SCOTUS: Trump military trans ban can continue during appeals process

[fredtoast]

(01-23-2019, 12:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I would think that physical fitness would be very important to ALL military personnel in the combat arms community, but I can't imagine that the military picks leaders based on who runs the fastest or lifts the most weight.  If so then that may explain why they have not won a war in almost 80 years.

(01-23-2019, 01:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your fitness test is scored, your ruck march times are recorded, ect....It's not simply a pass/fail. And the better you do on these and other activities the more competitive you are for promotion.

Well maybe that does explain it.

[Benton]

(01-23-2019, 12:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Stephen Hawking had ALS. It was a much slower progressing form of it. Just wanted to clear up that interchange that seemed confused about that.

Appreciated. But I think everyone is aware of what Stephen Hawking had, I think the only confusion is the benefit of using him as an example. Transgender people in the military — as far as I know — can do the tasks required to prove physical fitness; Stephen Hawking would be unable to due to ALS. 

[*michaelsean*]

(01-23-2019, 12:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Stephen Hawking had ALS. It was a much slower progressing form of it. Just wanted to clear up that interchange that seemed confused about that.

Damn.  I didn't know there was a slower form of it, I just thought he was some sort of super-human (ironic huh?) who somehow managed to live 50 years longer than most sufferers.  Like God said (irony again), I'm going to give you this so you have no distractions, but I'm going to keep you around a long time.  

[*bfine32*]

(01-23-2019, 01:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well maybe that does explain it.

It is simply one aspect; not the lone aspect. But at the risk of appearing omniscient I pretty sure you knew that. Regardless of your Military Occupation; everyone is an infantryman and with it comes a physical requirement. The better you preform in this facet, the more competitive for promotion you are.

Do you think it's fair that a biological female that identifies as male be held to the male physical fitness test (APFT) standards? There's a good chance he could be very fit yet fail the standard.

I have not said that folks should not be allowed to transition while in service; that's for folks above me to decide. I'm simply stating it must be declared and measure need to be employed to level the playing field during transition. I don't know why folks are having an issue with this.   

[fredtoast]

(01-23-2019, 01:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is simply one aspect; not the lone aspect. But at the risk of appearing omniscient I pretty sure you knew that. Regardless of your Military Occupation; everyone is an infantryman and with it comes a physical requirement. The better you preform in this facet, the more competitive for promotion you are.

Do you think it's fair that a biological female that identifies as male be held to the male physical fitness test (APFT) standards? There's a good chance he could be very fit yet fail the standard.

I have not said that folks should not be allowed to transition while in service; that's for folks above me to decide. I'm simply stating it must be declared and measure need to be employed to level the playing field during transition. I don't know why folks are having an issue with this.   

I think there should be physical requirements based on what job a person has in the military and everyone should be treated the same.

If a soldier is a whiz at flying drones or gathering intelligence I don't care if he/she can walk across a room, but everyone who wants to be in combat should have to pass the same tests.

And I think it is a very bad idea to chose leaders based on who runs the best or lifts the most weights.  Combat is much different from competing in a decathlon.

[Benton]

(01-23-2019, 01:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Damn.  I didn't know there was a slower form of it, I just thought he was some sort of super-human (ironic huh?) who somehow managed to live 50 years longer than most sufferers.  Like God said (irony again), I'm going to give you this so you have no distractions, but I'm going to keep you around a long time.  

With respect to pat, there's (as far as I know) only two types, sporadic (anyone can get) and familial (anyone with the wrong genes can get). How it impacts a person is different. I've met people who died in months after diagnosis and others who lived for years 

My family has the gene for familial. Most of the men in my family died from it. My grandfather was fortunate to try some experimental treatments that may have helped, had a high quality of healthcare and lived about 15 years. His dad on the other hand was a farmer. He "got tired" and was dead in a few weeks.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-23-2019, 01:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think there should be physical requirements based on what job a person has in the military and everyone should be treated the same.

If a soldier is a whiz at flying drones or gathering intelligence I don't care if he/she can walk across a room, but everyone who wants to be in combat should have to pass the same tests.

And I think it is a very bad idea to chose leaders based on who runs the best or lifts the most weights.  Combat is much different from competing in a decathlon.

That's not how the choose them, but it plays a big factor in the decision. If one is slightly less mentally capable but scores much higher on the physical aspect, then they will probably be chosen over someone that has the mental capacity but doesn't score as high on the physical side.

That's bfine's point. It places an advantage/disadvantage to which ever side they are transitioning to.

[GMDino]

(01-23-2019, 09:05 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: That's not how the choose them, but it plays a big factor in the decision. If one is slightly less mentally capable but scores much higher on the physical aspect, then they will probably be chosen over someone that has the mental capacity but doesn't score as high on the physical side.

That's bfine's point. It places an advantage/disadvantage to which ever side they are transitioning to.

That's a damn shame.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-23-2019, 04:17 PM)Benton Wrote: With respect to pat, there's (as far as I know) only two types, sporadic (anyone can get) and familial (anyone with the wrong genes can get). How it impacts a person is different. I've met people who died in months after diagnosis and others who lived for years 

My family has the gene for familial. Most of the men in my family died from it. My grandfather was fortunate to try some experimental treatments that may have helped, had a high quality of healthcare and lived about 15 years. His dad on the other hand was a farmer. He "got tired" and was dead in a few weeks.

Whoa wasn't aware of that either.  That has to be a little or very scary.

[fredtoast]

(01-23-2019, 09:05 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote:  If one is slightly less mentally capable but scores much higher on the physical aspect, then they will probably be chosen over someone that has the mental capacity but doesn't score as high on the physical side.

Well if the military really is choosing the dumber guy to be a leader just because he can lift more weight then that will definitely help explain why they haven't won a war in 70 years.

[*bfine32*]

(01-24-2019, 07:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well if the military really is choosing the dumber guy to be a leader just because he can lift more weight then that will definitely help explain why they haven't won a war in 70 years.

Looks like Trump is not the only one without a clue who thinks he knows more than the Generals.


The Soldier is assessed based on the Whole Soldier Concept. The smart guy may fatigue easily and not be able to think clearly. The physical stud might lose his shit as soon as the first bullet flies. The break it down a Soldier is assessed as a Scholar-Athlete-Leader. We look for a Soldier that can excel in all areas for advancement.  

[Dill]

(01-23-2019, 01:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you think it's fair that a biological female that identifies as male be held to the male physical fitness test (APFT) standards? There's a good chance he could be very fit yet fail the standard.

I have not said that folks should not be allowed to transition while in service; that's for folks above me to decide. I'm simply stating it must be declared and measure need to be employed to level the playing field during transition. I don't know why folks are having an issue with this.   

Yes, especially if in a combat MOS.

[Dill]

(01-23-2019, 01:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think there should be physical requirements based on what job a person has in the military and everyone should be treated the same.

If a soldier is a whiz at flying drones or gathering intelligence I don't care if he/she can walk across a room, but everyone who wants to be in combat should have to pass the same tests.

And I think it is a very bad idea to chose leaders based on who runs the best or lifts the most weights.  Combat is much different from competing in a decathlon.

That's not really how "leaders" are chosen in the military.  All people in the military have pass fitness tests to remain in, some branches (e.g. Marines) holding to more rigorous requirements than others.  And passing these tests factors into promotion. 

So the result of this process is a large pool of military members who meet basic fitness standards.  Within this pool are some/many with the ability to lead, others not.  Because of the fitness requirements, there are plenty of fit, smart, potential leaders out there. Thus no one grooming leaders has to choose between a person who is smart but unfit and a person who is dumb but fit. 


Also, when it comes to combat, you do want the guy with cardio fitness out there, for sure.

[GMDino]

(01-24-2019, 08:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Looks like Trump is not the only one without a clue who thinks he knows more than the Generals.


The Soldier is assessed based on the Whole Soldier Concept. The smart guy may fatigue easily and not be able to think clearly. The physical stud might lose his shit as soon as the first bullet flies. The break it down a Soldier is assessed as a Scholar-Athlete-Leader. We look for a Soldier that can excel in all areas for advancement.  

But you're saying that they will take the guy with better physical abilities over the guy with the better mental abilities if it is close?  

[*bfine32*]

(01-25-2019, 03:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: But you're saying that they will take the guy with better physical abilities over the guy with the better mental abilities if it is close?  

Where did I say that?

[GMDino]

(01-25-2019, 07:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Where did I say that?

We were discussing what Mike said:

(01-23-2019, 09:05 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: That's not how the choose them, but it plays a big factor in the decision. If one is slightly less mentally capable but scores much higher on the physical aspect, then they will probably be chosen over someone that has the mental capacity but doesn't score as high on the physical side.

That's bfine's point. It places an advantage/disadvantage to which ever side they are transitioning to.

So without any other clarification I asked.

[*bfine32*]

(01-25-2019, 10:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: We were discussing what Mike said:


So without any other clarification I asked.

I get that's the best quote you could find.. however, you threw me off when you quoted me. I thought you were talking about something I said.

But if we look at Mike's comment with an open mind, we might realize his descriptives such as "slightly less" and "much more" could have clarified it for you. 

[GMDino]

(01-25-2019, 10:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I get that's the best quote you could find.. however, you threw me off when you quoted me. I thought you were talking about something I said.

But if we look at Mike's comment with an open mind, we might realize his descriptives such as "slightly less" and "much more" could have clarified it for you. 

Not really.  Still sounds like all things being equal the person better physically would be chosen over the person better mentally.

But I don't know and you guys do.  Maybe it's just worded wonky.

[*bfine32*]

(01-25-2019, 11:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not really.  Still sounds like all things being equal the person better physically would be chosen over the person better mentally.

But I don't know and you guys do.  Maybe it's just worded wonky.

I have 0 idea where you've gotten that from.

You didn't actually but merit in Fred's posts did you? Cause that is the only way you could have gotten that impression from this thread. 

Mike's comments that you quoted clearly show all things not being equal. Relook it.