First they watered down Airborne School.

Now it seems they are doing the same for Ranger School.

My coworkers husband was in ranger school for the 1st women to pass.  Cadre basically ignored them because they were told to.  For those not in the military, a nail that sticks out gets hammered.  So being female would def attract unwanted attention and would have constant "abuse".  No different if you were the guy who kept messing up, short, overweight, any noticeable sign that you're standing out as an "individual".  This is a huge hardship.

Could these women have passed?  It's unknown, but this people the ability to question if they really deserved to graduate.  Add in they lowered the standards just before they entered.  It wasn't a male/female standard, but across the board as there's 1 standard for ranger school.

I worked with a woman who at the time was a sgt.  SHe then went to ROTC and became an officer. She would complete the mens PT standard and come in 1st in her unit.  She wasn't butch either. Athletic build chinese woman.  We went to the gym a few times and although I was stronger, she was doing HIIT and it blew me away at her fitness level, endurance wise.

So which standard would a man who thinks he's a woman do?  The mens PT or womens?  Then can he enter into spec ops or other MOS's typically geared toward men.  It would seem like they would be able to pick and chose, which means there is no "standard".

What if a soldier feels that they are the General.  They want to act like they are, want to wear the Generals rank, etc...Should this mental disorder be entertained?  Everyone would call this soldier crazy right (rhetorical).

Get them mental health care, the same as I would suggest for people with gender dysphoria.

At what point does someones imagination/feelings should be abided by?

I draw the line at the point that the mental health issue prevents a soldier from doing their job effectively.

Get them mental health care, the same as I would suggest for people with gender dysphoria.


I draw the line at the point that the mental health issue prevents a soldier from doing their job effectively.

A tranny can do their job effectively. It's the other indirect things that make it a mess.  Refer to my examples in this post and the examples of others posted like diabetics.

A tranny can do their job effectively. It's the other indirect things that make it a mess.  Refer to my examples in this post and the examples of others posted like diabetics.

That is what I was referencing when I pointed to Flapp's post. You are right, prescription drug needs are a legitimate concern.

Get them mental health care, the same as I would suggest for people with gender dysphoria.


I draw the line at the point that the mental health issue prevents a soldier from doing their job effectively.

Since you've never served, i'll educate you.

The evaluation criteria for the training and operational units are very objective.  Since there's no objective test for mental health, that becomes a process rather than a single commander's or trainer's assessment.

It's easy to say "at the point that the mental health issue prevents a soldier from doing their job effectively."  However, there is no standard test to identify whether or not that's the case for every individual.  A transgender may be able to pass all the physical exams and training criteria, and they may place at the top of their class in whatever skills their job may require.  But until they are actually doing the job, there's no accurate way to predictively assess whether someone -- anyone -- will be able to do their job going forward.

Once someone graduates basic training, ROTC or OTS and is on active duty, they are now afforded the same medical and mental health treatments as anyone else.  They have been the beneficiary of months or years of training to do a job the military needs done, and others who are not dealing  with their transgender issues have been excluded -- either from that job or the military entirely.  Congress only appropriates enough money to support a finite number of people in a finite number of jobs.  If a certain specialty field is over-manned, some will be assigned to jobs they may not be best suited for or will want.

Placing someone in a job with transgender issues and waiting to see IF they can do the job effectively is not good management.  Eliminating the risk is smarter than giving everyone a chance and having to train/retrain replacements when the risks turn out negatively.  That's not even getting into the damage to national security someone with mental health issues can cause -- e.g. Manning.

Since you've never served, i'll educate you.

A pointless dig, hope it makes you feel superior.

It's easy to say "at the point that the mental health issue prevents a soldier from doing their job effectively." 

Obviously the process is going to be more complicated than that. I was only drawing a line for a general conversation, actual policy would need to be much more detailed.

However, there is no standard test to identify whether or not that's the case for every individual.  A transgender may be able to pass all the physical exams and training criteria, and they may place at the top of their class in whatever skills their job may require.  But until they are actually doing the job, there's no accurate way to predictively assess whether someone -- anyone -- will be able to do their job going forward.

Once someone graduates basic training, ROTC or OTS and is on active duty, they are now afforded the same medical and mental health treatments as anyone else.  They have been the beneficiary of months or years of training to do a job the military needs done, and others who are not dealing  with their transgender issues have been excluded -- either from that job or the military entirely.  Congress only appropriates enough money to support a finite number of people in a finite number of jobs.  If a certain specialty field is over-manned, some will be assigned to jobs they may not be best suited for or will want.

Placing someone in a job with transgender issues and waiting to see IF they can do the job effectively is not good management.  Eliminating the risk is smarter than giving everyone a chance and having to train/retrain replacements when the risks turn out negatively.  That's not even getting into the damage to national security someone with mental health issues can cause -- e.g. Manning.

In an earlier reply I credited your explanation on this issue, maybe to missed it.
I had a friend in JROTC who was in very good shape, much better than I was. I went on to ROTC in college but he was denied entry into the military because he had a history of asthma. It sucked for him but it makes perfect sense that in a wartime situation, an asthma attack could really screw an operation up.

[snip]
In an earlier reply I credited your explanation on this issue, maybe to missed it.
I had a friend in JROTC who was in very good shape, much better than I was. I went on to ROTC in college but he was denied entry into the military because he had a history of asthma. It sucked for him but it makes perfect sense that in a wartime situation, an asthma attack could really screw an operation up.

So, in that instance, your friend was denied entry into the military based on an existing health problem.

But you also said he should not be denied as long as he can do the job effectively.

Unless you allow him the chance to do the job, you'll never know for sure if he can or can not do the job.

Your comments are in conflict with each other.  You can't do both -- deny a recruit based on an existing problem AND allow them to join to see if they can do the job.

Pick one.

This is why waivers exist.  If your friend were going into a support field such as computers and communications that doesn't require perfect health, he could request a waiver.  The service would do what they need to evaluate him using additional tests, documented history of sports or other physically demanding activities, and whether the ailment has increased or decreased over time (asthma often disappears after adulthood). 

I was rejected due to a medical standard, but i received a waiver which allowed me to complete ROTC and be commissioned.

Again, experience demonstrates how the system actually works, not based on thought experiments, beliefs and assumptions.

So, in that instance, your friend was denied entry into the military based on an existing health problem.

But you also said he should not be denied as long as he can do the job effectively.

Unless you allow him the chance to do the job, you'll never know for sure if he can or can not do the job.

Your comments are in conflict with each other.  You can't do both -- deny a recruit based on an existing problem AND allow them to join to see if they can do the job.

Pick one.

This is why waivers exist.  If your friend were going into a support field such as computers and communications that doesn't require perfect health, he could request a waiver.  The service would do what they need to evaluate him using additional tests, documented history of sports or other physically demanding activities, and whether the ailment has increased or decreased over time (asthma often disappears after adulthood). 

I was rejected due to a medical standard, but i received a waiver which allowed me to complete ROTC and be commissioned.

Again, experience demonstrates how the system actually works, not based on thought experiments, beliefs and assumptions.

Add in the tattoo policy. Say someone had a Nazi logo on their forehead.  They wont' be able to join.  When my uncle was drafted and was at the medical review, his classmate was there and is a haole guy. He had a Swastika on his underwear.  They kicked him out.  My uncle drank a quart of shoyu mixed with orange juice and got a 4F due to super high blood pressure.

Add in the tattoo policy. Say someone had a Nazi logo on their forehead.  They wont' be able to join.  When my uncle was drafted and was at the medical review, his classmate was there and is a haole guy. He had a Swastika on his underwear.  They kicked him out.  My uncle drank a quart of shoyu mixed with orange juice and got a 4F due to super high blood pressure.

Each branch has their own tattoo policies.

In the USAF, the policy for piercings and tattoos has changed over the years.  This is the 2023 guidance published for all Air Force members:

https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/2023SAF/PolicyUpdates/dafman36-2903.pdf

So, in that instance, your friend was denied entry into the military based on an existing health problem.

But you also said he should not be denied as long as he can do the job effectively.

Unless you allow him the chance to do the job, you'll never know for sure if he can or can not do the job.

Your comments are in conflict with each other.  You can't do both -- deny a recruit based on an existing problem AND allow them to join to see if they can do the job.

Pick one.

This is why waivers exist.  If your friend were going into a support field such as computers and communications that doesn't require perfect health, he could request a waiver.  The service would do what they need to evaluate him using additional tests, documented history of sports or other physically demanding activities, and whether the ailment has increased or decreased over time (asthma often disappears after adulthood). 

I was rejected due to a medical standard, but i received a waiver which allowed me to complete ROTC and be commissioned.

Again, experience demonstrates how the system actually works, not based on thought experiments, beliefs and assumptions.

You misinterpret what I mean by do a job effectively. If someone is having an asthma attack because of a lack of medication due to battlefield supply then they cannot do their job effectively. The same with someone undergoing sex change, if they are stable while on the meds but the meds get cut off will it affect their job performance?

I never said let people join just to see if they can do the job.

Each branch has their own tattoo policies.

In the USAF, the policy for piercings and tattoos has changed over the years.  This is the 2023 guidance published for all Air Force members:

https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/2023SAF/PolicyUpdates/dafman36-2903.pdf

That's why I used the forehead as no branch would allow a forehead tattoo of a nazi logo.