Women, gays, transgenders in the U.S. military.
When one considers the mission of the military dispassionately, one should come to the conclusion that it only has one mission...to prevail in battle. If one can accept that, then the following question should follow: Does the inclusion of women, gays and transgenders result in support of that mission, neutral or is it a negative element relative to that mission?
I have read where the Israelis experimented with units that contained both men and women and determined that combat effectiveness was lessened due to the men trying to protect the women instead of paying attention to their combat duties. As it seems, the experiment of women in combat in Israel was not a great success. [nationalreview.com]
There is also an ongoing problem in the U.S. military of rape...it would seem it is common enough that military women are in more danger of rape from their male counterparts than they are from any enemy. Please do not use the argument that the men need to be educated...I have been in the army and observed many of low intelligence (education is not their forte) as well as the fact that a male's stiff member is not interested in being educated.
Nevertheless, I am looking forward to well-thought out counters to the concept that homogenizing those groups into the military is a negative in regard to their primary mission of prevailing in battle rather than being an equal opportunity employer.
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
8 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Any country that would put women in the front lines of a battle is run by idiots & due to crash & burn.
However all the US military does these days is kill civilians with drones so it is a moot point.
callmedubious
Level 8
Jan 22, 2019
0
Myah:
It’d be nice if we didn’t dictate what aspiration women can and cannot have. It ruins equal opportunity and meritocracy
you read that the israelis determined that women didn't work out so well in the military? that's funny, because women are still obligated to serve in israel, and In 2014, they appointed major oshrat bacher as israel's first female combat battalion commander. that isn't exactly a vote of no confidence! you read wrong.
if the problem of rape is rampant in the u.s. military, then the people who need to be eliminated from the military are the rapists, duh! that would be the straight men. you are right that the men do not need to be educated not to rape. they need to be prosecuted when they do. if the army needs to become all female so be it. as for trans people in the army, they're just people. if they want to serve and are qualified, there is no reason to ban them. or we could ban black people like we used to, when we stupidly thought blacks were inferior.
g
genessa
Level 8
Jan 22, 2019
3
"combat effectiveness"...in reference to combat troops, not support personnel.
@dahermit correct. my comment stands. (and in what universe is a combat battalion commander "support personnel"?) i will add if the men stupidly ignored their battle objectives because they thought the perfectly well qualified women in their units needed their protection, that means that MEN are not qualified to be in battle.
g
@genessa So, you would want all female soldiers and not have to put up with the men not being qualified? Are we just not getting back to segregated units for combat then? By the way, the Israeli experiment had to do with combat troops not a female battalion commander. Also note that no where did I ever give any opinion about women in combat...I was asking for well-reasoned counters to objections to women in combat.
In combat, with men.
A gay man broke the enigma code. Trans gendered should be able to serve in their best capacity to win the war. Israeli women have been a great success in Israel. Not everyone is on the battlefield of throwing metal at each other. They serve in many capacities other than in hand to hand combat. Drone operators for example & hacking into enemy communications. Men should learn to keep it in their pants or lose it.
Mooolah
Level 8
Jan 22, 2019
4
Your lack of understanding of history, biology, and psychology is shocking. Your take on rape is appalling. They don't need educated, they need convicted.
CommonHuman
Level 7
Jan 22, 2019
4
@Bobby9 Women have been part of armies and in combat since the dawn of war. Men were getting raped in the US army far before women were allowed to join, men were raping local women in other countries as well. Rapists don't need educated or apologies, they need to be convicted. Period. Men (people) in a unit have been protecting each other forever. If protecting a unit member has been considered a distraction, then the distraction has always been there.
@Bobby9 When you decide what you want the data to say ahead of time, super easy to find the data to support it. This article is bunk.
@Bobby9 That would be Ms. Snarky...
the National Review is definitely right slanted and religious to boot and finds obscure and statistically manipulated facts to make their point on issues that they want to promote, one of which is the orange ass's view on transgender people in the military...just look at the founder, the authors and the titles of the articles..I bet the Israeli women would burn that article...women can't run as fast...
@Bobby9 your point is both ill advised and grossly biased. No one missed it we just recognize the glaring flaws in your attempts at thought. If you do suffer from a disability I feel a little bad but your ideas are both poorly thought out AND offensive.
@OpposingOpposum I deleted a mean reply I did because of your rudeness to @Bobby9. You have no idea if she is a veteran, a military planner, or works at the DoD. You just made an assumption based on her sex, and her statement, and you immediately dismissed what she had to say. So, let me say this: I am a 10 year Army veteran. Started out 1st Cav, ended up 2nd/75th Rangers. @Bobby9 was correct in her appraisal of National Review. They do manipulate facts and statistics to "steer" stories to the conclusions they want. I have trained with the Israeli Army, and I can tell you that women perform crucial jobs in that service. And to say that "women can't run as fast as men" is a ludicrous statement on it's face. Trust me, I'm a lot of things, but "fast" ain't on the list!
I deleted the previous comment because this site asks us NOT to attack other members personally. I don't know you, have no idea of YOUR service, or lack thereof, so let me just say you made assumptions and statements that may have been wildly out of place when it came to @Bobby9. She WAS correct in her evaluation of National Review. As to her political judgements, well, I have to admit I agree with her there, too, but that's completely seperate from the subject under discussion, plus it doesn't belong in this discussion group. So, perhaps, instead of delivering what I'm sure you thought was whithering insults to a stranger, you might just state what YOU believe or think, and let the other person continue to believe or think whatever they want, no matter how wrong it may be? Might make you look a little more "adult", and a little less "prick-ish".
@ninjarider1 ya, no. I'm not about to let blatantly untrue statements stand because someone belongs to a certain group. She is wrong. Her thinking is flawed. Who she is has nothing to do with it. Insult away, I honestly don't care. We don't have different classes of facts for special groups buddy.
@ninjarider1 furthermore, pointing out the flaws in logic isn't a personal attack. Pointing out that someone is offensive and misguided is a statement of objective fact. I didn't call her names, didn't realize she was a woman tbh(I generally expect better of other women but whatever). Wrong is wrong.
@Bobby9 I was merely pointing out that you had misidentified the gender...no mind reading needed...w=woman, m=man.... 
@OpposingOpposum OK, I'm lost. You said Bobby9 made "blatantly untrue statements" and that "she is wrong. her thinking is flawed". Now, I'm not the brightestest bulb in the sign, but I do, occassionally, glimmer. So please explain to me what it is she said that was "blatantly untrue".
And I'm not asking this to "keep the argument going". I legitimately don't understand what she said that you find untrue, or how you can determine her flawed thinking. I can see how you can disagree with her statements and beliefs, just not how you see factual errors in what she said. And I'm always looking to learn something, if I can.
Are you pre-supposing that all missions are combat-related? Peace keeping and deterrence are probably a greater mission.
What does being any of that have to do with those who are stationed state side or in safe areas for support that is necessary but not directly involved in combat?
The supplies and logistics manager that worked for my dad was female...
What about combat conditions in which the combatants are solo and require no other support from fellow members such as pilots or drone operators?
Are you or have you ever been in the military? I would offer that soldiers really don't give a shit what the sex or sexual preferences of their squads are...they would protect a man equally...
In a combat situation, sex is not exactly priority...survival is..the military has acknowledged that people who would rape are not of moral character needed to do other things more important to the mission and should therefore be discharged. I think you attack the moral character of male soldiers when you say their stiff members would over ride their training and values.
What is your reasoning for categorizing gay men as being unworthy or problematic in serving? Surely you are not suggesting that all gays are "effeminate" and unlikely to be able to carry out their job....
thinktwice
Level 8
Jan 22, 2019
3
One might say if you can’t trust a solider to not rape a female comrade then maybe he shouldn’t be trusted by his male comrades either, and certainly should be trusted by the military to hold their standards. Certainly he would be a bad influence on the troops in preventing rape of civilians (since rape is still used in modern atrocities and I would like to think we would not want the US military to engage in these).
You are also ignoring the fact that smarts is important in military matters. You can’t beat an enemy no matter how well trained your troops if you can’t win the logistical war. People think war is just the battle field, but it’s not. Why cut out the talent you could have? Especially in this day and age where recruitment is so hard. Especially if things like universal healthcare become instated it will be even harder to recruit to the military.
You are assuming a very ideal situation in your talk or “homogeneous” military. One that does not exist in the real world and honestly seems kind of naive instead of being realistic.
I wonder what you think of submarine crews and the fact that they are mostly men. Why don’t you decry that fact? The truth is that most jobs are not done by “optimally chosen crews” otherwise we would have actually have female submarine crew and female astronauts for that matter if you look outside the military. The fact is it’s people who reach the fastest “good enough” solution that win wars, rather than “perfect” which never ever existed in the first place.
Re-examine your assumptions. You are making the grossest generalizations of who is best for the job. You get the greatest meritocracy when you have an equal opportunity employer because you aren’t cutting out the competition. Why would you want to cut out competition now especially when it is so hard to recruit for the military in the first place?
Myah
Level 6
Jan 22, 2019
5
Great deductions, and excellent logic. One thing you didn't bring up is the "floating front line" of today's battlefield. With the guerilla warfare nature of today's conflicts, what last night was the "rear area" can, very rapidly, be today's "front lines", and the "POGs" (if you don't know, looking it up) become warfighters. So the other services are (in some cases, v-e-r-y slowly) adopting the Marine Corps dictum "Everybody trains/Everybody fights". The clearest example of this has been the convoy personnel, who initially went out fat, dumb, and happy, but rapidly became the best sharpshooters in the Army, simply from constant training and use. And the female members of the Transportation Battalions were as effective, and as deadly, as the men. Not to mention the female helo pilots, female medics, or any of the many other jobs that female and trans soldiers did. Not every soldier needs to be a Ranger or Delta.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.