SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Transgender recruits will be allowed to enlist in the military beginning Jan. 1, the Pentagon said Monday, as President Donald Trump's ordered ban suffered more legal setbacks.
The new policy reflects the difficult hurdles the federal government would have to cross to enforce Trump's demand earlier this year to bar transgender individuals from the military.
[...] Potential transgender recruits will have to overcome a lengthy and strict set of physical, medical and mental conditions that make it possible, though difficult, for them to join the armed services.
Maj. David Eastburn, a Pentagon spokesman, says the enlistment of transgender recruits will start Jan. 1 and go on amid the legal battles.
Pentagon to allow transgender people to enlist in military
(Score: 3, Insightful) by idiot_king on Thursday December 14 2017, @04:06PM (12 children)
I'm not sure why the pseudo-left cares so much about this empty victory. The Pentagon and US Military, as well as the CIA and NSA, are the capitalist tentacles that (try to) crush any non-capitalist enemy in its way. This is just encouraging our allies to fight for the capitalist enemy's causes and in the long run will hurt us. This is more a victory for the capitalist backbone of the corrupt US capitalist machine than for anyone.
(Score: 1, Troll) by takyon on Thursday December 14 2017, @04:11PM (1 child)
It's a trick to get transgender people sent to die in Asia and Africa.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Touché) by frojack on Friday December 15 2017, @12:18AM
I thought the trick was to see how many times you could get the word capitalist into one rambling post.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by idiot_king on Thursday December 14 2017, @04:12PM
Unless of course that knowledge of combat can help us after our trans* allies leave the military...
Just a thought >:)
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Thursday December 14 2017, @04:45PM (6 children)
That is the point. Poz the military so it isn't a threat. The history of the 20th Century is best understood as a civil war between the Blue portion of the USG, centered in the State Dept and the Red side in the War / Defense Dept. The shooting parts of the war have of course been conducted elsewhere, often involving proxies. And the lesson delivered has been, over and over, that there is no victory American arms can secure that the State Dept can't turn to ash at the negotiating table. But now they tire of the fight and since Clinton have been simply seizing control of the DoD and infesting it with their SJW kind, The military had a lot of fail in it so it has taken generations to show real results but it is well hollowed out now.
Trannies will do wonders for the Blue program. Degrade moral and unit cohesion, divert resources to lawfare, "gender reassignment", additional diversity training, etc.; a hundred trannies can probably end up doing a billion dollars of economic damage while causing untold chaos.
The correct answer would be for Trump to simply say NO. Since it is obvious he will win the court case in the end, here and on the immigration suits, to simply say his government shall ignore the, obviously political and borderline seditious, lower courts. Since admitting trannies is a bell that would be hard to unring, there is no point opening up a brief window and then being forced to deal with the results.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday December 14 2017, @05:57PM (4 children)
Enduring victory requires that the enemy stop being your enemy. The ways we have to do this are to make them a) dead, b) our slaves, or c) our friends. The American people lost their stomach for option A some time around the Vietnam War, and attempting option B tends to lead to more wars (Germany into WW2, Saddam into the Gulf War...).
So the State Dept tries hard to do option C. It doesn’t always work, but you can’t judge that in a vacuum. You have to compare it to the relative (lack of) success trying the other options.
Also, unless you don’t believe that the Constitution places necessary limits on presidential authority, it is anything but “obvious” that Trump will win any lawsuit, let alone lawsuits that have thus far been resolved by lower courts rather quickly due mainly to his apparent incompetence at playing this legal game.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @09:59PM (1 child)
Option a) still working last time I checked. Wait, let me check again... yep, still working.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday December 15 2017, @03:01PM
Option A is genocide and is now considered a war crime.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 15 2017, @09:00AM (1 child)
Option C was a huge success with Germany and Japan. But I don't recall it being tried since. Probably because it was damn expensive (and the US car industry never recovered from it).
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday December 15 2017, @03:08PM
It's being tried in Iraq, to middling success. Unlike Germany and Japan, Iraq is in the middle of an unstable region going through power struggles. And unlike Germany and Japan, Iraq is ethnically diverse.
We're trying to be friends with Afghanistan too, but perhaps wisely our leaders don't seem willing to fully commit to it while Iraq is still struggling. Afghanistan is sure to have the same problems, but worse. As they say, it is where empires go to die.
We are friends with the relatively stable Saudi Arabia and Israel. Don't ask me why that makes sense since those two are enemies and they're both incompatible with America's secular humanist values. But I know that Evangelicals obsessed with causing Armageddon (it's somehow always about 40 years in the future) have something to do with it.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday December 14 2017, @10:12PM
Just wondering, J-Mo, did you date a transwoman who turned out to be only partly-operated on or something? Did you have an overbearing mother and a weak father? Did a girl, maybe an older cousin or something, abuse you when you were very young? You seem to hate women, cisgender or otherwise.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday December 14 2017, @05:44PM
Name checks out.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Thursday December 14 2017, @06:02PM
The left cares about this because the military is already the single largest employer of trans people in America. Because the prescribed treatment is a dramatic change in one’s relation to society, transgender individuals, who are much more likely to experience rejection and poverty, benefit greatly from a highly structured environment that dramatically changes their peer group.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?