No, there won’t be a military draft

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While unlikely, I would never say never with Trump.

+1 I note OP didn't give their name and phone number so people can call him or her when proven wrong. It's easy to make sweeping proclamations from a safe and anonymous laptop.

[Anonymous]

I think there's always a remote possibility. Israel needs American bodies for its next war against Turkey and they are already stretched thin with Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it a bad thing to raise physical fitness and combat trainability standards, and exclude people with gender dysphoria-related mental illness?


I fail to understand how doing any of those things hurts the effectiveness of our military or makes us any more vulnerable as a nation.


Care to explain your reasoning?

I mean, it’s kind of stupid and definitely super outdated thinking in 2026, it only serves to keep out otherwise qualified people. That’s OK, that kind of stupidity is to be expected of a Hegseth led military, but it’s way more silly when you take into account the fact that they are now taking people up to 42 years of age and people have questionable ethics and morals. This is not about fitness for combat it’s about implementing some childish version of what incompetent leaders view of what the military should be based upon their heroes like Vladimir Putin. I mean, sure, they will let in a bunch of child molesters and criminals as long as they can do 100 push-ups, but they’re going to exclude people that are actually capable of fighting a 21st-century war.

Anyway, I was more responding to someone’s false assertion that it’s more difficult to get into the military. They only made it more difficult for qualified people.

I don’t think the military is made more combat effective by allowing mentally ill people who insist they are another gender, or physically unfit people in poor shape, to serve.

Both groups are detriments, not assets.

They are absolutely recruiting mentally il people now more than ever, and you don’t have to be able to do 20 pull-ups to do most of the work of modern warfare. It’s so stupid that it’s not even worth arguing about. We are going to be far less prepared than we already are.

It IS worth arguing about. You’ll need something besides rhetoric to prove your assertion.

I would like you to explain to me why a 300lb 21 year old male with Type2 diabetes who cannot run 100 yards, or a 110 lb woman who insists she is a man, are better soldiers or marines than physically fit, nueronormative males in their late teens or 20’s.


I’m asking you to please argue your case for this. Don’t walk away - make your stand here and prove to me why I’m wrong about this.

dp - These are stupid, straw man arguments. Nobody recommends drafting people with poor fitness. The question is whether 100 pushups is the appropriate indicator of fitness.

I won't even engage with you about the "woman who thinks she's a man" because I perceive that you have a grade school understanding of biology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it a bad thing to raise physical fitness and combat trainability standards, and exclude people with gender dysphoria-related mental illness?


I fail to understand how doing any of those things hurts the effectiveness of our military or makes us any more vulnerable as a nation.


Care to explain your reasoning?

I mean, it’s kind of stupid and definitely super outdated thinking in 2026, it only serves to keep out otherwise qualified people. That’s OK, that kind of stupidity is to be expected of a Hegseth led military, but it’s way more silly when you take into account the fact that they are now taking people up to 42 years of age and people have questionable ethics and morals. This is not about fitness for combat it’s about implementing some childish version of what incompetent leaders view of what the military should be based upon their heroes like Vladimir Putin. I mean, sure, they will let in a bunch of child molesters and criminals as long as they can do 100 push-ups, but they’re going to exclude people that are actually capable of fighting a 21st-century war.

Anyway, I was more responding to someone’s false assertion that it’s more difficult to get into the military. They only made it more difficult for qualified people.

I don’t think the military is made more combat effective by allowing mentally ill people who insist they are another gender, or physically unfit people in poor shape, to serve.

Both groups are detriments, not assets.

They are absolutely recruiting mentally il people now more than ever, and you don’t have to be able to do 20 pull-ups to do most of the work of modern warfare. It’s so stupid that it’s not even worth arguing about. We are going to be far less prepared than we already are.

It IS worth arguing about. You’ll need something besides rhetoric to prove your assertion.

I would like you to explain to me why a 300lb 21 year old male with Type2 diabetes who cannot run 100 yards, or a 110 lb woman who insists she is a man, are better soldiers or marines than physically fit, nueronormative males in their late teens or 20’s.


I’m asking you to please argue your case for this. Don’t walk away - make your stand here and prove to me why I’m wrong about this.

dp - These are stupid, straw man arguments. Nobody recommends drafting people with poor fitness. The question is whether 100 pushups is the appropriate indicator of fitness.

I won't even engage with you about the "woman who thinks she's a man" because I perceive that you have a grade school understanding of biology.

So, you cannot explain why you’re right and I’m wrong. You can only insult people who disagree with you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it a bad thing to raise physical fitness and combat trainability standards, and exclude people with gender dysphoria-related mental illness?


I fail to understand how doing any of those things hurts the effectiveness of our military or makes us any more vulnerable as a nation.


Care to explain your reasoning?

I mean, it’s kind of stupid and definitely super outdated thinking in 2026, it only serves to keep out otherwise qualified people. That’s OK, that kind of stupidity is to be expected of a Hegseth led military, but it’s way more silly when you take into account the fact that they are now taking people up to 42 years of age and people have questionable ethics and morals. This is not about fitness for combat it’s about implementing some childish version of what incompetent leaders view of what the military should be based upon their heroes like Vladimir Putin. I mean, sure, they will let in a bunch of child molesters and criminals as long as they can do 100 push-ups, but they’re going to exclude people that are actually capable of fighting a 21st-century war.

Anyway, I was more responding to someone’s false assertion that it’s more difficult to get into the military. They only made it more difficult for qualified people.

I don’t think the military is made more combat effective by allowing mentally ill people who insist they are another gender, or physically unfit people in poor shape, to serve.

Both groups are detriments, not assets.

They are absolutely recruiting mentally il people now more than ever, and you don’t have to be able to do 20 pull-ups to do most of the work of modern warfare. It’s so stupid that it’s not even worth arguing about. We are going to be far less prepared than we already are.

It IS worth arguing about. You’ll need something besides rhetoric to prove your assertion.

I would like you to explain to me why a 300lb 21 year old male with Type2 diabetes who cannot run 100 yards, or a 110 lb woman who insists she is a man, are better soldiers or marines than physically fit, nueronormative males in their late teens or 20’s.


I’m asking you to please argue your case for this. Don’t walk away - make your stand here and prove to me why I’m wrong about this.

I won't even engage with you about the "woman who thinks she's a man" because I perceive that you have a grade school understanding of biology.

This is true.

I learned in grade school biology that chromosomes are what determine male or female gender. And that nothing can change your genetics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it a bad thing to raise physical fitness and combat trainability standards, and exclude people with gender dysphoria-related mental illness?


I fail to understand how doing any of those things hurts the effectiveness of our military or makes us any more vulnerable as a nation.


Care to explain your reasoning?

I mean, it’s kind of stupid and definitely super outdated thinking in 2026, it only serves to keep out otherwise qualified people. That’s OK, that kind of stupidity is to be expected of a Hegseth led military, but it’s way more silly when you take into account the fact that they are now taking people up to 42 years of age and people have questionable ethics and morals. This is not about fitness for combat it’s about implementing some childish version of what incompetent leaders view of what the military should be based upon their heroes like Vladimir Putin. I mean, sure, they will let in a bunch of child molesters and criminals as long as they can do 100 push-ups, but they’re going to exclude people that are actually capable of fighting a 21st-century war.

Anyway, I was more responding to someone’s false assertion that it’s more difficult to get into the military. They only made it more difficult for qualified people.

I don’t think the military is made more combat effective by allowing mentally ill people who insist they are another gender, or physically unfit people in poor shape, to serve.

Both groups are detriments, not assets.

They are absolutely recruiting mentally il people now more than ever, and you don’t have to be able to do 20 pull-ups to do most of the work of modern warfare. It’s so stupid that it’s not even worth arguing about. We are going to be far less prepared than we already are.

It IS worth arguing about. You’ll need something besides rhetoric to prove your assertion.

I would like you to explain to me why a 300lb 21 year old male with Type2 diabetes who cannot run 100 yards, or a 110 lb woman who insists she is a man, are better soldiers or marines than physically fit, nueronormative males in their late teens or 20’s.


I’m asking you to please argue your case for this. Don’t walk away - make your stand here and prove to me why I’m wrong about this.

I won't even engage with you about the "woman who thinks she's a man" because I perceive that you have a grade school understanding of biology.

This is true.

I learned in grade school biology that chromosomes are what determine male or female gender. And that nothing can change your genetics.

I guess you failed biology because chromosomes determine sex and not gender. Maybe you should stfu until you know basic facts about the subject matter being discussed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it a bad thing to raise physical fitness and combat trainability standards, and exclude people with gender dysphoria-related mental illness?


I fail to understand how doing any of those things hurts the effectiveness of our military or makes us any more vulnerable as a nation.


Care to explain your reasoning?

I mean, it’s kind of stupid and definitely super outdated thinking in 2026, it only serves to keep out otherwise qualified people. That’s OK, that kind of stupidity is to be expected of a Hegseth led military, but it’s way more silly when you take into account the fact that they are now taking people up to 42 years of age and people have questionable ethics and morals. This is not about fitness for combat it’s about implementing some childish version of what incompetent leaders view of what the military should be based upon their heroes like Vladimir Putin. I mean, sure, they will let in a bunch of child molesters and criminals as long as they can do 100 push-ups, but they’re going to exclude people that are actually capable of fighting a 21st-century war.

Anyway, I was more responding to someone’s false assertion that it’s more difficult to get into the military. They only made it more difficult for qualified people.

I don’t think the military is made more combat effective by allowing mentally ill people who insist they are another gender, or physically unfit people in poor shape, to serve.

Both groups are detriments, not assets.

They are absolutely recruiting mentally il people now more than ever, and you don’t have to be able to do 20 pull-ups to do most of the work of modern warfare. It’s so stupid that it’s not even worth arguing about. We are going to be far less prepared than we already are.

It IS worth arguing about. You’ll need something besides rhetoric to prove your assertion.

I would like you to explain to me why a 300lb 21 year old male with Type2 diabetes who cannot run 100 yards, or a 110 lb woman who insists she is a man, are better soldiers or marines than physically fit, nueronormative males in their late teens or 20’s.


I’m asking you to please argue your case for this. Don’t walk away - make your stand here and prove to me why I’m wrong about this.

I won't even engage with you about the "woman who thinks she's a man" because I perceive that you have a grade school understanding of biology.

This is true.

I learned in grade school biology that chromosomes are what determine male or female gender. And that nothing can change your genetics.

I guess you failed biology because chromosomes determine sex and not gender. Maybe you should stfu until you know basic facts about the subject matter being discussed.

That’s fair, I suppose, since when I was in school, “sex” was a verb, an act to be performed, and “gender” was the physical features and genetic difference in chromosomes which made someone male or female. I guess we were so antiquated back then, being taught there was only male and female, and very very rare instances of intersex hermaphroditism. Back then we didn’t know about Nuls, 2-Spirit Polyqueers, FluidFluxes, Furries, and Digimites Dwarf genders. So my views are pretty anachronistic on this.



Serious question for you:

What would you call me if I insisted I was a 1964 Chevy Impala Hardtop, with a dual-quad 327 with a Hurst 4-speed, and my pronouns were “RRRRRRROAR!” and “SCREEEECH!”? Would you respect my gender identity and refer to me accordingly? Or would you say I was mentally ill?


Totally honest question. Not being rhetorical. I really do want to understand this, and hear your sincere answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it a bad thing to raise physical fitness and combat trainability standards, and exclude people with gender dysphoria-related mental illness?


I fail to understand how doing any of those things hurts the effectiveness of our military or makes us any more vulnerable as a nation.


Care to explain your reasoning?

I mean, it’s kind of stupid and definitely super outdated thinking in 2026, it only serves to keep out otherwise qualified people. That’s OK, that kind of stupidity is to be expected of a Hegseth led military, but it’s way more silly when you take into account the fact that they are now taking people up to 42 years of age and people have questionable ethics and morals. This is not about fitness for combat it’s about implementing some childish version of what incompetent leaders view of what the military should be based upon their heroes like Vladimir Putin. I mean, sure, they will let in a bunch of child molesters and criminals as long as they can do 100 push-ups, but they’re going to exclude people that are actually capable of fighting a 21st-century war.

Anyway, I was more responding to someone’s false assertion that it’s more difficult to get into the military. They only made it more difficult for qualified people.

I don’t think the military is made more combat effective by allowing mentally ill people who insist they are another gender, or physically unfit people in poor shape, to serve.

Both groups are detriments, not assets.

They are absolutely recruiting mentally il people now more than ever, and you don’t have to be able to do 20 pull-ups to do most of the work of modern warfare. It’s so stupid that it’s not even worth arguing about. We are going to be far less prepared than we already are.

It IS worth arguing about. You’ll need something besides rhetoric to prove your assertion.

I would like you to explain to me why a 300lb 21 year old male with Type2 diabetes who cannot run 100 yards, or a 110 lb woman who insists she is a man, are better soldiers or marines than physically fit, nueronormative males in their late teens or 20’s.


I’m asking you to please argue your case for this. Don’t walk away - make your stand here and prove to me why I’m wrong about this.

I won't even engage with you about the "woman who thinks she's a man" because I perceive that you have a grade school understanding of biology.

This is true.

I learned in grade school biology that chromosomes are what determine male or female gender. And that nothing can change your genetics.

I guess you failed biology because chromosomes determine sex and not gender. Maybe you should stfu until you know basic facts about the subject matter being discussed.

That’s fair, I suppose, since when I was in school, “sex” was a verb, an act to be performed, and “gender” was the physical features and genetic difference in chromosomes which made someone male or female. I guess we were so antiquated back then, being taught there was only male and female, and very very rare instances of intersex hermaphroditism. Back then we didn’t know about Nuls, 2-Spirit Polyqueers, FluidFluxes, Furries, and Digimites Dwarf genders. So my views are pretty anachronistic on this.



Serious question for you:

What would you call me if I insisted I was a 1964 Chevy Impala Hardtop, with a dual-quad 327 with a Hurst 4-speed, and my pronouns were “RRRRRRROAR!” and “SCREEEECH!”? Would you respect my gender identity and refer to me accordingly? Or would you say I was mentally ill?


Totally honest question. Not being rhetorical. I really do want to understand this, and hear your sincere answer.

NP - I'm 52 and was taught the difference between sex and gender as nouns. You sound very hostile to people different from what you perceive should be "normal". I live overseas on a military base. The trans soldier just forced to retire here last summer was a much better strategist and defender of American and NATO values than the MAGA jarheads who don't even know how to hold briefings. One idiot literally printed out the internal talking points provided to him by someone else since he was too lazy and ignorant to draft them himself. He summarily distributed them to everyone in attendance. I wish I was making this up, but's it's truly embarrassing. I don't give a flip who people sleep with or how they identify. I care about how intelligent, thoughtful and perceptive they are. If they are in combat, yes I want them in top shape, but I have known plenty of women who fit that bill. Sheer strength isn't everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it a bad thing to raise physical fitness and combat trainability standards, and exclude people with gender dysphoria-related mental illness?


I fail to understand how doing any of those things hurts the effectiveness of our military or makes us any more vulnerable as a nation.


Care to explain your reasoning?

I mean, it’s kind of stupid and definitely super outdated thinking in 2026, it only serves to keep out otherwise qualified people. That’s OK, that kind of stupidity is to be expected of a Hegseth led military, but it’s way more silly when you take into account the fact that they are now taking people up to 42 years of age and people have questionable ethics and morals. This is not about fitness for combat it’s about implementing some childish version of what incompetent leaders view of what the military should be based upon their heroes like Vladimir Putin. I mean, sure, they will let in a bunch of child molesters and criminals as long as they can do 100 push-ups, but they’re going to exclude people that are actually capable of fighting a 21st-century war.

Anyway, I was more responding to someone’s false assertion that it’s more difficult to get into the military. They only made it more difficult for qualified people.

I don’t think the military is made more combat effective by allowing mentally ill people who insist they are another gender, or physically unfit people in poor shape, to serve.

Both groups are detriments, not assets.

They are absolutely recruiting mentally il people now more than ever, and you don’t have to be able to do 20 pull-ups to do most of the work of modern warfare. It’s so stupid that it’s not even worth arguing about. We are going to be far less prepared than we already are.

It IS worth arguing about. You’ll need something besides rhetoric to prove your assertion.

I would like you to explain to me why a 300lb 21 year old male with Type2 diabetes who cannot run 100 yards, or a 110 lb woman who insists she is a man, are better soldiers or marines than physically fit, nueronormative males in their late teens or 20’s.


I’m asking you to please argue your case for this. Don’t walk away - make your stand here and prove to me why I’m wrong about this.

I won't even engage with you about the "woman who thinks she's a man" because I perceive that you have a grade school understanding of biology.

This is true.

I learned in grade school biology that chromosomes are what determine male or female gender. And that nothing can change your genetics.

I guess you failed biology because chromosomes determine sex and not gender. Maybe you should stfu until you know basic facts about the subject matter being discussed.

That’s fair, I suppose, since when I was in school, “sex” was a verb, an act to be performed, and “gender” was the physical features and genetic difference in chromosomes which made someone male or female. I guess we were so antiquated back then, being taught there was only male and female, and very very rare instances of intersex hermaphroditism. Back then we didn’t know about Nuls, 2-Spirit Polyqueers, FluidFluxes, Furries, and Digimites Dwarf genders. So my views are pretty anachronistic on this.



Serious question for you:

What would you call me if I insisted I was a 1964 Chevy Impala Hardtop, with a dual-quad 327 with a Hurst 4-speed, and my pronouns were “RRRRRRROAR!” and “SCREEEECH!”? Would you respect my gender identity and refer to me accordingly? Or would you say I was mentally ill?


Totally honest question. Not being rhetorical. I really do want to understand this, and hear your sincere answer.

NP - I'm 52 and was taught the difference between sex and gender as nouns. You sound very hostile to people different from what you perceive should be "normal". I live overseas on a military base. The trans soldier just forced to retire here last summer was a much better strategist and defender of American and NATO values than the MAGA jarheads who don't even know how to hold briefings. One idiot literally printed out the internal talking points provided to him by someone else since he was too lazy and ignorant to draft them himself. He summarily distributed them to everyone in attendance. I wish I was making this up, but's it's truly embarrassing. I don't give a flip who people sleep with or how they identify. I care about how intelligent, thoughtful and perceptive they are. If they are in combat, yes I want them in top shape, but I have known plenty of women who fit that bill. Sheer strength isn't everything.

I served in the United States Army for a long time. First as an Enlisted soldier and NCO, then later was a Warrant Officer. I’ve lived on lots of “military bases” of all kinds overseas, too. I’ve seen combat in 3 different wars since 1993, when I was a 22 yr old E4. I think I have a pretty good grasp of what makes someone an asset or a liability in a combat theatre. And I don’t think people who adopt a gender identity that is contrary to their anatomy and appearance are suited for military service. In any capacity at all. Regardless of how good their briefings were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it a bad thing to raise physical fitness and combat trainability standards, and exclude people with gender dysphoria-related mental illness?


I fail to understand how doing any of those things hurts the effectiveness of our military or makes us any more vulnerable as a nation.


Care to explain your reasoning?

I mean, it’s kind of stupid and definitely super outdated thinking in 2026, it only serves to keep out otherwise qualified people. That’s OK, that kind of stupidity is to be expected of a Hegseth led military, but it’s way more silly when you take into account the fact that they are now taking people up to 42 years of age and people have questionable ethics and morals. This is not about fitness for combat it’s about implementing some childish version of what incompetent leaders view of what the military should be based upon their heroes like Vladimir Putin. I mean, sure, they will let in a bunch of child molesters and criminals as long as they can do 100 push-ups, but they’re going to exclude people that are actually capable of fighting a 21st-century war.

Anyway, I was more responding to someone’s false assertion that it’s more difficult to get into the military. They only made it more difficult for qualified people.

I don’t think the military is made more combat effective by allowing mentally ill people who insist they are another gender, or physically unfit people in poor shape, to serve.

Both groups are detriments, not assets.

They are absolutely recruiting mentally il people now more than ever, and you don’t have to be able to do 20 pull-ups to do most of the work of modern warfare. It’s so stupid that it’s not even worth arguing about. We are going to be far less prepared than we already are.

It IS worth arguing about. You’ll need something besides rhetoric to prove your assertion.

I would like you to explain to me why a 300lb 21 year old male with Type2 diabetes who cannot run 100 yards, or a 110 lb woman who insists she is a man, are better soldiers or marines than physically fit, nueronormative males in their late teens or 20’s.


I’m asking you to please argue your case for this. Don’t walk away - make your stand here and prove to me why I’m wrong about this.

I won't even engage with you about the "woman who thinks she's a man" because I perceive that you have a grade school understanding of biology.

This is true.

I learned in grade school biology that chromosomes are what determine male or female gender. And that nothing can change your genetics.

I guess you failed biology because chromosomes determine sex and not gender. Maybe you should stfu until you know basic facts about the subject matter being discussed.

That’s fair, I suppose, since when I was in school, “sex” was a verb, an act to be performed, and “gender” was the physical features and genetic difference in chromosomes which made someone male or female. I guess we were so antiquated back then, being taught there was only male and female, and very very rare instances of intersex hermaphroditism. Back then we didn’t know about Nuls, 2-Spirit Polyqueers, FluidFluxes, Furries, and Digimites Dwarf genders. So my views are pretty anachronistic on this.



Serious question for you:

What would you call me if I insisted I was a 1964 Chevy Impala Hardtop, with a dual-quad 327 with a Hurst 4-speed, and my pronouns were “RRRRRRROAR!” and “SCREEEECH!”? Would you respect my gender identity and refer to me accordingly? Or would you say I was mentally ill?


Totally honest question. Not being rhetorical. I really do want to understand this, and hear your sincere answer.

NP - I'm 52 and was taught the difference between sex and gender as nouns. You sound very hostile to people different from what you perceive should be "normal". I live overseas on a military base. The trans soldier just forced to retire here last summer was a much better strategist and defender of American and NATO values than the MAGA jarheads who don't even know how to hold briefings. One idiot literally printed out the internal talking points provided to him by someone else since he was too lazy and ignorant to draft them himself. He summarily distributed them to everyone in attendance. I wish I was making this up, but's it's truly embarrassing. I don't give a flip who people sleep with or how they identify. I care about how intelligent, thoughtful and perceptive they are. If they are in combat, yes I want them in top shape, but I have known plenty of women who fit that bill. Sheer strength isn't everything.

I served in the United States Army for a long time. First as an Enlisted soldier and NCO, then later was a Warrant Officer. I’ve lived on lots of “military bases” of all kinds overseas, too. I’ve seen combat in 3 different wars since 1993, when I was a 22 yr old E4. I think I have a pretty good grasp of what makes someone an asset or a liability in a combat theatre. And I don’t think people who adopt a gender identity that is contrary to their anatomy and appearance are suited for military service. In any capacity at all. Regardless of how good their briefings were.

So you care about appearance more than substance? I'm sorry, but this sounds so fragile. That's like me saying I don't generally respect the opinions of anyone who enlisted and became an NCO because on average their educational background and intellectual curiosity was much lower than the average officer. If you judge individual people on performance and substance all those other stereotypes mean bunk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it a bad thing to raise physical fitness and combat trainability standards, and exclude people with gender dysphoria-related mental illness?


I fail to understand how doing any of those things hurts the effectiveness of our military or makes us any more vulnerable as a nation.


Care to explain your reasoning?

I mean, it’s kind of stupid and definitely super outdated thinking in 2026, it only serves to keep out otherwise qualified people. That’s OK, that kind of stupidity is to be expected of a Hegseth led military, but it’s way more silly when you take into account the fact that they are now taking people up to 42 years of age and people have questionable ethics and morals. This is not about fitness for combat it’s about implementing some childish version of what incompetent leaders view of what the military should be based upon their heroes like Vladimir Putin. I mean, sure, they will let in a bunch of child molesters and criminals as long as they can do 100 push-ups, but they’re going to exclude people that are actually capable of fighting a 21st-century war.

Anyway, I was more responding to someone’s false assertion that it’s more difficult to get into the military. They only made it more difficult for qualified people.

I don’t think the military is made more combat effective by allowing mentally ill people who insist they are another gender, or physically unfit people in poor shape, to serve.

Both groups are detriments, not assets.

They are absolutely recruiting mentally il people now more than ever, and you don’t have to be able to do 20 pull-ups to do most of the work of modern warfare. It’s so stupid that it’s not even worth arguing about. We are going to be far less prepared than we already are.

It IS worth arguing about. You’ll need something besides rhetoric to prove your assertion.

I would like you to explain to me why a 300lb 21 year old male with Type2 diabetes who cannot run 100 yards, or a 110 lb woman who insists she is a man, are better soldiers or marines than physically fit, nueronormative males in their late teens or 20’s.


I’m asking you to please argue your case for this. Don’t walk away - make your stand here and prove to me why I’m wrong about this.

I won't even engage with you about the "woman who thinks she's a man" because I perceive that you have a grade school understanding of biology.

This is true.

I learned in grade school biology that chromosomes are what determine male or female gender. And that nothing can change your genetics.

I guess you failed biology because chromosomes determine sex and not gender. Maybe you should stfu until you know basic facts about the subject matter being discussed.

That’s fair, I suppose, since when I was in school, “sex” was a verb, an act to be performed, and “gender” was the physical features and genetic difference in chromosomes which made someone male or female. I guess we were so antiquated back then, being taught there was only male and female, and very very rare instances of intersex hermaphroditism. Back then we didn’t know about Nuls, 2-Spirit Polyqueers, FluidFluxes, Furries, and Digimites Dwarf genders. So my views are pretty anachronistic on this.



Serious question for you:

What would you call me if I insisted I was a 1964 Chevy Impala Hardtop, with a dual-quad 327 with a Hurst 4-speed, and my pronouns were “RRRRRRROAR!” and “SCREEEECH!”? Would you respect my gender identity and refer to me accordingly? Or would you say I was mentally ill?


Totally honest question. Not being rhetorical. I really do want to understand this, and hear your sincere answer.

NP - I'm 52 and was taught the difference between sex and gender as nouns. You sound very hostile to people different from what you perceive should be "normal". I live overseas on a military base. The trans soldier just forced to retire here last summer was a much better strategist and defender of American and NATO values than the MAGA jarheads who don't even know how to hold briefings. One idiot literally printed out the internal talking points provided to him by someone else since he was too lazy and ignorant to draft them himself. He summarily distributed them to everyone in attendance. I wish I was making this up, but's it's truly embarrassing. I don't give a flip who people sleep with or how they identify. I care about how intelligent, thoughtful and perceptive they are. If they are in combat, yes I want them in top shape, but I have known plenty of women who fit that bill. Sheer strength isn't everything.

I served in the United States Army for a long time. First as an Enlisted soldier and NCO, then later was a Warrant Officer. I’ve lived on lots of “military bases” of all kinds overseas, too. I’ve seen combat in 3 different wars since 1993, when I was a 22 yr old E4. I think I have a pretty good grasp of what makes someone an asset or a liability in a combat theatre. And I don’t think people who adopt a gender identity that is contrary to their anatomy and appearance are suited for military service. In any capacity at all. Regardless of how good their briefings were.

You sound like a liability with that attitude. On top of everything else, members your unit need to worry about your approach to their anatomy and appearance? What a waste of everyone's time and energy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it a bad thing to raise physical fitness and combat trainability standards, and exclude people with gender dysphoria-related mental illness?


I fail to understand how doing any of those things hurts the effectiveness of our military or makes us any more vulnerable as a nation.



Care to explain your reasoning?

I mean, it’s kind of stupid and definitely super outdated thinking in 2026, it only serves to keep out otherwise qualified people. That’s OK, that kind of stupidity is to be expected of a Hegseth led military, but it’s way more silly when you take into account the fact that they are now taking people up to 42 years of age and people have questionable ethics and morals. This is not about fitness for combat it’s about implementing some childish version of what incompetent leaders view of what the military should be based upon their heroes like Vladimir Putin. I mean, sure, they will let in a bunch of child molesters and criminals as long as they can do 100 push-ups, but they’re going to exclude people that are actually capable of fighting a 21st-century war.

Anyway, I was more responding to someone’s false assertion that it’s more difficult to get into the military. They only made it more difficult for qualified people.

I don’t think the military is made more combat effective by allowing mentally ill people who insist they are another gender, or physically unfit people in poor shape, to serve.

Both groups are detriments, not assets.

No they are actually recruiting maga types and white nationalists.

Good. All the mofus who invaded the Capitol can go fight in Iran. Show how tough they are. And all those ICE thugs can go fight in Iran too.

All those guys are are over 55.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it a bad thing to raise physical fitness and combat trainability standards, and exclude people with gender dysphoria-related mental illness?


I fail to understand how doing any of those things hurts the effectiveness of our military or makes us any more vulnerable as a nation.


Care to explain your reasoning?

I mean, it’s kind of stupid and definitely super outdated thinking in 2026, it only serves to keep out otherwise qualified people. That’s OK, that kind of stupidity is to be expected of a Hegseth led military, but it’s way more silly when you take into account the fact that they are now taking people up to 42 years of age and people have questionable ethics and morals. This is not about fitness for combat it’s about implementing some childish version of what incompetent leaders view of what the military should be based upon their heroes like Vladimir Putin. I mean, sure, they will let in a bunch of child molesters and criminals as long as they can do 100 push-ups, but they’re going to exclude people that are actually capable of fighting a 21st-century war.

Anyway, I was more responding to someone’s false assertion that it’s more difficult to get into the military. They only made it more difficult for qualified people.

I don’t think the military is made more combat effective by allowing mentally ill people who insist they are another gender, or physically unfit people in poor shape, to serve.

Both groups are detriments, not assets.

They are absolutely recruiting mentally il people now more than ever, and you don’t have to be able to do 20 pull-ups to do most of the work of modern warfare. It’s so stupid that it’s not even worth arguing about. We are going to be far less prepared than we already are.

It IS worth arguing about. You’ll need something besides rhetoric to prove your assertion.

I would like you to explain to me why a 300lb 21 year old male with Type2 diabetes who cannot run 100 yards, or a 110 lb woman who insists she is a man, are better soldiers or marines than physically fit, nueronormative males in their late teens or 20’s.


I’m asking you to please argue your case for this. Don’t walk away - make your stand here and prove to me why I’m wrong about this.

I won't even engage with you about the "woman who thinks she's a man" because I perceive that you have a grade school understanding of biology.

This is true.

I learned in grade school biology that chromosomes are what determine male or female gender. And that nothing can change your genetics.

I guess you failed biology because chromosomes determine sex and not gender. Maybe you should stfu until you know basic facts about the subject matter being discussed.

That’s fair, I suppose, since when I was in school, “sex” was a verb, an act to be performed, and “gender” was the physical features and genetic difference in chromosomes which made someone male or female. I guess we were so antiquated back then, being taught there was only male and female, and very very rare instances of intersex hermaphroditism. Back then we didn’t know about Nuls, 2-Spirit Polyqueers, FluidFluxes, Furries, and Digimites Dwarf genders. So my views are pretty anachronistic on this.



Serious question for you:

What would you call me if I insisted I was a 1964 Chevy Impala Hardtop, with a dual-quad 327 with a Hurst 4-speed, and my pronouns were “RRRRRRROAR!” and “SCREEEECH!”? Would you respect my gender identity and refer to me accordingly? Or would you say I was mentally ill?


Totally honest question. Not being rhetorical. I really do want to understand this, and hear your sincere answer.

NP - I'm 52 and was taught the difference between sex and gender as nouns. You sound very hostile to people different from what you perceive should be "normal". I live overseas on a military base. The trans soldier just forced to retire here last summer was a much better strategist and defender of American and NATO values than the MAGA jarheads who don't even know how to hold briefings. One idiot literally printed out the internal talking points provided to him by someone else since he was too lazy and ignorant to draft them himself. He summarily distributed them to everyone in attendance. I wish I was making this up, but's it's truly embarrassing. I don't give a flip who people sleep with or how they identify. I care about how intelligent, thoughtful and perceptive they are. If they are in combat, yes I want them in top shape, but I have known plenty of women who fit that bill. Sheer strength isn't everything.

I served in the United States Army for a long time. First as an Enlisted soldier and NCO, then later was a Warrant Officer. I’ve lived on lots of “military bases” of all kinds overseas, too. I’ve seen combat in 3 different wars since 1993, when I was a 22 yr old E4. I think I have a pretty good grasp of what makes someone an asset or a liability in a combat theatre. And I don’t think people who adopt a gender identity that is contrary to their anatomy and appearance are suited for military service. In any capacity at all. Regardless of how good their briefings were.

Let me guess- Christian, white male who believes blacks, Jews, Hispanics, women etc are liability. Has Israel thanks you for your service

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s unbelievable how dumb people online are. I don’t know how people seriously believe there is a draft when joining the military now is so damn hard. The Air Force literally stopped recruiting through the rest of 2026 because they have too many people. You can’t pass MEPS unless you basically have perfect health. Very few waivers are given. There won’t be a draft

There won't be a draft with trump as long as Barron could be called up. Melania would make his life even more miserable than she already does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s unbelievable how dumb people online are. I don’t know how people seriously believe there is a draft when joining the military now is so damn hard. The Air Force literally stopped recruiting through the rest of 2026 because they have too many people. You can’t pass MEPS unless you basically have perfect health. Very few waivers are given. There won’t be a draft

It's unbelievable how dumb you are, PP, to think that your opinion matters to anyone. Personally, I assess the issue based on the Trump administration's actions.

As someone with a teenage son, and as someone who can clearly see that the chance Trump will start WWIII is well above >0%, I worry.

Have him pretend he is gender dysphoric and he won't be recruited? People had done worse to avoid being drafted in the past..

Jokes aside, I am in the same shoes, although I think the probability is incredibly low. Even if it's not zero, it's very low, lower than other dangers facing our teens daily. But who knows? The situation is so volatile, you never know what the next week, months, and especially a year will bring anymore