US military to lift ban on trans personnel

[Belsnickel]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36628288

Quote:US officials say the Pentagon will lift its ban on openly transgender service personnel next month.

Defence Secretary Ash Carter has called the regulation outdated and harmful to the military.

The disclosure has been welcomed by campaigners for transgender rights.

It comes after the US Army Secretary, Eric Fanning, formally took office. He is the first openly gay person to become the top civilian official in any branch of the American military.

The US military ended its ban on openly gay and lesbian service personnel in 2011.

The latest repeal would require each branch of the US military to implement new policies covering recruitment, housing and uniforms for transgender personnel, an official quoted by US media said.

[*bfine32*]

I have to wonder how this will effect APFT and body-weight/fat standards.

[Rotobeast]

(06-25-2016, 09:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I have to wonder how this will effect APFT and body-weight/fat standards.

I wonder if they'll be allowed to bounce back and forth on grooming standards ?

[jmccracky]

I am pretty sure Israel allows transgender in the military. Also, homosexuals can serve in all branches.

Openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual soldiers serve without hindrance in all branches of the military. Discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual soldiers in recruitment, placement and promotion is prohibited in Israel.[17] Harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation is also prohibited in the Israeli military. The military recognizes same-sex couples, including widows and widowers of the same-sex.[18] Soldiers are also allowed to participate in Gay Pride Parades.[19]"

[Bengalzona]

(06-25-2016, 09:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I have to wonder how this will effect APFT and body-weight/fat standards.

The Army needs to address having separate standards for men and women at this point anyway. If we are going to truly have a unisex standard where women (and whoever else) can serve in all jobs, then they need to have just one APFT and body-weight/fat index. Otherwise, how can women truly be treated as equal to their male counterparts? 

[*bfine32*]

(06-25-2016, 10:33 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I wonder if they'll be allowed to bounce back and forth on grooming standards  ?

Grooming standards have been getting more and more relaxed. There's the recent case of the Sikh officer that has been permitted to keep his long hair, beard, and wear a turban. It will be interesting to see the fallout.

(06-25-2016, 12:24 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The Army needs to address having separate standards for men and women at this point anyway. If we are going to truly have a unisex standard where women (and whoever else) can serve in all jobs, then they need to have just one APFT and body-weight/fat index. Otherwise, how can women truly be treated as equal to their male counterparts? 

I've always thought that APFT should be based on MOS (job). Some jobs are more physically demanding than others. I can also see it soon going to a Pass/Fail and no points awarded

[Bengalzona]

(06-25-2016, 12:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Grooming standards have been getting more and more relaxed. There's the recent case of the Sikh officer that has been permitted to keep his long hair, beard, and wear a turban. It will be interesting to see the fallout.

I've always thought that APFT should be based on MOS (job). Some jobs are more physically demanding than others. I can also see it soon going to a Pass/Fail and no points awarded

 
Grooming standards ought to be unisex as well IMO, but the Army seems to be going a different direction on that.

I agree. APFT should be MOS-related solely. Maybe a base standard for everyone, as well. But some jobs do require more strength. You're gonna want someone who can consistently tote and load mortar shells, missiles, artillery rounds, etc. in those jobs. 

[mallorian69]

(06-25-2016, 12:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Grooming standards have been getting more and more relaxed. There's the recent case of the Sikh officer that has been permitted to keep his long hair, beard, and wear a turban. It will be interesting to see the fallout.

I've always thought that APFT should be based on MOS (job). Some jobs are more physically demanding than others. I can also see it soon going to a Pass/Fail and no points awarded

While that may work for the Navy and Air Force it won't for the Army or Marines. No matter your MOS in the Army and Marines you are first and foremost an infantryman. This is why every soldier and marine must qualify annually with their firearm.

[*bfine32*]

(06-25-2016, 09:00 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: While that may work for the Navy and Air Force it won't for the Army or Marines. No matter your MOS in the Army and Marines you are first and foremost an infantryman. This is why every soldier and marine must qualify annually with their firearm.

I've been around these Military folks for a day or two and I can tell you "Everyone is an Infantryman" is nothing more than a saying. To suggest otherwise is disrespectful to Infantrymen IMO. Not meant as an attack on your post, just a thought. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-25-2016, 10:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've been around these Military folks for a day or two and I can tell you "Everyone is an Infantryman" is nothing more than a saying. To suggest otherwise is disrespectful to Infantrymen IMO. Not meant as an attack on your post, just a thought. 

I know a few grunts that would agree with you. The pride one of my classmates has of his EIB and infantry blue cord runs very deep.

[StoneTheCrow]

(06-25-2016, 10:29 PM)I\m bfine32 Wrote: I've been around these Military folks for a day or two and I can tell you "Everyone is an Infantryman" is nothing more than a saying. To suggest otherwise is disrespectful to Infantrymen IMO. Not meant as an attack on your post, just a thought. 

The Army is fat and the Marines are getting fat quickly. If the PFT standards ever move, they should move up. 

[*Nately120*]

[Bengalzona]

(06-25-2016, 10:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've been around these Military folks for a day or two and I can tell you "Everyone is an Infantryman" is nothing more than a saying. To suggest otherwise is disrespectful to Infantrymen IMO. Not meant as an attack on your post, just a thought. 

Yeah. That's a nice saying to tell REMF's so they can keep their basic skills up. But 11 Bravo is a trained position and requires more than just Basic Training. You put a trained infantry platoon (and possibly even just a squad) against, say, a personnel service company, that PSC is gonna get wiped out 99 times out of 100. Their specialized training is different. Most PSC's and similar non-combat skill groups can't even set up a reasonable defensive perimeter (at least to infantry standards).

[Belsnickel]

(06-25-2016, 11:28 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Yeah. That's a nice saying to tell REMF's so they can keep their basic skills up. But 11 Bravo is a trained position and requires more than just Basic Training. You put a trained infantry platoon (and possibly even just a squad) against, say, a personnel service company, that PSC is gonna get wiped out 99 times out of 100. Their specialized training is different. Most PSC's and similar non-combat skill groups can't even set up a reasonable defensive perimeter (at least to infantry standards).

Guy I used to hang with was a weekend warrior 11B. He talked one year after his two weeks about how there was a unit from Finance there as well. Me being an accountant he enjoyed telling me all about MOUT training with them. We then got into a discussion about paratrooper accountants doing calculations on their adding machines on the way down because several of them had jump wings. Anyway, the point of that story is that I have anecdotal evidence supporting this.

[Bengalzona]

(06-25-2016, 11:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Guy I used to hang with was a weekend warrior 11B. He talked one year after his two weeks about how there was a unit from Finance there as well. Me being an accountant he enjoyed telling me all about MOUT training with them. We then got into a discussion about paratrooper accountants doing calculations on their adding machines on the way down because several of them had jump wings. Anyway, the point of that story is that I have anecdotal evidence supporting this.

Chairborne Rangers. 

I don't want to be too derogatory of non-combat units. Many soldiers start their careers in combat arms fields and change MOS's to non-combat jobs later in their careers. It is considered a wise career move (at least among officers). So, there are often some guys with some combat arms knowledge in the rear area units. Just not enough to make a big difference and definitely not enough combat-oriented training for them to suddenly do that sort of work.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-25-2016, 11:03 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: The Army is fat and the Marines are getting fat quickly. If the PFT standards ever move, they should move up. 

I served with a corporal who was fat as hell. Couldnt run or do pull ups worth a damn. But when it came time to do his job and carry around a 240G and all the other crap he did it a hell of a lot better than me and i had a perfect PFT score at one point.

We got over 9000ft elevation at one point in Afghanland and my big horse team leader who looked like a jacked up NFL linebacker could barely go 50 steps without having to stop and catch his breath while my little ass was taking stuff from him to lessen his load.

So its not a flawless system. I do think body fat percentage should be a measured stat though. BMI is unfair to short swoll guys.

[Bengalzona]

(06-26-2016, 01:25 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I served with a corporal who was fat as hell. Couldnt run or do pull ups worth a damn. But when it came time to do his job and carry around a 240G and all the other crap he did it a hell of a lot better than me and i had a perfect PFT score at one point.

We got over 9000ft elevation at one point in Afghanland and my big horse team leader who looked like a jacked up NFL linebacker could barely go 50 steps without having to stop and catch his breath while my little ass was taking stuff from him to lessen his load.

So its not a flawless system. I do think body fat percentage should be a measured stat though. BMI is unfair to short swoll guys.

My best friend (perhaps my only friend, but that is another story) in ROTC was the starting tight end on the football team. He was built like a cross between a Mack truck and a brick sh_t house. Body fat was non-existent. But every single two-mile run we went on, he had to stop and puke. I'd run by saying, "Hey, Tony!". He'd reply something like, "(wretch)(garbble)(slosh), Mike!". 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-25-2016, 12:00 PM)CharvelPlaya Wrote: I am pretty sure Israel allows transgender in the military. Also, homosexuals can serve in all branches.

Openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual soldiers serve without hindrance in all branches of the military. Discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual soldiers in recruitment, placement and promotion is prohibited in Israel.[17] Harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation is also prohibited in the Israeli military. The military recognizes same-sex couples, including widows and widowers of the same-sex.[18] Soldiers are also allowed to participate in Gay Pride Parades.[19]"

Honestly, I have no idea why the LGBT Group doesn't defend Israel more, but yet will defend the Countries in the Middle East where they will be killed just for being themselves.

[BmorePat87]

(06-27-2016, 05:44 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Honestly, I have no idea why the LGBT Group doesn't defend Israel more, but yet will defend the Countries in the Middle East where they will be killed just for being themselves.

By this you mean "why do people who do not like discrimination aimed towards the LGBT community not like discrimination aimed towards Muslims?"

I think you know the answer, but I understand being disingenuous in how you phrased it was necessary for your agenda. 

[GMDino]

(06-27-2016, 05:44 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Honestly, I have no idea why the LGBT Group doesn't defend Israel more, but yet will defend the Countries in the Middle East where they will be killed just for being themselves.

I'd say it is more a defending a right to not be persecuted for your religion as long as you don't try to persecute others WITH your religion.

If a LGBT lived in a Muslim country I'm sure they would want to protest that religion more.

That's the beauty/horror of the US:  We're free to protest things...things that would get you killed for protesting in other countries.