US Military's discriminatary new standards: Female soldiers will now allowed lipstick, nail polish, and locs

[Keith&Co.]

The hypocritical lefties on this board never fail to deliver.

So long as you're the victim and are righteously outraged over shit that doesn't change your life, right?

Yeah, someone here is FOR inclusion, as long as it's including men, but terrified of inclusion for women.
They're FOR discrimination against women. The only time they can pretend to be pro-women is by being FOR discrimination against women (who They consider to be men).

But, yeah. I'mma hypocrite.

 

[ZiprHead]

The hypocritical lefties on this board never fail to deliver.

So long as you're the victim and are righteously outraged over shit that doesn't change your life, right?

I am not a direct 'victim' of this sexist policy, nor am I 'outraged'. As I've already explained, I am saddened and frustrated that the US military introduced additional sexist policies. I want governments to stop needlessly discriminating by sex, which is why I supported and argued for same-sex marriage in Australia and why I opposed the sex-linked maternity leave policies formulated in Australia.

Do you support communal showers like the shower scene in Starship Troopers?

 

[Jarhyn]

The hypocritical lefties on this board never fail to deliver.

So long as you're the victim and are righteously outraged over shit that doesn't change your life, right?

Yeah, someone here is FOR inclusion, as long as it's including men, but terrified of inclusion for women.
They're FOR discrimination against women. The only time they can pretend to be pro-women is by being FOR discrimination against women (who They consider to be men).

But, yeah. I'mma hypocrite.

I dunno if it's exactly that. Metaphor is just blind to women, in most situations. He just doesn't care.

He then characterizes this as being angry about a lack of egalitarian policy, or policy favoring women. He doesn't seem to talk to women though and certainly doesn't seem to listen to them*.

But because he doesn't really care about women AT ALL; it seems like he doesn't actually have the perspective to understand why it's really fucking hard to be seen as a woman today in most respects, and that even things like this will potentially be really fucking BAD for women. Because people who don't actually care about women will use shit like this to simultaneously expect more of women***, AND carry resentment: they will say out of one corner, "Why do women get more "relaxed" standards?!?", while at the same time having a lower opinion of those who don't have hair, nails, lipstick, locs... Or while they harass those same women sexually for it**.

The fact is, the total lack of empathy for women, not the advocacy for men in particular, is what tells me Metaphor is yet again being misogynistic.

*Metaphor, inside his own head, probably: Why would I? I'm gay!

**I've seen this, constantly. It's the reason people ultimately figured out that I was gay insofar as I didn't join in and was uncomfortable around it being done.

Edit:
*** Except those who are entirely blind to women, on account of not even wanting to fuck them.

 

[laughing dog]

You wrote "It beggars belief that the army will not allow a male soldier to wear red lipstick and red nail polish, but if that selfsame soldier says "I am a transwoman..." which requires that the situations and repercussions for that selfsame soldier to be the identical. It is not.

That's the fucking point. The outcomes are not identical. In one case, the male soldier is forbidden from doing what he wants (wear lipstick and nail polish), and in the other case, he is not.

There is a distinct difference in the outcome in terms of how the soldier will be treated as a man with lipstick or a trans-man with lipstick beyond the lipstick by the other soldiers and the Army in all other respects. Identifying as a trans-man is a much more permanent choice than a man choosing to wear lipstick.

I suspect that this form of discrimination will fall away over time. I suspect that policy is due to the empirical experience of a significant greater demand for acceptance of transgenders who are in the military than military men demanding or trying to wear lipstick.

As usual, you have not shown any actual evidence that the restriction against lipstick, etc... on men is actually affecting anyone.

I would have hoped leftists would not support the army introducing more discrimination by sex. Instead, there is post after post from heterosexual men defending these new, sexist standards using conservative arguments about the necessity of incremental cultural change (which apparently was not necessary for gays or transgenders entering the army), as if a man painting his nails would destroy the morale of his platoon.

I will rephrase. Who are these leftists you are babbling about?

 

[Metaphor]

There is a distinct difference in the outcome in terms of how the soldier will be treated as a man with lipstick or a trans-man with lipstick beyond the lipstick by the other soldiers and the Army in all other respects. Identifying as a trans-man is a much more permanent choice than a man choosing to wear lipstick.

I said trans-identified male (that is, a transwoman). I presume that transmen (that is, a trans-identified female) would have the 'male' soldier rules applied to them.

I suspect that this form of discrimination will fall away over time. I suspect that policy is due to the empirical experience of a significant greater demand for acceptance of transgenders who are in the military than military men demanding or trying to wear lipstick.

As usual, you have not shown any actual evidence that the restriction against lipstick, etc... on men is actually affecting anyone.

The rule discriminates by sex: that's how it affects everybody.

 

[Metaphor]

Yeah, someone here is FOR inclusion, as long as it's including men, but terrified of inclusion for women.
They're FOR discrimination against women. The only time they can pretend to be pro-women is by being FOR discrimination against women (who They consider to be men).

But, yeah. I'mma hypocrite.

I dunno if it's exactly that. Metaphor is just blind to women, in most situations. He just doesn't care.

He then characterizes this as being angry about a lack of egalitarian policy, or policy favoring women. He doesn't seem to talk to women though and certainly doesn't seem to listen to them*.

But because he doesn't really care about women AT ALL; it seems like he doesn't actually have the perspective to understand why it's really fucking hard to be seen as a woman today in most respects, and that even things like this will potentially be really fucking BAD for women. Because people who don't actually care about women will use shit like this to simultaneously expect more of women***, AND carry resentment: they will say out of one corner, "Why do women get more "relaxed" standards?!?", while at the same time having a lower opinion of those who don't have hair, nails, lipstick, locs... Or while they harass those same women sexually for it**.

The fact is, the total lack of empathy for women, not the advocacy for men in particular, is what tells me Metaphor is yet again being misogynistic.

*Metaphor, inside his own head, probably: Why would I? I'm gay!

**I've seen this, constantly. It's the reason people ultimately figured out that I was gay insofar as I didn't join in and was uncomfortable around it being done.

Edit:
*** Except those who are entirely blind to women, on account of not even wanting to fuck them.

Jarhyn's fantasias are getting more elaborate.

 

[Metaphor]

I am not a direct 'victim' of this sexist policy, nor am I 'outraged'. As I've already explained, I am saddened and frustrated that the US military introduced additional sexist policies. I want governments to stop needlessly discriminating by sex, which is why I supported and argued for same-sex marriage in Australia and why I opposed the sex-linked maternity leave policies formulated in Australia.

Do you support communal showers like the shower scene in Starship Troopers?

No. Sex segregation in intimate spaces is something widely favoured by both sexes, and eliminating it would make men and women deeply uncomfortable.

 

[Metaphor]

The hypocritical lefties on this board never fail to deliver.

So long as you're the victim and are righteously outraged over shit that doesn't change your life, right?

Yeah, someone here is FOR inclusion, as long as it's including men, but terrified of inclusion for women.
They're FOR discrimination against women. The only time they can pretend to be pro-women is by being FOR discrimination against women (who They consider to be men).

But, yeah. I'mma hypocrite.

What discrimination against women have I advocated?

 

[ZiprHead]

I am not a direct 'victim' of this sexist policy, nor am I 'outraged'. As I've already explained, I am saddened and frustrated that the US military introduced additional sexist policies. I want governments to stop needlessly discriminating by sex, which is why I supported and argued for same-sex marriage in Australia and why I opposed the sex-linked maternity leave policies formulated in Australia.

Do you support communal showers like the shower scene in Starship Troopers?

No. Sex segregation in intimate spaces is something widely favoured by both sexes, and eliminating it would make men and women deeply uncomfortable.

So separate but equal. Where have I heard that before?

 

[laughing dog]

I said trans-identified male (that is, a transwoman). I presume that transmen (that is, a trans-identified female) would have the 'male' soldier rules applied to them.

My observation holds.

The rule discriminates by sex: that's how it affects everybody.

It does not affect me. It does not affect any man in the military who does not choose to wear lipstick or nail polish or locs. As far as we know, it may have no actual discriminatory effect whatsoever.

Still waiting to understand which leftists you are making accusations against.

 

[Metaphor]

No. Sex segregation in intimate spaces is something widely favoured by both sexes, and eliminating it would make men and women deeply uncomfortable.

So separate but equal. Where have I heard that before?

I don't know. I assume you support the same standard, so I don't know what your problem is.

 

[Metaphor]

I said trans-identified male (that is, a transwoman). I presume that transmen (that is, a trans-identified female) would have the 'male' soldier rules applied to them.

My observation holds.

The rule discriminates by sex: that's how it affects everybody.

It does not affect me. It does not affect any man in the military who does not choose to wear lipstick or nail polish or locs. As far as we know, it may have no actual discriminatory effect whatsoever.

Still waiting to understand which leftists you are making accusations against.

I already told you: the leftists on this board.

Also, you do not understand what the word 'discrimination' means. The rule discriminates by sex. In this particular case, it is males who have fewer options, so they are the ones being discriminated 'against'.

The point is not the raw numbers or percentage of males in the military who want to wear lipstick or nail polish or locs. The point is that women are free to do something that is forbidden for men to do. And there's no good reason for the sex discrimination either.

Perhaps it might be easier for you to understand if you think about laws that forbid men from having sex with men, but did not forbid women from having sex with men. The law is bad because it discriminates by sex. Women were allowed to do something men were not. You may personally never have wanted to have sex with a man, but there are more people in the world than you.

 

[laughing dog]

My observation holds.

It does not affect me. It does not affect any man in the military who does not choose to wear lipstick or nail polish or locs. As far as we know, it may have no actual discriminatory effect whatsoever.

Still waiting to understand which leftists you are making accusations against.

I already told you: the leftists on this board.

That is handwaved nonsense. Which alleged "leftists"? Come on, stop with your usual evasions.

Also, you do not understand what the word 'discrimination' means.

I completely understand what discrimination means.

The rule discriminates by sex. In this particular case, it is males who have fewer options, so they are the ones being discriminated 'against'. The point is not the raw numbers or percentage of males in the military who want to wear lipstick or nail polish or locs. The point is that women are free to do something that is forbidden for men to do.

And if men don't want to do it, then the policy affects no one - it is a nonbinding constraint. I take it from your condescending and evasion explanation that you have absolutely no evidence as to the potential extent of this discrimination.

I am a male, and that policy does not affect me at all. My son is in the military, and he does not wish to wear lipstick or nail polish or locs, so the policy does not affect him at all. Your claim that it affects everyone is hyperbolic rhetoric that diminishes your argument.

And there's no good reason for the sex discrimination either.

That is your opinion. I suggest to contact the military and ask them.

 

[Metaphor]

That is handwaved nonsense. Which alleged "leftists"? Come on, stop with your usual evasions.

I made it clear when I posted it, and I will not repeat it again. The leftists on this board and who responded in this thread only to attack me and give a free pass to the newly introduced sex discrimination in the army.

And if men don't want to do it, then the policy affects no one - it is a nonbinding constraint. I take it from your condescending and evasion explanation that you have absolutely no evidence as to the potential extent of this discrimination.

The policy affects every single male in the military by virtue of their sex.

It would not matter that no male in the past , present or future wants to wear lipstick or nail polish or locs. The rule reinforces that it's okay to needlessly reinforce sex stereotypes. But yes, it's true that I haven't polled men in the US army. What percentage of men who want to do these things would make the rule 'affect' people?

I am a male, and that policy does not affect me at all. My son is in the military, and he does not wish to wear lipstick or nail polish or locs, so the policy does not affect him at all. Your claim that it affects everyone is hyperbolic rhetoric that diminishes your argument.

It affects every single male in the military. That's how rules work.

I have no desire to murder anybody, but it makes a difference that there is a law that forbids murder. I'm affected by it.

 

[laughing dog]

I made it clear when I posted it, and I will not repeat it again. The leftists on this board and who responded in this thread only to attack me and give a free pass to the newly introduced sex discrimination in the army.

IMO, it is fucking cowardly to make nameless accusations.

The policy affects every single male in the military by virtue of their sex.

Explain how it affects any male in the military would does not and will not choose to wear lipstick or nail polish or locs.

It would not matter that no male in the past , present or future wants to wear lipstick or nail polish or locs.

It would to any sane rational person.

The rule reinforces that it's okay to needlessly reinforce sex stereotypes. But yes, it's true that I haven't polled men in the US army. What percentage of men who want to do these things would make the rule 'affect' people?

Just confirming your entire position has no basis in actuality.

 

[bilby]

There is a distinct difference in the outcome in terms of how the soldier will be treated as a man with lipstick or a trans-man with lipstick beyond the lipstick by the other soldiers and the Army in all other respects. Identifying as a trans-man is a much more permanent choice than a man choosing to wear lipstick.

I said trans-identified male (that is, a transwoman). I presume that transmen (that is, a trans-identified female) would have the 'male' soldier rules applied to them.

I suspect that this form of discrimination will fall away over time. I suspect that policy is due to the empirical experience of a significant greater demand for acceptance of transgenders who are in the military than military men demanding or trying to wear lipstick.

As usual, you have not shown any actual evidence that the restriction against lipstick, etc... on men is actually affecting anyone.

The rule discriminates by sex: that's how it affects everybody.

US Armed forces personnel (including national guard): ~2.2 million
Human population: ~8,500 million

That's how it only affects about 0.025% of everybody.

At most.

 

[Patooka]

I said trans-identified male (that is, a transwoman). I presume that transmen (that is, a trans-identified female) would have the 'male' soldier rules applied to them.



The rule discriminates by sex: that's how it affects everybody.

US Armed forces personnel (including national guard): ~2.2 million
Human population: ~8,500 million

That's how it only affects about 0.025% of everybody.

At most.

You forgot to include Metaphor in your 2.2 million so your calculations are wrong and Metaphor is right in saying it affects everybody.

 

[Metaphor]

IMO, it is fucking cowardly to make nameless accusations.

The names are all there. Elixir was the first cab off the rank. Then Jimmy Higgins. I mostly agree with Jarhyn's position in his first post in the thread, but as usual for someone who chooses to be ignorant, he has since made several posts fantasizing about what my position on the whole thing actually is.

Explain how it affects any male in the military would does not and will not choose to wear lipstick or nail polish or locs.

Because that's what rules and standards mean. Every single person is affected by the rules that apply to them. I can't understand this for you.

It would to any sane rational person.

It would not matter what individual attitudes are because a rule that applies to you by virtue of your sex by definition affects you.

All soldiers are affected by the rules that apply to them.

Just confirming your entire position has no basis in actuality.

The basis is the policy, laughing dog. The policy is a reality.

The policy needlessly discriminates by sex. That's the first problem. It's a problem even if no male in the army ever desired to do the things that this policy forbids. Rules should not arbitrarily and needlessly discriminate by sex.

And, if even a single male in the army wanted to do any of the things that is forbidden to them by virtue of their being male, the rule is additionally problematic.

 

[Metaphor]

I said trans-identified male (that is, a transwoman). I presume that transmen (that is, a trans-identified female) would have the 'male' soldier rules applied to them.



The rule discriminates by sex: that's how it affects everybody.

US Armed forces personnel (including national guard): ~2.2 million
Human population: ~8,500 million

That's how it only affects about 0.025% of everybody.

At most.

Of course, if you were being honest, you would assume that 'affects everybody' was in the context of the people in the military subject to the rule.

But even outside the military, it sets and reinforces a precedent: that the US government is justified in needlessly discriminating by sex.

 

[Metaphor]

I said trans-identified male (that is, a transwoman). I presume that transmen (that is, a trans-identified female) would have the 'male' soldier rules applied to them.



The rule discriminates by sex: that's how it affects everybody.

US Armed forces personnel (including national guard): ~2.2 million
Human population: ~8,500 million

That's how it only affects about 0.025% of everybody.

At most.

You forgot to include Metaphor in your 2.2 million so your calculations are wrong and Metaphor is right in saying it affects everybody.

Why do you think males, but not females, should be forbidden from wearing nail polish in the US military?