TexasCHLforum.com

If that's the case then it's a problem. I'm just saying that, in general (and hopefully in the future), if a woman can pass all qualifications that a man can to get into combat units of the military, then they should receive the same type of respect.

TVegas wrote:If that's the case then it's a problem. I'm just saying that, in general (and hopefully in the future), if a woman can pass all qualifications that a man can to get into combat units of the military, then they should receive the same type of respect.

I agree....and I think many if not most military women agree. The respect would definitely be deserved. The matter of whether or not there should be coed combat units is another issue. The fact is that very very few women can physically complete with men in physically demanding occupations, so to have more than token numbers of females in such occupations REQUIRES standards to be lowered.

If the goal was to only admit women who met the standards then the numbers would be so small it probably wouldn't be an issue. However, it just isn't physically possible to make some of these occupations even 5% female without lowering physical standards. 20% is so unrealistic as to be laughable. Women don't even complete against men in non contact sports like golf, baseball, and tennis. When the NFL is 50% women I'll be willing to change my mind.

In the meantime, if the people pushing this stuff really believe that men and woman have the same physical capabilities why aren't they calling for 18 year old females to register for the draft and be drafted into the military if the draft is ever reinstated?

Abraham wrote:Bruce is still male.

Befouled with hormones and surgery notwithstanding...

Has he actually had surgery? I thought he hasn't done anything but cross dress.

VMI77,

But, but, but, your attitude doesn't meet the PC standard.

You, you, you man you...

Off to the re-education camp comrade.

MechAg94,

I do believe he had feminization facial surgery, Adam's apple shaved, beard electrolysis, and so on.

As far as "THE SURGERY" no man should consider, I think he hasn't gone to that particular extreme, but who knows what the future holds in store?

Of course in our progressive world there is plenty of room for non-male / non-female gender identities -- from the genetically male who refuses to acknowledge his maleness to the genetically female who refuses to acknowledge her femaleness to... Life sure was easier when men could be men and women could be women and being something you are not was not rewarded or glorified.

I guess I should be thankful that the PC community hasn't considered alternate "species identities" -- oops, now that'll probably be a thing, too.

Abraham wrote:VMI77,

But, but, but, your attitude doesn't meet the PC standard.

You, you, you man you...

Off to the re-education camp comrade.

And it never will. In fact, I'm becoming less PC by the day. The irony for the younger generation is that women, even feminist women, don't really respect or get excited by feminized men, male feminists, lefty libtard metrosexuals, and beta wimps...so playing the feminist game is actually counter productive for men who are interested in women.

VMI77 wrote:And BTW, the 3 Ranger "graduates" are all officers who were looking to get their tickets punched for advancement, and none of them planned to actually serve, nor will they serve, in an actual Ranger battalion subject to combat. Jaster, the third to be "passed" isn't even in the regular Army she's a high ranking reservist. She was working for Shell and took a break from work to go to Ranger school. IOW, it was ticket punching and publicity, since there was absolutely no chance she'd actually serve as a Ranger. So she took the slot of a man who would actually have gone to a Ranger battalion. What is the point of sending anyone, man or woman, through Ranger school when they're not even going be be on active duty and they're never going to actually be a Ranger?

Most officers who go through Ranger School never serve in the Ranger Regiment. Should they also be ostracized for getting their tickets punched?

3dfxMM wrote:

VMI77 wrote:And BTW, the 3 Ranger "graduates" are all officers who were looking to get their tickets punched for advancement, and none of them planned to actually serve, nor will they serve, in an actual Ranger battalion subject to combat. Jaster, the third to be "passed" isn't even in the regular Army she's a high ranking reservist. She was working for Shell and took a break from work to go to Ranger school. IOW, it was ticket punching and publicity, since there was absolutely no chance she'd actually serve as a Ranger. So she took the slot of a man who would actually have gone to a Ranger battalion. What is the point of sending anyone, man or woman, through Ranger school when they're not even going be be on active duty and they're never going to actually be a Ranger?

Most officers who go through Ranger School never serve in the Ranger Regiment. Should they also be ostracized for getting their tickets punched?

Asking if someone should be ostracized is a straw man. I didn't suggest anyone should be "ostracized." "Ticket puncher" is not a complimentary term. The SF guy whose blog I quoted uses the same terminology, and he uses the term negatively, as do many of the SF people that comment on his blog. It suggests someone who puts their career above the interests of the Army and the country. In Vietnam it referred to officers who wanted combat credit without combat risk, and sought advancement on the backs of those more deserving.

But in this context I suppose it depends somewhat on what you do after you punch that particular ticket. Jaster, in particular, didn't pass Ranger school, she was passed on the orders of command. I don't see it as quite the same thing if you get your ticket punched on a pass from command so you can be promoted for the purpose of making the Army more politically correct ---so the Army can say look at this female General who went to Ranger school and satisfy the left's desire for social engineering rather than make the Army a more effective fighting force.

VMI77 wrote:

TVegas wrote:If that's the case then it's a problem. I'm just saying that, in general (and hopefully in the future), if a woman can pass all qualifications that a man can to get into combat units of the military, then they should receive the same type of respect.

I agree....and I think many if not most military women agree. The respect would definitely be deserved. The matter of whether or not there should be coed combat units is another issue. The fact is that very very few women can physically complete with men in physically demanding occupations, so to have more than token numbers of females in such occupations REQUIRES standards to be lowered.

If the goal was to only admit women who met the standards then the numbers would be so small it probably wouldn't be an issue. However, it just isn't physically possible to make some of these occupations even 5% female without lowering physical standards. 20% is so unrealistic as to be laughable. Women don't even complete against men in non contact sports like golf, baseball, and tennis. When the NFL is 50% women I'll be willing to change my mind.

In the meantime, if the people pushing this stuff really believe that men and woman have the same physical capabilities why aren't they calling for 18 year old females to register for the draft and be drafted into the military if the draft is ever reinstated?

In civilian life, not even world class olympian female athletes compete against their male counterparts.......because it is not a gap that can be overcome. That's just a physiological fact. The current men's world record for the 100 meters is held by Usain Bolt at 9.572 seconds. The women's record has stood since 1988 and his held by Florence Joyner, at 10.49 seconds. The next fastest record for women was set by in 2009 by Carmelita Jeter in Shanghai, at a wind aided (+1.2 mps) 10.64 seconds.

Now these are the very fasted women on the planet, bar none, and they still cannot compete with their male counterparts. And that's just 100 meter sprinters. The disparity in performance holds across all of those disciplines in which both men and women compete where strength and conditioning are the deciding factors. Weight lifting, boxing, the 1500 meter run, swimming (any distance), etc., etc., etc. The only olympic sports where women may be able to compete on equal footing with men are those that are primarily a matter of skill rather than strength - some of the shooting sports for instance.

Rangers, and other special operations troops, represent the "olympian" ideal of military capability. Women may be as smart (or smarter in some cases) than men, but they just are never going to be, with very very rare exception, the physical equal of men. That's not sexist. That's just fact.

So when there exists a subset of one of the branches of military service in which most of the men won't make it....BUD/S SEAL training, for instance.... it is a very safe bet that no woman can. And if no woman can, then it isn't right to bump a man who might make it out of the running for that slot. And it sure as heck isn't right to degrade the level of training and the physical requirements for the sake of political correctness....... because our nation's enemies will use that against us.