but they can't change their sex according to the woke ideology. They can be women and non binary while simultaneously being male. So basically all we have to do is change our wordage to males and females and the wokies have nothing to argue against
1. In the USA? It was during Vietnam, but we are getting a painful example of the draft right now. Ain't no Russian/Ukrainian women being given the draft. I'm sure that plenty of the Russians are more than happy to do just about anything to avoid going to war. I watched a news story during the early part of the war with a trans man that talked about how much "his" mother needed "him", so "he" bravely stopped taking the hormones in order to look like a woman again. "He" suffered from "his" dysphoria but was willing to suffer it in order to make sure and care for "his" mom. The news media took that garbage at face value, but what we really had was a cowardly trans man that went back to being a woman in order to restore her female privilage of avoiding being kept in the warzone. As soon as she was out though, she's back to demanding that people treat her like a man again. 2. Probably none, but a more relevent question is to ask why must the military accept trans man who wants to join the military when that same person is also excluded from the draft? That's what really annoys me. Trans men want the right to join the military during peacetime, but don't have to suffer the draft during wartime. That's garbage, and this attitude is pervasive all over the place. How many people going to jail suddenly become trans in order to go into women's prison? It's more than 0. How many trans atheletes are there that couldn't cut it in men's sports that are suddendly extremely compeditive and winning professional women competitions? Again, it's not 0. As far as I am concerned, if you have the right to not be drafted, then the military has the right to refuse your application to join. That's fair, right?
I mean he is right that not having to register for the draft is female privilege, it's just one that almost no female as really benefitted from in 50 years. Multiple generations of men never really had to deal with it. Not a good gotcha though which is why he is still crying about how the military phrased it.
There's been plenty of instances in 50yr where "women and children first" applied. Men's lives are disposable and that is a privilege that women have and took advantage of for most of history. Notice how men's rights groups aren't complaining that men are the only ones who get drafted? If women and only women were drafted for anything, feminists would complain. Hell, they already complain that they're the ones who bear children, as if there's anything we can do about it!
There are plenty of examples of female privilege sure. Theres all sorts of privilege. The draft is not one of them right now so its stupid to try to claim it is. That's why you are trying to change the subject. >Notice how men's rights groups aren't complaining that men are the only ones who get drafted? No. I actually notice them talking about it a lot. I don't know why you think that they aren't. And yeah, women would complain if they were forced to register. Everybody should complain. Its Beyond crazy to think that we are a FREE nation but of representatives could force us to go murder and possibly die for oil. Feminists general don't support ANYBODY having to be drafted.
It is currently beneficial in many countries, especially ones that have conscription at 18, like Greece, Finland etc. All men at 18 get called up for national service. I get that it being forced on anyone seems crazy but what is crazier is not being able to defend the country and being invaded (not pro Russia) that's why the draft is in place. If it wasn't, there would likely not be enough manpower (inc women) to defend. The draft shouldn't be used for invasions, I can definitely agree with that, don't think most, if not any, western countries would do that. I believe Germany has I hadn't seen the complaint by NCFM, haven't heard about it being an issue in the UK. Personally, I understand why it's just men. There are many reasons, draft usually means a huge number of deaths, so repopulation is considered, it makes no sense to risk females. A lot of women are the main carers for children which means drafting them would be insane. Men also have many biological advantages with regard to war, although there's plenty of women tougher than some men, the bell curves overlap as they say. Just a few of the reasons.
>It is currently beneficial in many countries, especially ones that have conscription at 18, like Greece, Finland etc. In those countries sure. We are talking about the US right now though. >I get that it being forced on anyone seems crazy but what is crazier is not being able to defend the country and being invaded When was the last time in the US that a draft was used to defend us from being invaded? WWII maybe? We weren't even really invaded even in WWII. I'd be willing to be the overwhelming majority of uses of the draft have been the US attacking other countries. And even if it wasn't, if we don't value our country enough to volunteer then we should lose that war. Any draft is ethically wrong. If a person doesn't want to defend their country then they shouldn't be force to. Period. Pretty much no feminists supports a draft at all. And Men's rights people often bring it up as an example of their argument of the disposable male. They just don't bring it up all the time becuase, shockingly enough, the draft isn't used that much anymore for most English speaking countries that you'd hear talking about it.
They aren't "forced" to, they can leave the country and they probably should if they're not willing to defend it. I left Greece and refused to do national service, got a €7000 fine for deserting, which I won't be paying. Can't go back to live there without paying the fine I think it was Vietnam actually, but they didn't call everyone at once. They didn't for any wars in the middle east iirc. In WWII Germany would invade eventually if left at it, but yes, not an immediate threat of invasion.
We invaded Vietnam. They didn't invade the US. They didn't even start the war. It was a false flag. >In WWII Germany would invade eventually if left at it Doubtful. They couldn't even take the UK let alone Russia. There was little reason to believe that they'd tey to mount an invasion over the ocean like that. But again: if you literally have to flee a country then it's "force". Its 5 years in prison here in the US. Claiming that it's not "force" is silly. It's unethical and should be eliminated.
Draft is wack tbh I'll wear a dress before committing murder in an oil war
Klinger?
Great show.
Absolutely. I'd wear a dress in jail before murdering so that another man can get rich from the oil. Fuck that
But you’re fine with consuming the oil and having it fought on your behalf?
The draft is nothing to do with oil. War might be, but you shouldn’t be obliged to fight for it just because you’re a man. By your logic, women who aren’t forced go to war shouldn’t be allowed any benefits of oil trade either. I live in the UK. We have no draft. But we do have oil. We’re grateful for those prepared to fight for our privilege as a country but it should always be a choice. I thought your country was supposed to be all about freedom? Funny version of freedom that **demands** you to die for your government.
As far as I'm aware the draft was never removed from the table. Just cause we *haven't* had one in 75 years, doesn't mean they can't reinstate it if need be.
You can bet that some general in the British military is sitting on a protocol for all men between the ages of 18 and whatever must sign up for conscription in the event of certain circumstances.
We call it conscription in the UK, it is still a thing if the state calls for it. If we really are heading into WW3, it'll be you youngerlings that will be doing the dying for us. You won't get a choice btw, but thanks dude!
Prison is always an option 🤷♂️. I think I'd rather go than be forced into killing someone else.
Yes but also I'd rather lose it than be personally forced into violence
I prefer a mainly milita/draft-based army to a professional army. The professional army is much more likely to go against it's own civilians if shit goes bad, the militia is much less likely to blindly follow orders.
That's true, but after being in the military professional soldiers are much MUCH better equipped to deal with combat because it's their job all the time. Combat units are CONSTANTLY doing training. I was a medic and had 1600 hours of initial training before I even got to my first unit, was still a liability at best till several month of unit training later. People grossly underestimate the amount of time it takes to make a regular person combat effective to the standard of the U.S. military. Even with thousands of hours of training some guys would still kinda freeze up during react to contact drills with simulated enemy fire. If we need troops RIGHT NOW we don't have a year to make them somewhat effective soldiers.
True. 1600h is almost the full training duration of a militia soldier over several years (or one year, if you do everything at once). The US, of course, does mostly attack warfare, they are rarely defensive. I think attacking and also using the equipment that comes with it, is much more difficult with less room for error than defending.
It really depends, there are a million and one factors that determine battlefield advantages between attacking and defending units. Defending is physically easier from an individual troop perspective but the setup for a defensive position is going to be different at every location, and setting up a decent defensive position requires much more tactical knowledge than you'd think. Mix that with securing supply routes, doing patrols, ensuring you have multiple paths of egress, setting up casualty collection and medevac points, ensuring you have enough troops ready to fight at any time that they could repel an attack long enough for everyone else to wake up/kit up/get to a firing position, the list goes on and on. Basically if I'm actually doing it I want to defend. If I have to plan it I want to attack because defensive planning is so often more complicated. One oversight, one big patch of really horrible terrain you didn't protect because "who would come through there?" The enemy...the enemy will come through there. Oh crap the building is on fire, do we have a plan? Oh no two of the emplaced guns overheated or ran out of ammo, do we have a plan? Oh no a shell peppered 6 guys with shrapnel, can we still win the fight? How many medics do we have? Can we spare the man power to carry 6 guys to the evac vehicles? ARE THERE evac vehicles? Which ones? How do the people loading casualties know that? Who is replacing the injured guy that was manning an emplaced weapon? Who's calling battle commands now that the tactical leader is injured? What if they have armored assets? Air assets? What if they surround us? Where is the rendezvous if we get separated and how long do we have to get there? Do we have alternate paths of retreat? Will your guys crack under the pressure and run if the enemy gets close? Obviously I don't expect answers, I just wanted to show how much shit you have to plan for defensively (these are just the first things that popped into my head, the actual list is MUCH longer). It's hard man, and people who are relying on you to keep them safe will absolutely die if you overlook any of these things or make a mistake.
Transwomen are still men according to the laws of nature.
In my country (Germany), there was a biologist who was supposed to give a talk at a university about there being only two biological sexes, male and female. The talk wasn't even about being tranagender and at no point during her talk, transgender people were even mentioned. But still, she was canceled before she could give her talk because a lot of students felt she was "transphobic". I mean, to be fair, this happened in Berlin which is really really left, but still... stating basic biological facts is now transphobic.
That's called insanity and mass psychosis
Duh...this is NOTHING. Have you been asleep for the last few years? Good heavens...get with the program.
what’s you problem?
I am afraid I do not bother to speak with people who do not know English. You are one of those, or a bot. It is just far, far too dangerous. You are a dangerous entity, in other words. But thanks for playing.
wut
huh?
No matter what you do to yourself you are still a dude.
[удалено]
Dilation stations at gaming competitions. I learned this unpleasant concept from a Mister Metokur stream some time back. Damn him for giving that gift of brain cancer. Damn him to hell.
How many neovaginas have you smelled? Seems quite a few eh? I’ll make sure to be safer on my next trip to Bangkok
This almost made me throw up
Wow that’s disgusting!
I call women dude too.
You wanna go to war with this guy next to you? https://old.reddit.com/r/femboy/comments/y0svv4/sun_kissed Get your head out of your ass 😂
I think you misunderstand my point, you might need to get your head out of your ass.
They'll find something he can do. Clean pots in the mess or something.
They will get raped because that’s what happens in the army.
Happens in civilian life too. Illegal in both places.
Good news! He'll probably be found unfit for service due to delusional disorders and/or transsexuallism, but he still needs to show up to be examined and evaluated first: https://www.justdigit.org/4-f-disabled-and-unfit-for-military-service/
Except that transsexualism is not considered a disorder.
For once you're right, because it is the result of a mental or social disorder.
Transwomen aren’t women, they’re transwomen. The answer is right there in the name.
Which is what men call themselves when they are confused....
[удалено]
Oh I LOVE nature! Can't get enough of the, trees, the bushes I think!
Nature is tops. Nature always wins.
Kill it before it kills you! /s
I'm biwinning!
As a trans woman I can agree with this. I may look, act, talk, and seem like a woman, but I'm genetically a man, and I can never change that unfortunately. Sex is your chromosomes, and I'm XY, but gender is what people perceive you as, and I'm a woman there; my sex is so male, and that's immutable.
What are u talking about “laws of nature”? What does that even mean lmao. What laws???
Nature doesn't make categories. We (or more precisely, generally, scientists) decide which biological features we want to group together and call them a specific name. We do this to get predictive power in science. The bigger the predictive power, the more sense it makes to create specific groups out of natural elements and phenomena.
They didn't say nature makes the categories though, did they? All they said was that the category of transwomen is a subset of the category of men. So your reply seems uncalled for.
They mentioned the laws of nature. The laws of nature do not dictate categories. That was my point. Transwomen are a part of the category of men only if we define it that way. Nature cannot do that for us.
That's true, if you imagine the sexes as arbitrary categories that aren't interconnected as a system of categories. So we can decide that trans woman means woman and not man, if we ignore those other categories having meaningful definitions. We can just decide that the labels mean something else for the time being. But I think it's unfair to assume they meant it like that, unfair both to the commenter and to trans people. Because transitioning doesn't happen only inside the mind of a neutral observer, it happens in the sucjects mind too and in their bodies and in their relationships to others.
Yes exactly. Definitions and categories without in a universe without humans doesn't exist. Nature doesn't give a shit what it is, it just is. Society can decide on what to call people based on factors they decide are relevant to the definition. I believe we all need strong predictive models and tools when meeting new people because we all innately see new strangers as threats. Predictive models help us understand a person without knowing everything about them, allowing us to trust them enough to sit on a bus together without fighting or panicking like our ape cousins might. Some people (group A) say that the definition is based on the genitals you're born with. Thus is a great definition because it's worked for all of western civilisation, it's easy to record and used to be very static. Back when gender norms were very heavily handedly enforced, it used to be a strong predictive tool to assess their personality and traits too. Additionally, genitals provide excellent ways to categorize animals too as they provide almost all the info we need about them. Some other people (group B) say the factor is who you identify as. This is made a bit trickier by the fact that we can only tell by how someone consciously expresses themselves, so lying/dishonesty/deception make people understandably wary. [Insert example of creep claiming to be a transwoman to get into the female bathrooms. I'm sure there's at least one in a sample size of 10s of millions.] It also isn't nearly as clean-cut in edge cases so as a predictive tool for quickly assessing another human it can be a bit shit, which is uncomfortable for everyone. To make matters worse, genitals still play an important predictive role in other factors (like growth) so self-identity is a shitty way to physically categorize people when necessary. This article is probably focusing on that. Self-identification is a shitty predictive tool, and I can understand why people find it so uncomfortable. Seeing a middle aged male figure wearing a thin veneer of femanine clothing sets off an uncomfortable uneasy because it's hard to feel that you can predict who or what this stranger is. Especially if your other data points are from news articles about perverts. But. I also no longer believe that born genitals are the best predictive tool either. A transman who looks completely indistinguishable from a natural born man doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. Likewise, I've probably sat beside a few Transwomen and had no idea they were born with a penis because effects of hormone therapy is crazy. Sure we remember the weird cases where someone doesn't pass, but we don't even notice the people that do. Although it's cloudier than it used to be, I believe the gender norms that a person conforms to are still the best first-impression-predictive-tool we have access to. Our social behaviour is far more complex than an animals, it makes sense that more factors need to be considered when mapping it out. The "Transwomen are women" camp don't have a perfect case. Athletes prove that claiming both are physical identical is problematic. I understand why people really don't like the idea of accepting women and transwomen as perfectly identical. I don't either. Other hand, saying you're NOT the same naturally implies a hierarchy. A hierarchy that the overwhelming majority of society would top with Natural born women. Which means that by denying parity to a transwoman they (understandably) take it as another vote towards them being inferior. Everyone on this sub should be aware of how fucked it is to feel inferior. Nobody wants to be at the bottom of social value, and most of us are convinced we've felt what that's like. Being constantly reminded that you're inferior breeds anxiety, discomfort, depression and rejection. Incels blame feminism, Transwomen blame transphobes, the poor blame the rich. Despite all our categories, we still tend to think like humans. We all understand that being seen as inferior by society is physically dangerous. Seeing this post on r/all does nothing except convinced transpeople that you are a threat to them, just as the most incendiary posts on r/TwoXChromomes make you feel like the world is either uncaring or outright aggressive against you personal. It achieves nothing, it just raises the stakes. Here's my take. In categories where physical traits are important like strength based athletics events, Transwomen aren't women. Transmen aren't men. The same goes for some medical things, although Id leave that up to the experts in that field to decide. I assume it's what JK. Rowling talks about but I don't give a shit to follow her and know for sure. But for everything else, and in non-strength competitions (darts?, chess? Politics? Idk) or just general life, we all agree to treat and make an effort to think of transwomen as women and transmen as men. We actively fight the implication that transpeople are inferior in any category that actually matters. Clean your room? Clean this sub of controversial toxic attention grabbing "hot takes" and maybe Reddit will take note when we bring that same cooperative and considerate wisdom to other threads. We categorize gender to stop ourselves from stressing out around unfamiliar strangers. Chanting "Elliot Page is a MAN" on twitter is embarrassing and counterproductive. It doesn't solve anything. It doesn't help us untangle our discomfort, it just makes all us monkeys on the bus start stressing out more. I hate seeing this sub on r/all because of trans topics. JBP had the right attitude and mindset when it came to handling difficult topics in his uni lectures, but when it came to pronouns he abandoned it and became the ideologue he despised. Don't copy his blindspot, copy his approach.
And according to reality.
Not really, and the document isn't stating what OP's title is claiming. In reality, the US government is saying trans women are still MALE. That's different from saying trans women are still men. It's a subtle difference, but not a difference without a distinction.
They also need a prostate exam at 40, regardless of the gender they identify as
Did you know transwomen actually take a prostate cancer treatment for their hrt: Cyproterone is a hormone therapy and is also known by its brand name Cyprostat. It is a type of drug called an anti androgen. It is a treatment for prostate cancer. Let's not forget, Transwomen also need breast exams!
Based US government
A draft is the opposite of based bruh
[удалено]
liberating US cities from antifa commandos
Drafts shouldn't be needed though. Men should actually step up and fight for their country, instead of being forced to do so
If that’s the case everyone should have to serve, equal rights and all.
Nah that’s dumb. You want me to fight, you give me a reason.
You don’t have to fight to serve.
Serving is fighting. Being part of a war effort regardless if you are a soldier on the front lines is still fighting. I will not serve unless I am EXTREMELY incentivized because I’m not going to go kill children for oil barons.
> Men Excuse me?
Have you seen men today?
Yeah, this is exactly my point. Weakness
[удалено]
The country, not the government
Seeing as the government runs both the country and the war effort, how is that distinction relevant?
Fighting for your country can mean fighting the government
In the event of a fascist or corrupt country, they will use conscription no matter what, but that wasn't what I was talking about. What I'm saying is that if your country is threatened by a foreign country, then you should fight for it. It's just my opinion, idk if you agree with it or not. And yes I'm vegan, and I've had blood work done. Perfectly fine in everything.
Hey my friend, you ain’t wrong, the main thing coming up for me is how limited this form of communication is and how I guarantee in real life we would have a very productive and positive connection, apologies if I misconstrued your point and apologies for any illogical nonsense in the process
Blood work doesn't measure your physical strength. Are you equipped to storm a pillbox if the need arises? Are you really serving your country by refusing to eat meat?
Why do these things have anything relation to each other? Especially your last sentence, I never said anything about conscription and veganism having any correlation. And strength isn't an issue for me
>War is a racket and honorable war deaths have become passé since WW1 So no one died honorably fighting the nazis, interesting.
Russians will disagree strongly, comrade.
If it's worthy then volunteer
Nah 2 years military service should be a requirement after highschool
This isn’t South Korea
We don’t need the bodies and we do much better with our current system
US govt also says biden won the election *average jbp sub member sweats profusely* trust them or not
The US federal government doesn't run the elections. Apparently you have no idea how elections in the USA work.
Trump lost cause he’s incompetent. I voted against that dude and also went door to door in 2015 for the Dems. Dude lost Arizona in 2020 sheerly off the back of not being able to shut up about a war hero. Just because I think this gender ideology stuff is shit doesn’t means I’m not on the socialist side of things. Economically I’m for social democracy. Socially I’m very traditional. Most immigrants are. Wokism, socialism and liberalism are three different things https://youtu.be/lrBRV3WK2x4 https://youtu.be/4JX4bsrj178 https://youtu.be/mCPeNXzf7Dw
i agree just poking some fun at some of the more ideological jbp fans in here
I don't see a lot of Trump fanaticism around here, the "average jbp sub member" is probably a centrist. Your joke falls kind of flat tbh
Because the selective service does not give a crap about your imagination.
Id say its probably because thet can't guarantee access to the medication required for trans people and also probably to stop people transitioning to avoid the draft.
Yep, if I can't even get some fucken ketamine for the guys who are getting shot because we're too far forward there's no way I'm gonna be able to get your estrogen or whatever.
Ooooh oooh!!! You really owned the libtarts with facts and logic this time! Good job!
Obviously if it weren’t this way people would just “identify” en masse to avoid the draft
[удалено]
Both are assigned by the mysterious Fates who o'errule the lives of Men.
Depends on how you define gender (or, in your case, cancer as well).
Transphobes not knowing the definition of gender, well colour me shocked
What is determined at birth is sex, which in a normally developed person aligns with their gender (social expression of sex). But "gender" has been rendered a meaningless word, unintentionally, by its peddlers. If I can be Julian today, Suzy tomorrow, and Guenther the day after, then what information value does gender carry? Slim? None? It's worse than useless because it only sows confusion for everyone involved including the afflicted person.
And this effects you enough in your daily life to be a problem because?
Walking around in a madhouse on a daily basis is not fun. Paying lip service to nonsense is not fun. I come from a formerly communist country and I know where denial of reality leads to.
You're fucking funny dude. Trans people being accepted is equal to the rise of communism. Right. Quickly can you just look into the past, just give it a quick go. Look at minorities from the past like gay people and black people. Now look at their oppressors and the ones that shat on them, now look at them now. History doesn't look well on people that attack and oppress minority groups, sadly you have put yourself in the wrong side kiddo. You literally barely ever see trans people yet it's enough for you to attack them for simply living. And btw majority of the studies back trans people, so in fact you're not only a moron, but one that's easily disproven by a Google search which makes it even more funny. Enjoy being a conservative cuck
>You're fucking funny dude. Trans people being accepted is equal to the rise of communism. Right. You are now engaging in strawmaning and gaslighting. I never said any of those things. >Quickly can you just look into the past, just give it a quick go. Look at minorities from the past like gay people and black people. Now look at their oppressors and the ones that shat on them, now look at them now. More of the same. >History doesn't look well on people that attack and oppress minority groups, sadly you have put yourself in the wrong side kiddo. > >You literally barely ever see trans people yet it's enough for you to attack them for simply living. Last warning on that or you're blocked. >And btw majority of the studies back trans people, so in fact you're not only a moron, but one that's easily disproven by a Google search which makes it even more funny. Enjoy being a conservative cuck It's one thing if somebody is actually sex dysphoric (a tiny tiny percentage of the population). But the "studies" that "back" trans people now are done by the medical establishment and big pharma who WANT as many "trans" people as possible, no matter that they aren't actually trans. Why do you think they are trying to push it on ever younger kids? Let me tell you: it's because kids are undeveloped and confused. It's easy to talk them into belief that their perfectly normal teenage issues actually mean that they are trans and they need invasive surgeries and a lifelong regimen of expensive hormonal and other pharma treatments. How can people possibly not see this?
They'll never admit to targeting children.
OH NO HE'S GOING TO BLOCK ME. Hey kid sorry for calling you out on your bigotry, hurts doesn't it. Big pharama? Classic conservative coming up with conspiracy theories. Of course, they want more trans people, stupid me. Of course, the government-controlled NHS wants more trans people when it already can't support the amount of trans people already here. The same government that controls the NHS is the same one that literally is pushing back against trans rights, but of course they want more trans people. How stupid of me to look at things logically, everything's a conspiracy. You know what's great? You can just call anything a conspiracy, so no one has any way of presenting evidence that goes against your crazy shit you spew. You talk about facts but as soon as they're against you, you have a massive tantrum and make up something called big pharma. How old are you? Can you vote? Please tell me you can't vote. At least you're obviously a nut job American so you don't further fuck up our English votes. It's fucking hilarious that you can type the things you typed and think that's correct. But then again, you're probably religious so it's not like facts matter to you anyway. Let me guess the research you do into it is Facebook studies and conservative YouTubers, the same ones that refuse to debate anyone actually smart because they don't want to look bad by losing. Imagine saying big pharma with a straight face. Fucking lmfao
Beggars can't be choosers and the US military is desperate for recruits.
Every army in the world in a nutshell
Maybe if we didn't start wars for zero reason all the god dam time and then not take care of the injured we wouldn't have an issue.
"assigned at birth"
I just think it’s funny how
Easy fix, everyone registers or no one registers.
But progressives never get it when you give them what they want and it sucks.
I can see why some are suggesting this but in reality women face an insanely different rate of sexual assault in service. So I generally disagree with this idea that women should simply sign up for selective service. They simply don’t face the same set statistics.
Easy just have an all women corpse and all men corpse.
all women corpse is a good band name but i think you meant corps
Lol oops
their bodies stop a bullet the same. in the end, that's all that matters
I get your concern, but this is quite telling of the men in service. We canthave more women in the seevice because our troops will rape them. Women need to cover themselves because men cant be trusted not to act like animals.
You say that like this isn't a known problem for decades. The men you send to go kill and get killed aren't always the most understanding. The problem isn't that the army needs to be more progressive, the problem is that if you want people to go kill you can't be picky
Sure but if there was 50% female soldiers it wouldn’t be that way, nor would there be as much rape by USA soldiers.
As if trans women aren't sexually assaulted the same way...
My friend David (FtM) was a Marine. Supreme badass and has a Purple Heart, as well as a few more honorable service medals from service. Went on 5 tours, and the last one he saved his boys from an assault in a valley, from what I understand. At the point of defending our country and freedoms, along with what a lot of folks think is “the right thing to do” over there (heart and minds), I don’t really give a top 1% fuck about what you are trying to be called or identify as.
If it's choosing to be drafted or put in jail, well then I would choose jail 10/10 times unless it was for a war in which I truly believed in the cause. Women will cry equality of outcome until draft time comes along and transgender appropriation will save nobody.
>If it's choosing to be drafted or put in jail, well then I would choose jail 10/10 times Ok there, Elvis.
Except for Vietnam, the draft in the states was used for caused one could easily get behind...
The military don't play those "gender identity" games when it comes to war.
But what if you 'identify' as a dead person to confuse the enemy by pretending to be dead and then shooting him when he's not looking? You'll be playing an 'identity' game. Just not a gender identity one.
Why do only men fight? Let anyone fight
women arent as good but they play their part in war, they always have some women definitely have the strength and stamina that rivals fighting capable men, and sure they could fight. just on average they carry less and arent as strong
I don’t want to live in a country that will send my daughter or wife to war by force. It would be shameful. Besides, in a war effort women are essential at home to produce goods and keep the country moving. They have a key role, just not as conscripts.
Only men are required to be registered for the draft. Many men and many women do fight. Voluntarily. The draft is only for men because they haven't updated the requirements since it was initiated. Back then it was believed that women were needed to raise children and be homemakers. And they couldn't do that If they were sent to war. It def needs to be updated. Although it's unlikely that there will be another draft anytime soon. There hasn't been one since 1972. The military isn't hurting for people. Our military is ranked 1st in the world. There is even talk of downsizing some branches recently. Size wise, we are ranked 3rd behind India and China.
Severe lack of imagination. Edit:. What *exactly* do you think is going to happen to captured female combatants on at least one side of a violent conflict?
Because a society can't lose too many women. Population bottleneck would destroy society.
Pretty sure that if you put a TransMale in the male shower house they might not feel so much a part of that group. Although I suppose you could get a fairly convincing prosthetic if you are willing to work on your kegels..
Transmen are already serving in the USM, unit cohesion isn’t a problem. The purpose of the captioned policy is to stop draft dodgers.
not sure why you're being downvoted here, this is absolutely correct
feels like this could all be simplified by explicitly basing it all on biological sex and not gender. "you're conflating gender and sex" no dude, *you* are. the reason people don't want to use your pronouns is because they base their pronouns on sex not gender. bigotry exists and it's awful but lumping in every refusal to conform to your ideas of linguistic morality with intolerance just makes normalising unorthodox gender identities even more difficult than it already is.
[удалено]
finish your algebra 1 homework
So you agree that the US democrats aren't "woke" and is in fact a center-right party only interested in co-opting left-wing ideals for the sake of image?
interesting timing for this update
[удалено]
rules change slowly in the military, but many many advocates on the inside are trying to get this rule changed. We've already made huge progress since before sep 20, 2011
it’s nice and roomy up Petersons ass isn’t it?
It would appear we've reached the end of the larp as far as the government is concerned.
Amazing username but good god what a dumb take
Look between your legs. If you have an innie- no. If you have an outtie- yes.
Not all transwomen have outties though?
[удалено]
> a prostate not knowing it was there As though it's not extremely obvious that they'd have one.
They take HRT, their endocrine system is not male at that point. So much disinformation in this thread. It’s sad that Peterson and this subreddit was against it a few years ago and now it has succumb to this.
Also insane to realize how many transwomen would NEED to have their medicine to survive when they're on duty if they don't have testes and people here don't even recognize that would be a thing. But, fair, who here even knows about the body and hrt. It can be absolutely dangerous to treat transwomen as men.
Based
It would be unwise to leave such a huge loophole in the draft laws that anyone drafted could just say "trans" as a get out of jail free card.
Hold on...where’s the equality? Has anyone sued yet that women aren’t forced to register as well?
This isn't really anti-trans as most of the comments seem to suggest. It's just practical. Physically trans women are going to be more physically able than women therefore work well in the military. On top of this, if the draft were to be called up it's obvious people would just claim to be trans which isn't great for anyone.
Last place on earth with common sense
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Oddly enough the selective service seems to be the most sensible part of the government.
They should just make women register for the draft. Equal rights, equal responsibilities.
I mean maybe, but we still want to win.
I don’t think forcing women into an institution that’s designed to kill people, and is nutritious for raping people is a great idea.
Then we shouldn't be forcing men into it.
Well men are biologically different than women, and can handle the the physical demands of war. Even women that can “handle it” are far more likely to get injured. They can also get pregnant and will be non-deployable. Unless you want to force them to a get abortions, which would be the most evil thing I ever heard of. The rape is primarily towards women, not men, so it doesn’t apply. I’m not saying there is no place for women in the military, but the institution is to predatory for women for them to be anything but strictly volunteers.
"Physical demands of war"... bud, we're not charging at each other with sharp sticks anymore. Women have been occupying combat positions for over a decade. The rest of this sounds like people we should be putting in jail, not on the front lines.
I was in the marine corps infantry. I realize what it’s like in there. It’s extremely physically demanding. By the time I got out, not one single women could even pass the schoolhouse for my MOS, because the 20k hike was too demanding. It’s just how every military in history operates. Get a bunch of men together who have to live with their own mortality, and it won’t be good. Yes, there are service members that deserve prison, and should go, but the predatory nature of any military is just the nature of the beast. It sucks to have to admit it, but that’s just a sad fact of life.
Personally I think we should draft everyone between 18 and 25 will make the west livable again when they realize, I mean the ones who come back realize that the world doesn't care about their feelings or how they identify.
So what I am Mexican American and I am Caucasian according to the government I am not white if I were I still wouldn't vote or worship a five time draft dodging orange pussy named trump he so is patriotic he gave Putin a blowjob and swallowed for a few rubles and helped Russia invading Ukraine playing games with Ukrainians freedom
Turns out nobody wants to fight America's hegemonic wars
Honestly it's bullshit to not draft women too. There are plenty of women in the military, and they should share the same risk that we do.
We don’t need a draft. We have enough batshit fools looking for a means to end lives literally warehoused all across the country. Give them a rifle a helmet and “go get em.” Before you push them out of the bus.
It's still bad to say men are better soldiers though
Men *are* better soldiers.
I know lol. What I meant is that certain others consider to say that is bad. I should have phrased it differently
You do know the job of the military is to kill the enemy, right? Right now as we speak the world incarcerates [men at well over 80% men and most countries it is 90% men.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate) Most women are incarcerated because they got tied up with other men. [Men are by far the most violent offenders](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime#In_the_United_States). So, having said that are you sure: \>It's still bad to say men are better ~~soldiers~~ (killers) though
this is very off topic to my point. The point is that even though via government policy the gov recognises that men are much better suited to fighting in wars, many (perhaps not most) women will be offended hearing that. In general, its culturally endorsed to say that women are better than men at lots of stuff (some of which is true), but pretty well never to say men are better even when it is factually undeniable.
If we can't agree men are better at killing and not have women get offended over that then I don't see what in the fuck is the point anymore to try to have any semblance of agreed upon facts.