# Dress rules established for transsexuals in military



## GAP (9 Dec 2010)

Dress rules established for transsexuals in military
Article Link
 Tom Blackwell, National Post · Wednesday, Dec. 8, 2010

As U.S. politicians continue to debate whether to let gays serve openly in the American military, the Canadian Forces have issued a new policy detailing how the organization should accommodate transsexual and transvestite troops specifically. Soldiers, sailors and air force personnel who change their sex or sexual identity have a right to privacy and respect around that decision, but must conform to the dress code of their “target” gender, says the supplementary chapter of a military administration manual.

A gay-rights advocate hailed development of the guidelines as a progressive approach to people whose gender issues can trigger life-threatening psychological troubles.

Cherie MacLeod, executive director of PFLAG Canada, a sexual orientation-related support group, said she has helped a number of Forces members undergoing sex changes, surgery the military now funds.

“This is an important step towards recognizing a community that has always struggled for equal rights and basic human protection,” said Ms. MacLeod. “When government becomes more inclusive, over time, society will follow.”

Some within the Forces, though, were irked by the document’s appearance in e-mail boxes last week, just after a report by the military ombudsman that lambasted the National Defence Department for giving short shrift to the grieving families of fallen soldiers.

The armed services are still largely the domain of men who view themselves as “warriors,” believe headquarters staff are out of touch, and resent what they consider “politically correct” policies, said Scott Taylor, publisher of Esprit de Corps, a military-affairs magazine.

“You couldn’t get much worse timing on that internally,” he said, referring to the juxtaposition of the transsexual document and the ombudsman’s report. “It’s so removed from what the guys are facing over in Afghanistan ... That doesn’t really relate to dress codes of the transgendered.”
More on link


----------



## George Wallace (9 Dec 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Dress rules established for transsexuals in military
> Article Link
> Tom Blackwell, National Post · Wednesday, Dec. 8, 2010
> 
> ...



That line right there screams out at me.  I really don't care who or what or whatever a person may be, but if they have any kind of issues that can trigger a life-threatening psychological problem, then they should not be in any armed force, be it military or police or for that matter any of the Emergency Services.  Any person who may suffer life-threatening psychological angst should be exempted these occupations which require level minds in extreme circumstances.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Dec 2010)

Where's the news?  We've had special dress regulations for cross-dressers for a long time.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Dec 2010)

That's it, I fucking quit.

We truly are a fourth-rate armed force.


----------



## chrisf (9 Dec 2010)

The only reason they felt the need to release the policy is because local authority was to afraid of "harrasment" accusatiosn to effectively address any issues... if you're living as a man, dress like a man, if you're living as a woman, dress like a woman. Other then that, shut up and do your job. Not complicated.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Dec 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That line right there screams out at me.  I really don't care who or what or whatever a person may be, but if they have any kind of issues that can trigger a life-threatening psychological problem, then they should not be in any armed force, be it military or police or for that matter any of the Emergency Services.  Any person who may suffer life-threatening psychological angst should be exempted these occupations which require level minds in extreme circumstances.



You mean like ptsd?


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Dec 2010)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> If you're living as a man, dress like a man, if you're living as a woman, dress like a woman.


This will make us the laughing stock of NATO.  People forget that "liberal democracy" means a democracy in which the minority doesn't suffer the wrath of the majority, and not a democracy in which the majority suffers the wrath of the minority.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> This will make us the laughing stock of NATO ....


While not a NATO member, unless I'm hearing something different than others here, the Aussies don't seem to suffering from reputational effects from similar policies.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> This will make us the laughing stock of NATO.  People forget that "liberal democracy" means a democracy in which the minority doesn't suffer the wrath of the majority, and not a democracy in which the majority suffers the wrath of the minority.



No, painting rocks and arguments over the capitalization of the definite article will make us a laughingstock.


----------



## brihard (9 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> This will make us the laughing stock of NATO.  People forget that "liberal democracy" means a democracy in which the minority doesn't suffer the wrath of the majority, and not a democracy in which the majority suffers the wrath of the minority.



What the hell are you talking about? What 'wrath' are we suffering? The wrath of lack of ambiguity as to how a transgenered member of the CF has to dress? Frankly, the policy seems simple and makes sense, as a Sig Op nicely sums up.

The sum total impact of this policy on you or I will, in all likelihood be zero. There's is no imposition on us or on any others whatsoever. No special treatment is being established. Simply put, if you're changing genders or are mixed gender, dress as the gender that you're targeting/identify with. Seems simple enough.

Resistance to this seems as silly as the 'No gays in MY army!' talk down in the states. I somehow doubt that one of the few real fighting members of NATO is going to become a laughing stock because a handful of members of the forces now have greater certainty as to how they are to dress.

ADREP a breaching ladder, and get over it.


----------



## HavokFour (9 Dec 2010)

I'm going with George on this one. If they are in danger of being set off by these issues, they should not be given a weapon. I don't care about their gender orientation, I just don't want to see a Fort Hood happen in Canada.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Dec 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No, painting rocks and arguments over the capitalization of the definite article will make us a laughingstock.



Those are just traditions now and must be done for no other reason than that they've "always" been done..

And here I thought is was guys like these achieving that status for us:

Exhibit A
Exhibit B

We "got over" women in the combat arms, despite the predictions of social collapse and the triggering of Armageddon.  We got over letting gays and lesbians identify themselves as such and continue serving, this too will pass with hardly a ripple in the fabric of our military society. As long as it's neither contagious nor compulsory, and they fulfill their military obligations, let it be.


----------



## mover1 (9 Dec 2010)

Um The last couple of trans genders I saw in uniform were wearing combats just like everyone else. 
And aren't they  (the Trans-genders) given a full psyche profile before they put the bod out for the mod?
And those that are going to go for the mod have to dress or live like their chosen sex for a time. So this policy just says if little Johnny wants to be little Joan then Johnny dresses like Joan for up to a year before he gets his Johnson changes into a .....
So this policy is good because it turns a grey area into a bit more of a black and white issue for that Sup tech sitting in Clothing stores denying the person his entitlement for his combat Bra reimbursement.

In the end who cares, why should only white heterosexual men have to die to protect peoples freedoms.


----------



## Veiledal (9 Dec 2010)

> she has helped a number of Forces members undergoing sex changes, surgery the military now funds.



Really? ???


----------



## aesop081 (9 Dec 2010)

Lil r said:
			
		

> Really? ???



Interested ?


----------



## chrisf (9 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> This will make us the laughing stock of NATO.



How exactly?


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Dec 2010)

Brihard said:
			
		

> ADREP a breaching ladder, and get over it.


ADREP a capbadge and go fuck it.
I'm sick and tired of our society bending over backwards for every Tom, Dick, Harry, Sally, ex-Jonathon, whatever.  If a citizen wants to serve, that's fine.  I could care less if he/she/it is Muslim, Atheist, former man now "woman" or whatever.  Pick a gender and dress the part.

Now, as to the "really important" stuff, which standard of the CF Expres Test would he/she/it have to pass?


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Dec 2010)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> How exactly?


how, exactly?  We are so worried as a CF to look the part of being a model of diversity, when all one has to do is look at our Roll of Honour and see the reality.  We go for the lowest common denominator in our recruiting, when instead we should be sending messages along the line of "99.9% need not apply".  We are an exclusive club, certainly not homogenous, but neither are we a social model.  When the focus is on crap like this, instead of breeding a mentality of the "Virtuous Warrior", one who can withstand adversity and is willing to lie down one's life for one's country, instead of whinging and whining about our so-called "suppressed human rights", one can only look for the shadows.  

Christ, we have fatties going on operations, when they should be told to "ship up or ship out".


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Dec 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> We "got over" women in the combat arms, despite the predictions of social collapse and the triggering of Armageddon.  We got over letting gays and lesbians identify themselves as such and continue serving, this too will pass with hardly a ripple in the fabric of our military society. As long as it's neither contagious nor compulsory, and they fulfill their military obligations, let it be.


I disagree.  By letting transvestites (eg: individuals) choose to wear male or female uniforms, we have indeed jumped the shark.  Not one person in here can raise their hand and say that they didn't feel disgusted by that creep Williams' image in bra/panties.  And I imagine that they would feel the same had he not been a rapist/murderer/thief.  They may not want to admit it in public for fear of offending someone, but I could care less:
If you're a dude and you want to be a lumberjack of Monty Python fame, then go be a lumberjack.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I disagree.  By letting transvestites (eg: individuals) choose to wear male or female uniforms, we have indeed jumped the shark.



Solution: unisex uniforms; remove gender descriptions for uniforms and let people wear what they choose as long as any one uniform conforms to the Dress regulations.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Dec 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Solution: unisex uniforms; remove gender descriptions for uniforms and let people wear what they choose as long as any one uniform conforms to the Dress regulations.


Of course, the solution is highland dress ;D


----------



## chrisf (9 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Pick a gender and dress the part.



Yes, which is exactly what the order says.


----------



## GAP (9 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Of course, the solution is highland dress ;D



Oh......you were just concerned about access...... ;D

Actually, having set the dress standard to "whatever", irrespective of the gender argument, was probably necessary. You gottem', they're here, now dress appropriately....my :2c:


----------



## dapaterson (9 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> If you're a dude and you want to be a lumberjack of Monty Python fame, then go be a lumberjack.



No can do.


We got rid of the pioneers.


----------



## chrisf (9 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> how, exactly?  We are so worried as a CF to look the part of being a model of diversity, when all one has to do is look at our Roll of Honour and see the reality.  We go for the lowest common denominator in our recruiting, when instead we should be sending messages along the line of "99.9% need not apply".  We are an exclusive club, certainly not homogenous, but neither are we a social model.  When the focus is on crap like this, instead of breeding a mentality of the "Virtuous Warrior", one who can withstand adversity and is willing to lie down one's life for one's country, instead of whinging and whining about our so-called "suppressed human rights", one can only look for the shadows.
> 
> Christ, we have fatties going on operations, when they should be told to "ship up or ship out".



Yes, and I agree with you 100%, now what does any of that have to do with transgendered soldiers? There's no standards being lowered, nothing being changed.

All this order does is take a grey area, and make it black and white, so the occasional supervisor who's too afraid to deal with an issue in the simplest way possible, and doesn't have to be too afraid of the big "H" (Harrasment) to deal with a problem. It was, or at least should have been, a black and white issue before, however, there was no policy on it. Now there is.


----------



## mover1 (9 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Now, as to the "really important" stuff, which standard of the CF Expres Test would he/she/it have to pass?



They have to pass the test of the Gender they choose to live by.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Dec 2010)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Yes, which is exactly what the order says.


It also mentions "transvestites", THAT is the part that gets my knickers in a knot*






*Now that it's out, I can now freely admit I wear women's thongs.  


			
				a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Yes, and I agree with you 100%, now what does any of that have to do with transgendered soldiers? There's no standards being lowered, nothing being changed.
> 
> All this order does is take a grey area, and make it black and white, so the occasional supervisor who's too afraid to deal with an issue in the simplest way possible, and doesn't have to be too afraid of the big "H" (Harrasment) to deal with a problem. It was, or at least should have been, a black and white issue before, however, there was no policy on it. Now there is.



See above. It's the transvestites.  If soldier "A" (born male) enrols as male, and then gets a sex change operation, and then legally goes female, then we're cool. 





			
				mover1 said:
			
		

> They have to pass the test of the Gender they choose to live by.


Unfair, and I'll leave it at that.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Dec 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No can do.
> 
> 
> We got rid of the pioneers.


:rofl:
Oh, we're bringin' 'em back, baby!   :-*


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> It also mentions "transvestites", THAT is the part that gets my knickers in a knot*



Does anyone have a copy of the text of the actual regulation? Or are we just going by what the National Post article says? Because that article does specify:



> Soldiers, sailors and air force personnel who change their sex or sexual identity have a right to privacy and respect around that decision, but must conform to the dress code of their “target” gender, says the supplementary chapter of a military administration manual.



That seems more specific than just wanting to wear clothes of the other gender for thrills (the commonly used definition for "transvestite").


----------



## ballz (9 Dec 2010)

I will probably get some flak for this but I can't help for some reason, and I can't even put it into words to justify why I feel like this, but I jsut can't shake feeling this is awfully hypocritical of an organization that won't let males pierce their ear(s).... (safety reasons aside, obviously you shouldn't be wearing piercings during actual operations and stuff)

I dunno, maybe I should be listening instead of talking again, but that's my non-refundable, non-transferrable (that's right, the Air Canada kind of) 2 cents.


----------



## Sapplicant (9 Dec 2010)

Quick question;

Does this have anything to do with the part of the application form where they very clearly state that examination of the genitals will not be performed?

As an aside, who here can honestly tell me that they'd be deeply troubled to serve alongside someone like this:


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Dec 2010)




----------



## lethalLemon (9 Dec 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Quick question;
> 
> Does this have anything to do with the part of the application form where they very clearly state that examination of the genitals will not be performed?
> 
> As an aside, who here can honestly tell me that they'd be deeply troubled to serve alongside someone like this:



If he/she can do the job; it wouldn't matter to me. Although I'd just be concerned about what goes on in the quarters; and depending on which gender they claim to - what quarters they would stay in (regardless of present or non-present genitalia)? and how the members of whichever gender would feel with them present in their quarters doing the routine (****, shower, shave etc.)? Now, I'm sure that it'd be a little awkward at first (as I'm sure it was when GLBs first came into the CF) but would eventually come to terms and carry on as if nothing even changed.

What can I say? I'm an optimist. (Sort of  > )


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Dec 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Quick question;
> 
> Does this have anything to do with the part of the application form where they very clearly state that examination of the genitals will not be performed?
> 
> As an aside, who here can honestly tell me that they'd be deeply troubled to serve alongside someone like this:



Personally I would, I have always been "deeply troubled" by such large noses.

Are you suggesting that someone requesting uniforms and gender re-assignment under this new regulation would be allowed to dress in the manner depicted by the image you chose in the workplace, instead of in a military uniform?


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Dec 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Personally I would, I have always been "deeply troubled" by such large noses.


Them's fightin' words! ;D


			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that someone requesting uniforms and gender re-assignment under this new regulation would be allowed to dress in the manner depicted by the image you chose in the workplace, instead of in a military uniform?


I don't know what he's suggesting, but say it's in the mess after hours?  (Though it would be hard to tell from a UK Army mess on some nights, I imagine) ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Dec 2010)

lethalLemon said:
			
		

> If he/she can do the job; it wouldn't matter to me. Although I'd just be concerned about what goes on in the quarters; and depending on which gender they claim to - what quarters they would stay in (regardless of present or non-present genitalia)? and how the members of whichever gender would feel with them present in their quarters doing the routine (****, shower, shave etc.)? Now, I'm sure that it'd be a little awkward at first (as I'm sure it was when GLBs first came into the CF) but would eventually come to terms and carry on as if nothing even changed.



What goes on the quarters now?  What special arrangements do you create and enforce (or expect to find) that separate, protect or otherwise isolate those of different sexuality (aside from gender alone)?

Coed barracks work - usually because we expect the soldiers, sailors and airmen [airpeople?}, both officer and NCM, to behave like adults. The fact that some fail to achieve that expectation seldom has anything to do with someone else's choice of gender or sexuality.


----------



## MMSS (9 Dec 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Quick question;
> 
> Does this have anything to do with the part of the application form where they very clearly state that examination of the genitals will not be performed?
> 
> As an aside, who here can honestly tell me that they'd be deeply troubled to serve alongside someone like this:



I'd be thrilled if Jameel Farha was in my unit.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Dec 2010)

Shit, I don't care what the hell you wear, who you wear it with or for, for that matter.  What I do care about is that you are willing and able to do your job and I know that you have your arcs covered.  I have seen guys who wear women's panties (no bras), it made me do a double take at first.  But I got over it and it ceased to be an issue in time.  Williams.... now that is different he was being a sick fuck.  Lester the Molester was just weird.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Dec 2010)

LOL

I love the CF.  I'm going to put my memo in for a sex change then hang around the washrooms and showers of my target gender.

This rule (great timing by the way!) seems like a non-issue and common sense.  Wanna be a girl then you dress like one basically. It'd be interesting to see a very masculine man dressing in a dress both on duty(CFs) and off.  That picture splashed across the news would be priceless.

Side note, one quick and easy answer is always "If they can do the job then their good to go".  Sure, but a part of doing the job is being a team player and a certain level of assimilation for lack of a better word. _If_ you constantly stand out and refuse play well with others (and we've all seen it in cases of special needs soldiers) you become an administrative burden.

I can do the job easily. If I start my process tomorrow how many females here would be comfortable with me showering next to them in my full glory?  When do I stop showering with men and start with women? Or do I get special showers for my special needs. Once I'm "fully a woman" how comfortable will you women be with me showering beside you now?  What happens when you get told to STFU and do it because I'm now a woman and to treat me otherwise is harassment? I supposed the rule with hermaphrodites is again whatever gender they consider themselves.

I guess that's getting off topic.

Bottom line, NO one is safe from dress regs   ;D

I'm interested to see who and what is next though.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Dec 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Side note, one quick and easy answer is always "If they can do the job then their good to go".  Sure, but a part of doing the job is being a team player and a certain level of assimilation for lack of a better word. _If_ you constantly stand out and refuse play well with others (and we've all seen it in cases of special needs soldiers) you become an administrative burden.



Yeah, I've seen those guys that weren't good "team players" - they got things like special postings to units where the hockey team was considered more prestigious, special course run for them because the regular in-unit course schedules conflicted with play-off schedules, excused field training because of games, protected on merit lists because they were contributing "so much" (just not while in uniform).  You're right, everyone needs to be the same and no-one should ever get any special different treatment.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> That's it, I ******* quit.



Well, I can only assume that they've tried everything else they could think of up to this point, and this must have been the Hail Mary play (pun intended)    ;D


----------



## RCDtpr (9 Dec 2010)

I could care less if the person I'm in a crew with is straight, gay, lesbian, transgendered, whatever.  A switched on solider is a switched on soldier.

What I DO resent is MY tax dollars being used to fund their operations.  I'm sorry, but if the CF won't pay for soldiers to get laser eye surgery they sure as hell shouldn't be paying for sex change operations.....especially on my dollar.


----------



## Sapplicant (9 Dec 2010)

RCDtpr said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but if the CF won't pay for soldiers to get laser eye surgery they sure as hell shouldn't be paying for sex change operations.....especially on my dollar.



Pfft, laser eye surgery isn't essential to a person being able to carry on with their day to day life!!! Get with the program. 

If you're a man trapped in a woman's body, then having your big toe amputated and jerry-rigged into a semi-functional penis is DEFINITELY essential. Ever try to pee standing up without one? (Me neither, but I can only imagine...) 

Same for women trapped in men's bodies who need their penises turned inside out. Having to shift it around every time you sit down to pee CLEARLY impedes their ability to function from day to day.

 :


----------



## lethalLemon (9 Dec 2010)

RCDtpr said:
			
		

> I could care less if the person I'm in a crew with is straight, gay, lesbian, transgendered, whatever.  A switched on solider is a switched on soldier.
> 
> What I DO resent is MY tax dollars being used to fund their operations.  I'm sorry, but if the CF won't pay for soldiers to get laser eye surgery they sure as hell shouldn't be paying for sex change operations.....especially on my dollar.



WHAT!? CF DOESN'T COVER LASER EYE!?

Oh man I'm boned...  :'(


----------



## Snakedoc (9 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Now, as to the "really important" stuff, which standard of the CF Expres Test would he/she/it have to pass?



Solution, one Expres test standard for BOTH Men and Women.  Same job, same standard  ;D


----------



## Loachman (9 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Not one person in here can raise their hand and say that they didn't feel disgusted by that creep Williams' image in bra/panties.



There are a lot of naturally-born women whose images in bra/panties I would not care to see either.

But would you dislike his image any less if he was wearing a banana hammock?


----------



## Loachman (9 Dec 2010)

And just to avoid any confusion regarding the byline under my user name, given the topic, that refers to the blue dress uniform that I am forced to wear, not women's clothing.


----------



## RadarGrrl (10 Dec 2010)

I'd be curious to know how many people here have actually met one of the fifty-or-so transsexual CF members.


----------



## chrisf (10 Dec 2010)

I've met at least two that I know of.


----------



## Nostix (10 Dec 2010)

- I'm accepting of homosexuality. Who you choose to have a relationship with on your own time is none of my business, and doesn't affect me in any way.
- I'm tolerant of trans-sexuality. If you really feel that nature gave you the wrong toolbox, by all means, go all out and live your life as the opposite gender.
- I just flat out don't understand transvestitism. I'm only familiar with the concept in relation to erotic fetishism, and the diagnosable mental disorder in the DSM. It has nothing to do with your gender, your sexuality, or your self-identification of either one.

In the case of the first two items mentioned, I can see how these would be fundamental to a person's self-identity. In the case of transvestitism, I just fail to understand completely why it qualifies as necessary to accommodate in the workplace.


----------



## dogger1936 (10 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I disagree.  By letting transvestites (eg: individuals) choose to wear male or female uniforms, we have indeed jumped the shark.  Not one person in here can raise their hand and say that they didn't feel disgusted by that creep Williams' image in bra/panties.  And I imagine that they would feel the same had he not been a rapist/murderer/thief.  They may not want to admit it in public for fear of offending someone, but I could care less:
> If you're a dude and you want to be a lumberjack of Monty Python fame, then go be a lumberjack.



How very cathloic of you. Compare williams to people in the gay community. Nice.

I personally dont know any transgendered soldiers personally (but there is one in my combat arms unit) theres also married gay guys married gay women,cathloics and even a scientologist. 

Get a life buddy. Who cares if a member changes their sex? I know plenty of soldiers who spend more on Dr bills due to being in the UMS everyday...strait anglo saxon males.

As long as they show up to work to soldier I could care less. 

As for scott taylors little dig at timings...what does the two have to do with each other.

As for being a laughing stock....praying to Zombie Jew's (i.e jesus) seems foolish to me. yet I TOLERATE your beliefs.


----------



## hold_fast (10 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Not one person in here can raise their hand and say that they didn't feel disgusted by that creep Williams' image in bra/panties.  And I imagine that they would feel the same had he not been a rapist/murderer/thief.



I was disgusted that it was Williams, specifically.
Otherwise, I would've considered it a fetish that a bunch of people are into behind closed doors. There's a ton of fetishes that I consider disgusting, but as long as I don't infringe on me, I don't care. Men dressing in women's clothing? That's pretty normal on the scale of fetishes. Taking pictures of your sexual endeavours? Pretty normal.

Seeing pictures of people in the act of their fetishes out of context is obviously going to make people feel awkward. Hell, if I'm at work and someone shows me regular old fashioned heterosexual porn, it's still awkward. My boss (who was some 20+ years older than me) at a warehouse used to sit and watch porn on his computer as early as 10am, calling me over to watch 'the good parts'. Friggin' awkward. I quit pretty fast.

The policy is clear and doesn't infringe on anyone's rights or freedoms. The concerns being brought up seem to be the same ones that are brought up with allowing homosexuality in the military. I.e. "What shower do they use?" crap.

I'd mention some other crap such as the Kinsey scale or the invention of heterosexuality under Augustus, but I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Loachman (10 Dec 2010)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> How very cathloic of you.



It's "Catholic", with a capital "C", and the "o" comes before the "l", and every time.

That is not only an insult against one man's faith, and a faith shared by many other members here, but also a personal attack.

I will not tolerate either again. Clear?



			
				dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Compare williams to people in the gay community.



He did not, at least not in the quote provided by you, and I am not going back to look for any other possible instances.



			
				dogger1936 said:
			
		

> As long as they show up to work to soldier I could care less.



On that we can agree, and that is all that should matter. Some people, especially the older ones among us (which would, chronologically, include me) are somewhat less comfortable with certain things and it may not be as easy to accept them however. Understand that.



			
				dogger1936 said:
			
		

> praying to Zombie Jew's (i.e jesus)



Do not, EVER, post in such a fashion here again.

I am neither Catholic nor Christian, nor do I hold any other faith, but I will not stand for attacks on others' core beliefs.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (10 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> That's it, I ******* quit.
> 
> We truly are a fourth-rate armed force.



I'm going to have to call the waaaaaaambulance for you on this one. Its not really an issue.

We aren't perfect, but I am amazed everyday by the quality of the people that I serve with (subordinates, peers, superiors). I've served with a variety of armed forces from around the world, and I am curious how you derive our fourth-rate ranking.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Dec 2010)

This has already circled the bowl way too long. The same points are being made time and again. The personal, and core belief attacks are also increasing and becoming more blatant. It long ago left the subject of the thread and has degenerated to exaclty where every one of these threads ultimately ends up.

This thread is done.


Milnet.ca Staff


----------

