https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skz TjD1ihoI&t=1s watch

File: 5f35c084fd511c9ad5cfaf604dfc0909_400x400.png (252KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 400x400px

>>7777904

>>7777904
First, she doesn't need hormones or surgery.

Second, if she can't join the army as an SY woman, why not join as a man? Oh right, because there's no way she would ever qualify on male standards. If she wants equality, then she should ask for no different treatment between men and women.

>Need

You people refer to hormones as if they were a right. If a cis man or woman asks their doctor for them in order to improve phisically or recover from an injury, they will be asked to leave the office as if they were egothistical weirdos. Now, a dysphoric individual asks for them every other day and they actually get what they asked for. It's unfair, and madness.

I don't pity that creature on the slightest.

>>7777962
you didn't watch the video. she had surgery to remove her testicles when she was born or else she'd be a chimera. she used hormones because her body didn't naturally produce it, so she needed it to pass a female.
the problem is that transgender women can join the military AS women but this woman can't for literally no reason.

>>7777986
I'm 10 minutes in and it's so frustrating having to listen to these uhms and pauses.

The problem is that there is such a thing as joining the military as a woman.

It's like intersex people complaining when they don't get to compete in women's sports where they would thrash the regular competitors, while ignoring the fact that half the population also can't and nobody minds.

You can't complain you don't get special treatment when you're perfectly happy other people don't.

>>7778008
>The problem is that there is such a thing as joining the military as a woman.
why is that a problem? there's very obvious reasons why you can't have red blooded 18 year olds of the opposite sex shacking up next to eachother and using the same bathrooms.
you seem to have some misconceptions about the physical tests. there aren't grand differences in how men and females undergo training. you're mainly tested on your stamina on doing things like pushups and running and you only get shit if you give up, male or female. and that lasts for the first 2 weeks and then you do basic shit like jumping jacks. it's a big joke. they aren't actually grading you on whether you can deadlift 900 lbs or something. there's competitions to see who qualifies for different things like people leading road marches but that's mostly for fun.
it's not about getting special treatment, she's literally being barred from entering a job for no reason and transgendered people are catered to and allowed to take advantage of their situation.

>>7777985

You say that like cis women don't get birth control pills or meds to ease them into menopause, which are sex hormones.

>>7777904
>They won't put me in harms way because I resemble a woman
>and that's bad
are we in backwards land

>>7778040
>you seem to have some misconceptions about the physical tests. there aren't grand differences in how men and females undergo training. you're mainly tested on your stamina on doing things like pushups and running and you only get shit if you give up, male or female.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Physical_Fitness_Test#Standards

>>7778100
right, those aren't difficult to achieve and huge difference of standard. it's conceivable that a girl could achieve the guys standard. males are rightfully held to a slightly higher physical standard because they have a greater biological potential. the day to day bootcamp grind is all about stamina anyway and those numbers don't effect that.

>>7778040
>there's very obvious reasons why you can't have red blooded 18 year olds of the opposite sex shacking up next to eachother and using the same bathrooms.
You make a good case for not allowing female recruits at all.

>>7778160
and cut the workforce in half? females can serve important roles in the military, not just with bolstering the numbers but it's good for morale to have a healthy mix of the sexes. and with the amount of space on a military base it's quite easy to accommodate them with separate bathrooms and beds.
I was speaking strictly on how you don't want teenagers fucking and getting pregnant right on the outset before utilizing them as soldiers.

Nobody who isn't a cisgender man should be in the armed forces, period. That's not just about protecting women, it's also about protecting our men - people who aren't cis men don't pull their weight, and compensating for them lowers the effectiveness of a unit and puts them in greater danger than they would be otherwise. I'm against anyone but cis males in combat, for the safety of those males.

That being said, my hormone treatment as a trans person is not a fucking whim. It's a treatment for a medical condition. If you aren't bright enough to grasp this, I don't think you're in a position to decide anything of import.

>>7778209
>and cut the workforce in half?
Get real.

>but it's good for morale to have a healthy mix of the sexes.
Maybe, or maybe it's bad for unit cohesion.

Either way, that's a matter of practicality for the army to decide on, not a social justice issue for civilian politicians to have anything to do with.

>>7777904
Yes
And since we now live in 2017
Aka the Great Menopause
Where tragic speculation in the booming transsexual market
Lead to a GLOBAL DESATURATION OF ALL HORMONES
BECAUSE SURELY
THIS IS WHY WE MUST RATION ALL ENDOCRINAL MEDICATION

>>7778243
>Get real.
not an argument.

>>7778215
you realize people in the military don't do things like storm the beaches of normandy any more right? it's 90 percent peace keeping, intel, and boring jobs that are indistinguishable from what you'd do at any cubicle job.
I guess women should be barred from factory jobs or anything that requires a modicum of physicality as well.
you people are so impossibly childish.

>>7778804
You seriously want me to explain how not letting women in the military wouldn't cut the workforce in half?

>>7778931
I don't mean literally in half, dunce.
it doesn't matter, they're not going to suddenly bar women from entering the military.
unless they're incapable of menstruating apparently.

>>7778941
Name one thing women can do they couldn't just get a fitter man who wouldn't harm unit cohesion to do instead.

>>7778969
literally anything because like I said, no one in the military is performing parkour over aleppo wreckage and 360 noscoping terrorists like you seem to think.

>>7778975
>literally anything
By which you evidently mean nothing.

>>7778986
no I mean anything that they're qualified to do, gender is irrelevant in the military now except for minor things like separated baths and showers that all companies provide. is this really something you think is a worthwhile thing to argue about? physical strength is becoming more and more irrelevant in the military.

>>7779004
>things male recruits can't do making female recruits necessary
>literally nothing
See the hole in your opinion?

You can say physical strength doesn't matter when there are the same standards for men and women, instead of men getting kicked out if they're only as capable as a top woman.

>>7779024
if it was a male vs female with all the same "stats" and he had plus 100 strength and the job they were both going for was a physically intensive job like, a tank technician than yeah obviously you'd go with the guy. but if the job was a tech job or an office job like a graphic designer,(yes the military has those) then no, having testosterone is irrelevant to that job and the more qualified person should get it.
anyway we came to a consensus 100 years ago on this issue and you're wrong.

>>7779052
>if it was a male vs female with all the same "stats" and he had plus 100 strength and the job they were both going for was a physically intensive job like, a tank technician than yeah obviously you'd go with the guy.
Which is why the military should only be recruiting men.

>but if the job was a tech job or an office job like a graphic designer,(yes the military has those) then no, having testosterone is irrelevant to that job and the more qualified person should get it.
I agree, the more qualified person, i.e. the man who can actually pass fitness tests to be involved in the military in the first place and doesn't need them lowered to quota him in, should get the job.

>anyway we came to a consensus 100 years ago on this issue and you're wrong.
Not an argument.

>>7779083
>Which is why the military should only be recruiting men.
no, you fucking idiot. listen. 90% of the job in the military are completely non physical jobs. the PT after bootcamp is purely ceremony.
>I agree, the more qualified person, i.e. the man who can actually pass fitness tests to be involved in the military in the first place and doesn't need them lowered to quota him in, should get the job.
no, you're not agreeing with what I said then. the more qualified person for that particular job of say an intelligence person or a graphic designer or coder would be someone with the better resume and test scores, regardless of their gender. hence an integrated military where there's a larger talented pool.
>not an argument
it is an argument because you seem to think we're still engaged in pre industrial revolution warfare.

>>7779098
>purely ceremony
>men have to be twice as strong as women or they get kicked out

>>7779113
nice greentext.
look I'd 100% agree with you if we were talking about combat troops or special forces which is why those positions have higher physical requirements that weed out most of the females anyway

>>7779213
So you don't care? It's fine for non-combat positions to require men to be twice as fit as women, for what you have just been arguing is no reason, but God forbid women have to meet the same standards or get rejected for being intersex?

>>7777962
*XY

File: 1487452785814.png (638KB, 512x550px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 512x550px

>>7779237
>So you don't care? It's fine for non-combat positions to require men to be twice as fit as women.
if you're still talking about the fitness requirements, which they test you on twice every year, no it doesn't, really matter. it's pathetically easy for most men or women to meet the base requirements. it just exists to test that you're showing a MEAGER level of care for your physical body.
you advocating they bar women completely because they're generally weaker than men makes no fucking sense in the modern military.

>>7779273
You want full equality for every combination of chromosomes, sex and gender except one.

>>7779298
what?

>>7779213
>nice greentext.
not an argument.

>>7777904
She should be able to join. Someone like her costs no more in healthcare than any other girl who joins.

Fuck, she actually costs less, because she can't get pregnant right before a deployment. No periods either. No shark week or bleeding on patrol. Somebody sign this bitch up.

>>7778814
You realize I'm not talking about paper-shuffling work, right?

Female soldiers themselves have come forward saying combat roles are too physically demanding for women, and I'm going to take their personal experience over you.

>>7779465
>She should be able to join.
>Someone like her costs no more in healthcare than any other girl who joins.
Contradiction.

>>7778040
>there's very obvious reasons why you can't have red blooded 18 year olds of the opposite sex shacking up next to eachother and using the same bathrooms

>what are gays
>what are lesbians
>what are bisexuals

>>7779429
I thought that person was actually complimenting you on your greentext. Am I autistic or.

>>7779518
She costs less. That is not a contradiction.

>>7779523
She was bitching about being called on her lie.

>>7779495
and I said to another anon that men should generally be favored in combat roles.

>>7779495
And you also realize there's more to the military than combat roles, right?

>>7779704
Then why give men higher physical standards for those roles?

>>7778969
You do realize that men are a finite quantity, right? If you limit the military to just taking men, they're going to run out of willing recruits much sooner. And unwilling recruits are just as harmful to unit cohesion, if not more, than women do.

>>7779024
So you're making some nonsensitardical argument that, if there's no job in the military that ONLY women can do, we shouldn't let women in at all? All right then. Let's bar all people named Bob from serving in the military unless they can demonstrate they have some sort of "special skill" that all non-Bobs lack.

>>7779083
>Which is why the military should only be recruiting men.
No, because not all military jbos are physically intensive, and of those that are, it's usually not the only criteria. BY rejecting women for being women, you're limiting the skill you have access to.

>>7779366
He's gotten some meme gone to his head that you're trying to oppress XY cis men or something.

>>7779732
Where exactly did they advocate that?

All these civilians shitting out their worthless opinions.
Gross.

>>7778040
>there's very obvious reasons why you can't have red blooded 18 year olds of the opposite sex shacking up next to eachother and using the same bathrooms.

I hate this argument and point, I had a non-gendered bathrooms in my college and the biggest issue we had was people shitting in the sink. This removes personal responsibility and acts as if people can't deal with other sexes.

>>7779797
>You do realize that men are a finite quantity, right?
So at that point drop the standards to female level.

>So you're making some nonsensitardical argument that, if there's no job in the military that ONLY women can do, we shouldn't let women in at all?
No, read the thread.

>BY rejecting women for being women, you're limiting the skill you have access to.
So you disagree with the sexist who thinks lower standards for women are ok too then?

>He

>>7779805
Read the thread.

>>7779952
>So you disagree with the sexist who thinks lower standards for women are ok too then?
Standards should be based on someone in a given position is required to do. Set them too high, and you're excluding many people who can do the job; set them too low, and you're including many people who can't do the job. Different standards should be based on different jobs, not on what gender you are.

>>7779952
>Read the thread.
the "requirements" are to show basic physical aptitude. women are allowed an extra 3 minutes on the 2 mile run, and about 30 less pushups. the sit up standards are exactly the same. it's an extremely lax and irrelevant fitness standard. and they maintain it mostly out of tradition and so they don't have morbidly obese paraplegics in the military because it looks bad.

>>7780041
>Set them too high, and you're excluding many people who can do the job;
So you agree with me and disagree with the sexist anon that men shouldn't be excluded that way.

>set them too low, and you're including many people who can't do the job.
So you agree with me and disagree with the sexist anon that women shouldn't be given special treatment that way.

>>7780066
You've seen the link you liar.

>>7777904
Leave it to someone to take someone who just wants equality and use their words to put others down.

Are you by chance retarded op?

>>7780427
>You've seen the link you liar.
what am I lying about? you ruined the thread. gj

File: 1471810454233.jpg (254KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 750x1000px

>>7777904
Good on them, just because she wanted to noin the navy doesn't mean she would be skilled enough anyways, this sounds more like drama because she didn't pass the physical test.

I'm sure there must be a hundred boys making videos on youtube about them not being able to pass due to some physical defect but I guess they should be allowed because feelings and stuff, rite guise?

>>7782352
>be op
>make shit thread
>lie to try to damage control
>get called on lies and sexism
>"you ruined the thread. gj"

>>7785205
I haven't lied about anything, I have family in the military so I know what I'm talking about.

>>7785662
Even wikipedia has proven you wrong.

>>7790155
about what?

>>7790195
about everything

>>7790195
Re-read >>7778100