BF2S Forums Transgender people are now allowed into the military

That's hard to do if part and parcel of the training is focused on group identity formation. It's not a normal job. Infantry platoons are on training exercises for upwards of 30-40 weeks a year. Their group identity is incredibly important both on an individual level and to their effectiveness. It's a tribe of sorts if you will, politics and all.

I don't think there's going to be many in the 21st century military who are intolerant of gay people, intolerance is usually towards behaviour. As long as you can accept that the collective is more important than the individual & adopt the norms within teams, you'll be fine. It's just much harder if you are or feel fundamentally different though, which is going to be difficult to navigate as a transgender.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-10-02 11:59:04)

I am not arguing against transgender people applying to the military? Rather just recognise the dynamics within it before you do.

I mean if you talk of 'inclusiveness', the french foreign legion predates that executive order by about 120 years. Nonetheless its tolerance only exists insofar recruits learn french, speak only french and totally assimilate themselves into the norms, rules & behavioural standards demanded by the legion. Outside of those arrangements you're allowed to be you, which is really only when you're praying, on break or sleeping. So much for grand inclusiveness.

The above is an extreme example but quite recognisable in any military anywhere.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-10-02 13:13:09)

I was giving you an example, not 'butting heads'. As to your equation to racial integration: again involved impressing upon every recruit the military culture above/on top of their individual differences. Although you can also most definitely argue that it took many decades until after that executive order was signed that black people in the US military were actually treated equally. There's an enormous amount of anecdotes of racist treatment into even the 80s. Probably the present day still.

Besides that, I really think equating transgenderism to racial integration is a case of apples and oranges.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-10-02 13:30:01)

The point I was making centred on the fact that militaries aren't tolerant and diverse in the way that civilian society perceives tolerance and diversity - which is mostly about individualist expression of identity, culture, language, politics etc. In the example of the FFL, people from mostly poor countries all over the world join, but their individual languages and cultural practices or even behavioural norms and politics have the FFL's culture and working language superimposed on them. This is usually what happens in any military, some to a more restrictive degree than others. So how accepting, diverse and tolerant is that lifestyle really? It functions by providing all recruits a new identity and asks them to leave who they were at the door. Perhaps even forces them to through various disciplinary measures for those who won't conform.

It's the only point I have / will make, this thread is an awful mess.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-10-02 14:10:11)

I'm a little befuddled at your interpretation. Seems that because I'm not flag waving for people who already have a hard time finding their place in normal society to join the military, I must be (trans)phobic or backwards. You keep telling me my point is clear, yet miss it.

No, I didn't at any point say platoon politics override military policy (what). What I'm telling you is that consciously and unconsciously much of military life is (historically) designed to foster group identity and groupthink in new platoons/teams. It is in many ways an uncompromising and intolerant process & result. If or when succesful this also affects the individuals who immersed themselves in their new military identity. People who can't 'get with the program' or are significantly different will probably find themselves subtly or unsubtly bullied by the others. Your race example is an interesting one, as now in 2020 I hear plenty anecdotes of officers in the Bundeswehr showing various degrees of intolerance towards cliques of Turkish/Arab people within the platoons, mostly for not assimilating totally in the rest of the team.

The identity formation process breeds a mindset of intolerance. Of course perhaps decades ago it was mandated that militaries must accept people of all backgrounds, in practice it seems to struggle quite a bit. I'm imagining a trans person in that environment and consider that it might be difficult to be outwardly trans. As you yourself stated, you wouldn't advise someone to transition while in the service. Well, that's part of the issue then no?

Again, I believe they should be free to join if they wish but people need to be realistic about what life might be like inside for trans individuals. To add on, if we want the military at large and the individuals within it to better reflect and exemplify the morals and norms in law and policy, we might want to fundamentally change that institution in many ways. I do not see its current way of doing things, which is historically rooted in it being a vehicle for nationalism, as very capable of being diverse and accepting. From the uniform to the traditions & training, the whole thing might need reform.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-10-03 01:01:35)

Strange I'm going to have to repeat myself five times over, but here we are. Perhaps you just wilfully ignored the entire last paragraph for the sake of arguing. Of course things can change, I'm fucking well telling you it can. How is this hard to understand? Did I say trans people have trouble cooperating, or was I making arguments about IDENTITY and diversity (or lack thereof) in military units?

You're going to reach back to that inane Chernobyl discussion too? On that front, I made a broader point of how the series helped me reflect a little more on the concept of nuclear power, which then got nitpicked by I believe dilbert because I dared include the sentence: 'some things I didn't know, like the possibility of a second explosion'. Throughout the following mud slinging fest those of you who have serious issues with reading comprehension then misconstrued my point as being that Chernobyl was a historically accurate retelling of the actual event and my source for nuclear science itself. Alongside that came uziq to of course lambast everyone for not reading more books and deriving any idea whatsoever from a HBO series because of course it's not up to his intellectual or artistic standard.

I'll concede that writing half-heartedly on a random internet forum the points I try to convey may not always be immediately apparent or even stupid at times, but for the same token it's not my fault some of you are about as insightful and intelligent as a fat blind hog.


That said, want more on my stance on nuclear? I defer to the following authors:

https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/the-fal … te-change/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nuclear- … _b_5305594

enjoy!

Last edited by Larssen (2020-10-03 04:56:01)

^Also never forget that if someone so much as raises an eyebrow against some minor, inane point Larssen makes, it's because they're not a real intellectual.

Larssen, look:

Obviously much of that needs to be modernised and adapted to today's world but any transgender/flamboyant homosexual person/whathaveyou would do well to realise and acknowledge these things before joining. Atypical treatment, appearance & behaviour sticks out in a way that doesn't fit with military culture. This type of work also tends to draw rather conservative individuals who cannot be bothered to accomodate variation within the teams. You either make the culture your own, or life will be rather unpleasant. I imagine all the more so for pre-transition transgenders who insist on their gender differences. In that case the military seems to me like the absolute last place you'd want to be.

Yes, bum boinking on submarines and creating naked human pyramids. Homo back and forth that would make George Takei blush. Such austerity and reservation. Far removed from the non-conservative degeneracy of a transperson working in medical records. You bring this up under the cover of a perfectly reasonable statement that being in the military means you have to set aside some civilian habits and ideas, then get all huffy when I'm not buying it. "Well you just don't understand!"

The military changing its mind (or having it changed for them) about who they let in and allow to do what isn't exactly without precedent.

Yeesh.

Not to forget your pig-dumb quip. I'm not really sure what else you want out of this. A reward? You'll have to get in line behind Hollis. I've patted you on the back for the individuality stuff. Yes, yes, good point. All recruits and potentials should keep that in mind. But I think you used it to prop some poor notions.

But no, obviously the real issue here is Uzique telling people to read books. Or me using tame expression out of frustration of your automatonical forging on. "Yikes!" The horror.

Thanks for the huffington post link by the way. Nice to see that you informed yourself there rather than some of the books linked way back during your Chernobyl stiffy.

I think the U.S. military has bigger institutional issues than trannies for what it is worth.

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2020-10-03 14:27:24)

More Americans than ever before identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer, according to a Gallup report released Wednesday.

The report shows 5.6 percent of people in the U.S. identify as LGBTQ, up from 4.5 percent in 2017.

Roughly 86 percent of respondents said they are heterosexual or straight. The number of people declining to answer a question about their sexual orientation was up as well: 7 percent in 2021, up from 5 percent in 2017.

Of those who identified as LGBTQ, the majority — 54.6 percent — identified as bisexual, while 24.5 percent identified as gay, 11.7 percent as lesbians, 11.3 percent as transgender, and 3.3 percent said they used another term to describe their identity, such as queer or same-gender loving. Respondents were able to choose more than one category, which brings the total past 100 percent.

Sexual orientation among the political parties varied widely, with around 13 percent of liberals, 4 percent of moderates, and 2 percent of conservatives identifying as LGBTQ.

It's good people are more likely to publicly identify as LGBT. I always suspected the number of people who have had a gay experience or attraction to be much higher than the 5% often quoted. Interesting that there are so many conservative closet cases.

Only 5.6% of people are willing to admit to it. God knows there are many American Beauty people around.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I feel bad for the 2+ whatever percent of conservatives identifying as LGBT. Who do they have to vote for, really? Best you can do is closeted Republican queers who still push the anti-gay agenda.

I would venture to say at least half of republican voters actively vote against their self-interests. They are used to it.

NY pays teachers more than NJ, I hear.