Posted on 07/06/2023 9:28:59 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Diversity is our strength. Except, apparently, the more diversity the military seeks, the less strength it requires.
That seems to be the lesson of the Army’s physical fitness standards, which do not apply to people who are getting “gender-affirming” care.
The Army obesity crisis is worse among the “diversity” hires — women, blacks, Hispanics, and transvestites.
Shocker!https://t.co/ZdRNGjckZ4
— Revolver News (@RevolverNewsUSA) July 5, 2023
One of the shibboleths of the Left is the claim that increasing the acceptance of “gender-diverse” individuals into the military merely extends the same opportunities to transgender folks as those afforded to people who identify with their natal sex (man, finding the right words is impossible when discussing these issues!).
Combine this idea with the claim that “diversity is our strength,” and you are led to believe that the military will be improved by expanding opportunities to transgender applicants.
Yeah, right. Even the Army doesn’t believe that, and they are the ones saying it.
.@USArmy Maj. Rachel Jones found solace after coming out as a transgender female. Her journey from battling depression & suicidal thoughts to embracing authenticity inspires us all. #WhyWeServe https://t.co/9llx7skuC3
— Department of Defense 🇺🇸 (@DeptofDefense) July 2, 2023
Notice that Maj. Rachel Jones is a bit…fat? Yeah, well, there is a reason for that.
Jones doesn’t have to meet physical fitness standards that apply to everybody else in the Army. Fancy that.
FYI: US service members who identify as transgender can seek an indefinite fitness standards exemption. That's how this guy managed to avoid PT.
There's an easy fix to clear these ppl out, as @Cernovich previously stated. Fitness standards for ALL service members. No exemptions.
pic.twitter.com/279sqCdRqO— Jordan Schachtel (@JordanSchachtel) July 3, 2023
Apparently, the military doesn’t believe that transgender soldiers are just like everybody else, and in order to keep them on active duty they have thrown standards out the window.
The military is going through a crisis with weight–since 2001 the number of soldiers who are classified as overweight has skyrocketed by over 400%, and much of that has to do with accommodating a more “diverse” military. Women, Blacks, and Hispanics have higher rates of obesity in the military than Whites do, suggesting that the standards apply differently to different categories of people.
“Diversity is our strength” seems the opposite of the truth, at least as the military seeks to achieve it.
One of the lies we are being told, relentlessly, is that when the military makes efforts to expand the types of people admitted into the services the standards applied will remain the same. This has been clearly false forever. This has been particularly true when it comes to sex differences. As we know, different standards of physical fitness are applied to men and women, in opposition to what we were told when recruitment opened up, and now we see that the standards have been changed even more drastically for transgender people.
On its face, the argument that being transgender would present no barrier to military service is absurd, simply because transgender soldiers require constant medical care in order to maintain their gender treatments. Regardless of any other potential issues, this alone should make policymakers leery of including transgender-identifying people in the rolls of active duty personnel.
The military, though, is a social scientist’s playground. Under total control of the government, it is easy to use as a laboratory for ideological experiments.
In a sense I am sympathetic to the impulse–it is just so tempting, and in some cases, the military has been a proving ground for beneficial social change. Race integration is a great example of this.
But the impulse is dangerous; it is just too tempting, and the consequences of getting it wrong are especially high. Lives are literally at stake.
Exempting an entire class of people from physical fitness standards is the opposite of proving that “diversity is our strength,” both because in this case “strength” is in this case the opposite of the truth and because it will heighten not lower resentment toward transgender people who are as usual getting a better deal than everybody else.
As you know, the military is having a recruiting problem simultaneously with the changes they have made. Any chance that the problem is related? You decide.
This is in line, though, with other claims related to transgenderism, which are all based upon the rejection of biological facts. Alphabet ideology and also critical theory is based on the idea that reality bends to our will and is infinitely flexible.
Neither is true, and that will be made abundantly clear when the bullets fly.
They will be the ones in charge, showing those young men how to play soldier boy in the grass.. (spit)
I would not advise ANY young man to join the military, and those who are in should GET THE HELL OUT..!
A parade, yes. They can do that.
That requires a lot of walking. I’m not so sure they could handle even that.
I bet a decent percentage doesn’t even show up to fight.
“The military is going through a crisis with weight–”
Not just the Military.
Have you watched any TV coverage of crime/disaster/press coverage in your area with Police/Fire/EMS visible en masse?
One LardArse PotBellied Trough Feeder after the other.
And it’s not the vests. Some are so “Majestic” they can’t even fit in s vest.
.....I don’t see a draft in this country’s future any time soon...the uproar would be too great...besides, a recent study showed that 99 percent of the 34 million or so military-elegible potential service members are unfit for military service due to criminal backgrounds, drug use, poor educational levels, etc. a better alternative would be to start learning conversational Mandarin....that’s where we are headed....
This ozempic is only on the radar in my world as my wife is facing knee replacement surgery. Everyone says recovery will go better if she loses some weight. In the same way, losing weight might put off surgery. So we explored the idea of using the ozempic to lower her weight. BMI is 36. But big pharma is getting $900 a month for the 4 shots. co pay is $200 even on medicare.
That’s my beef. When weighting the options, the risk from ozempic seems alot lower than major surgery .
I know relatively nothing about diabetic other than many, myself included have been advised, are pre-diabetic. Our world is full of pre-diabetic as a large percentage of pre-diabetic will never become diabetic too.
“One LardArse PotBellied Trough Feeder after the other.”
That’s in large part cause big pharma wants to sell expensive Rx solutions.
... and perhaps he CONTINUES the process...
Of a random sample of citizens. Not the people selected by the army. The army has a higher percentage than that, even though their unfit numbers have also been rising. They aren’t up to anywhere near 77%.
Since it was 77% they probably didnt include women in the stat, because the average american woman is overweight/obese now.
“Have you watched any TV coverage of crime/disaster/press coverage in your area with Police/Fire/EMS visible en masse?”
Like I mentioned in one of my posts, the concept of weight control is a variable as long as the human factor is involved and the people that make the decisions are interested in aesthetics, i.e., uniform appearance rather than workability. If the commander is happy, everyone is happy. And they are responsible for producing a product to their pleasing. Thus in many cases with the politicians defunding the forces it is far more difficult finding and getting people to do the job due to decreased pay, longer hours, and different more serious assignments while our society is getting more violent and aggressive. The gene pool is limited so you take what you can get. But the tradeoff is it weakens the results and opens the door to criticism right, wrong, or considering the causes known or not.
wy69
They will hire mercenaries to do the job, or free citizenship to anyone willing . Disgusting POS’s.
Is it not true that only a small minority of service personnel ever find themselves in a combat situation? That most service personnel sit behind a desk with some safe support staff job?
Not everyone who wore a military uniform is a hero or served in a risky situation.
“Not everyone who wore a military uniform is a hero or served in a risky situation.”
There’s no easy answer to this.
To comment on this I would like to point out a single conflict...Afghanistan. The US Defense depart admits to 832,000 American soldiers that served in Afghanistan. And if you can display a safe place there, then you’re well ahead of the DOD. There was a constant concern over bombs and RPG’s.
There were 2,402 United States military deaths in the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). 1,921 of these deaths were the result of direct hostile action. 20,713 American servicemembers were also wounded in action during the war. In addition, 18 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives also died in Afghanistan. I don’t use these numbers to point out those that gave the ultimate. I am trying to point out that everyone sent over there knew they could be one of those numbers at any time and anywhere. This is why one of the leading deaths of the military is suicide. Fear does a lot of things to a person.
They even tried to kill us when we were leaving by their rules. One explosive device detonation caused the death of 13 U.S. troops in an attack during the United States withdrawal from Afghanistan, according to U.S. Central Command officials.
They shot us in the back. Sound safe to you?
And that doesn’t include the incidents here in the US where most of those desk jobs exist. Some of those were killed in training accidents over the years. And they have to train. All service members across all branches of the United States military, including the National Guard and reserve forces, may deploy at some point in their military career. Everyone is eligible to play at that game or they are released. the biggest numbers are the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) (medical retirement) or just not allowed to re-enlist because of behavior. Tack that on to the number of security problems daily on bases/posts stateside, and there is a good reason it is made difficult to get on to one of them. And it still happens.
At least 937,000 people have been killed by direct war violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan. The number of people who have been wounded or have fallen ill as a result of the conflicts is far higher, as is the number of civilians who have died indirectly as a result of the destruction of hospitals and infrastructure and environmental contamination, among other war-related problems.
Thousands of United States service members have died in combat, as have thousands of civilian contractors. Many have died later on from injuries and illnesses sustained in the war zones. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers and contractors have been wounded and are living with disabilities and war-related illnesses.
Know any? I do. I’m one of them from two different conflict areas over 20 years apart. And someone ask me if there should be a dollar limit on our military members. My retort was, “Can you put a price on someone that was willing to step in front of a bullet for about a third of their lives to maintain your lifestyle?”
wy69
Our local LEO’s must order their uniforms from a tent company.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
