Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Larssen
Member
+43|640
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)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,842|5524|USA

It's strange that you would so strongly reiterate team over individuality in the military, yet you place any given platoon's individual politics and strong opinions over military policy because that is the "natural order of it" or whatever? Tribalism! I dunno, man.

Executive Order 9981: Integration of the Armed Forces
https://armyhistory.org/executive-order … ed-forces/

Also there are more jobs in the military than "infantry."
Larssen
Member
+43|640
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)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,842|5524|USA

I am not arguing against transgender people applying to the military?
Yeah I already got that part.

I mean if you talk of 'inclusiveness', the french foreign legion predates that executive order by about 200 years.
I'm not here to butt heads over whose military is "more progressive" than the other. That's stupid.

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.
How are you even trying to connect those two sentences into a point? It makes no sense.

So, about those dynamics of integrating black soldiers into white squads in the one specific example? To keep things simple, I'm talking about the US military, not the Amsterdam Squirrel Scouts or whatever?
Larssen
Member
+43|640
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)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,842|5524|USA

one should know that military culture is rather strongly defined by collectivism, group cohesion, the inferiority of the individual to team effort & an assimilation into the greater whole. It's right there in the uniform, the rituals/traditions, the standardised schedules, training & living arrangements etc. and is in many ways opposite to the rest of western society and its focus on individualism.
Really this is reasonable advice that could be slipped to any military hopeful, cis/homo/hetero/bi/trans/male/female/whatever, and possibly the strongest point you've made into this thread today (I have zero clue what you were going for with the "you can only be you on breaks, so so much for inclusiveness" ??). It should just be added that the military (and the society around it) changes. Blacks and women can take on roles they weren't allowed previously. Maybe trans people can eventually have a normal military career without some random internet forum pulling its hair out for 40 pages.

And obviously "apples and oranges" to some extent between race and trans issues. I shouldn't even have to mention.

You can check out an abridged back and forth on the matter here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgend … s_military
Larssen
Member
+43|640
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)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,842|5524|USA

My counterpoint is that, to expand upon your "individualism is anathema" message, bull*#& civilian prejudices and mob rule shouldn't have any place in military structure and operation.

But no, I'm getting "people need to get with the program (sure), but the squads are the ones who actually dictate policy (will-smith-questionmarks.jpg). The military needs to abide by their thousands of weird (and frankly homoerotic) rules and 'traditions,' and not its own." It does seem like a fairly blatant double-standard. There is also this weird undercurrent I'm picking up of trans people being universally self-absorbed and unable to work with others. That certainly isn't true, and I hope it's not your intent.

I don't think trans people represent a significant pool of potential manpower so I doubt will never be an urgent need to cast aside those restrictions on that basis. But counter-counter reform from the top does seem likely, with a sales pitch something to the effect of "we shouldn't be turning away skilled recruits on the basis of gender/orientation." If the military swallowed its pride and let black people fly planes, I think it'll survive.
Larssen
Member
+43|640
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)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,842|5524|USA

It's strange that I have to break this down, but here we are. No I don't think you're transphobic for not waving the flag or whatever. Yes I think your point on individualism vs. team makes sense on its own. Yes I think you perhaps half-heartedly floated out some some wrong-headed ideas attached to that which I don't think make a whole lot of sense (and sometimes your posts really don't make a whole lot of sense, like IIRC when you said that the Chernobyl show taught you a lot about its history despite laundry lists of errors that amounted to a little bit more than just shoelaces that didn't belong):

Military policy shouldn't be governed by a bunch of opinionated enlisteds with spotty education so they don't get their delicate sensibilities hurt by (for example) getting a gay transfer (squads have their own cultures! /spongebob). Military social dynamics are not some immutable stack of commandments set in stone since the dawn of history. Policies change (sometimes flip-flop), social norms change, and people get on with their jobs.

Yikes, my original point the other day was just to point out other changes that were made in the past to the dismay of some active service people. I didn't think I'd have to defend trans' ability to work as a team. I mean, what.
Larssen
Member
+43|640
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)

uziq
Member
+343|2205

Larssen wrote:

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.

enjoy!
yes, i do have the temerity – shock! horror! – to think that reading books is probably a better way to learn about something than HBO series or hufpo.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,842|5524|USA

^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.
Larssen
Member
+43|640
Your issue is seeing a perfectly reasonable statement and then thinking 'it's a trap!'.

Yeesh. Yikes. Here we are. Sigh. Didn't think I'd have to explain this. Wow.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,842|5524|USA

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.
Larssen
Member
+43|640
I linked the article because it was written by a professor in climate science. I specifically said 'author', not 'I love the huffington post'
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+404|2472
I think the U.S. military has bigger institutional issues than trannies for what it is worth.
https://i.redd.it/tgtdn6iahl6z.jpg
https://www.sandboxx.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/7c9e44e67fb0ba9d617ed54db8c1b277.jpg
https://www.sandboxx.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/img.jpg

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

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+404|2472
How can we make life safer for YouTube trannies? Asking for DesertFox?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard