- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 14th amendment and women/trans in combat roles
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:00 pm to Kentucker
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:00 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Let me press you for a yes or no answer now. You seem to be anti-service for women. Is that true? Do you think all women should be denied military service?
Yes.
eta- I have no problem with an auxiliary corps.
This post was edited on 8/27/17 at 4:02 pm
1
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:00 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Shouldn't we let our Constitution do that?
We don't do that in many other cases, and no one makes a big deal about it. Why are women and transgenders the line?
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:02 pm to Kentucker
quote:
The larger group will always be men whether you sample from 100, 1,000 or 1 million. However, there will be more women in the sample from 1,000 than from 100.
And you think there's room for all comers, I guess?
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:08 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Biology and thousands of years of human history shall be our guide. Stop overthinking this.
What I see in this forum is a lot of black and white thinking. The biology of the human species is not that structured. While we are definitely a sexually dimorphic species, the dividing line is not the wall you imagine it to be.
For that reason, and because our Constitution and democratic principles demand it, we must attempt to provide for every citizen the opportunity to work for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't see that as overthinking it one bit.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:10 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Because women make up half of the population.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:13 pm to northshorebamaman
And is that because you think no women can meet the standards or because of some other reason?
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:14 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
And you think there's room for all comers, I guess?
Should there be room for all male comers, knowing that many of them are going to fail?
This post was edited on 8/27/17 at 4:18 pm
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:14 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
No
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:21 pm to Kentucker
quote:
And is that because you think no women can meet the standards or because of some other reason?
I know that very few can meet the current male standards. Hence the separate female standards.
I used to support women in support roles but now believe the cost outweighs the benefits. Most people have no problem with a female mechanic, or clerk, or MP because all of those jobs can be performed by anyone of average physical ability.
Tell me this; why is their an NBA and a WNBA?
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:21 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Because women make up half of the population.
That isn't a good reason. About 40% of the population is under 18 or over 65.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:22 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Should there be room for all male comers, knowing that many of them are going to fail?
There isn't room for all male comers. Plenty of men are rejected from serving.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:25 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Should there be room for all male comers, knowing that many of them are going to fail?
So in your mind, taking 1000 to get 100 is just as efficient as taking 1000 to get 900? Or can we just go ahead and determine that efficiency is of no concern to you?
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:28 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
quote:
That isn't a good reason. About 40% of the population is under 18 or over 65.
Denying any of the other 60% the opportunity to try to serve simply because of their gender is unconstitutional.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:31 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Denying any of the other 60% the opportunity to try to serve simply because of their gender is unconstitutional.
Why isn't it also unconstitutional to deny them because of their age?
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:32 pm to Kentucker
quote:
For that reason, and because our Constitution and democratic principles demand it, we must attempt to provide for every citizen the opportunity to work for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't see that as overthinking it one bit.
The result is absolutely black and white. The reasoning behind that result is full of complex systems and results, i.e. biology and physiology.
quote:
What I see in this forum is a lot of black and white thinking. The biology of the human species is not that structured. While we are definitely a sexually dimorphic species, the dividing line is not the wall you imagine it to be.
The constitution does not guarantee a citizen's "right to serve". Sorry, but that's a fact. We discriminate in various different ways during the entry process.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:33 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Denying any of the other 60% the opportunity to try to serve simply because of their gender is unconstitutional.
Almost no one here would be against allowing them the same chance as anyone else (minus the fact that it's wasteful). The problem is that the standard will be lowered when they inevitably wash out. We've seen this play out before. Look at Airborne school, go spend a day observing Basic Training at FT Jackson (mixed units) and spend a day at FT Benning (all male).
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:35 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
So in your mind, taking 1000 to get 100 is just as efficient as taking 1000 to get 900? Or can we just go ahead and determine that efficiency is of no concern to you?
So, you see accepting only male applicants as more efficient and that that efficiency is more important than the Constitution? We're just talking about the front end of the military here. If we can't devise or amend our system to comply with Constitutional rights then we're not a democratic republic. Israel does it with remarkable efficiency and has the most elite military in the world. We can, too.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:39 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Why isn't it also unconstitutional to deny them because of their age?
You seem to like to argue with analogies. This discussion is about gender, not age. How can those be made equivalent?
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:39 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Israel does it with remarkable efficiency and has the most elite military in the world.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 4:40 pm to Kentucker
quote:
So, you see accepting only male applicants as more efficient and that that efficiency is more important than the Constitution?
I don't think it's clear that it is unconstitutional. We discriminate in a variety of ways in recruiting.
quote:
Israel does it with remarkable efficiency and has the most elite military in the world. We can, too.
Israel has the most elite military in the world? LOL
And you might want to do a little research on those two Israeli female "infantry" battalions before you bring them up.
Page 3 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News