No, there won’t be a military draft

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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I mean, it’s kind of stupid and definitely super outdated thinking in 2026, it only serves to keep out otherwise qualified people.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.

If you wanna compare military stereotypes, I can tell you months worth of stories about how dangerous an 02 platoon commander can be for the 40 guys he’s responsible for keeping alive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, I don’t have a unit anymore. I was medically separated from service 12 years ago for hearing loss from years of small arms fire, engines, helos, getting mortared on occasion and a few IED blasts. I can still hear a little bit, but I’ll be stone deaf by the time I’m 60.

But your arrogance amuses me. I love hearing how fighting men are supposed to conduct themselves from people who’ve never been shot at or killed another man in anger. But do go, because it’s a hoot.


How many oak leaf clusters do you have on your Purple Heart?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Let me guess- female secular Jew progressive/socialist woman, who would choose the bear, thinks all men are predators unless they have black or brown skin, hates America. China thanks you for your service. 😆

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, I don’t have a unit anymore. I was medically separated from service 12 years ago for hearing loss from years of small arms fire, engines, helos, getting mortared on occasion and a few IED blasts. I can still hear a little bit, but I’ll be stone deaf by the time I’m 60.

But your arrogance amuses me. I love hearing how fighting men are supposed to conduct themselves from people who’ve never been shot at or killed another man in anger. But do go, because it’s a hoot.


How many oak leaf clusters do you have on your Purple Heart?

Fair enough but the United States Military is financed by ALL of the tax payers. I don't get to not pay up because my kid has the wrong anatomy or appearance and is excluded from the job. The work should be available to those that can do the work regardless of anatomy and appearance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, I don’t have a unit anymore. I was medically separated from service 12 years ago for hearing loss from years of small arms fire, engines, helos, getting mortared on occasion and a few IED blasts. I can still hear a little bit, but I’ll be stone deaf by the time I’m 60.

But your arrogance amuses me. I love hearing how fighting men are supposed to conduct themselves from people who’ve never been shot at or killed another man in anger. But do go, because it’s a hoot.


How many oak leaf clusters do you have on your Purple Heart?

Fair enough but the United States Military is financed by ALL of the tax payers. I don't get to not pay up because my kid has the wrong anatomy or appearance and is excluded from the job. The work should be available to those that can do the work regardless of anatomy and appearance.

Our military isn’t a jobs program. It’s not a social experiment. It’s a machine, composed of a particular kind of motivated people, whose mission is to kill enemies and break stuff when that suits the elected leadership of this Republic.

People who have never served this country in that capacity are free to dream up all sorts of fanciful scenarios about what they think the military should be. And those scenarios are as irrelevant to reality as it would be to imagine that an NBA team could be composed of the typical office staff of a nonprofit.

[Anonymous]

Op, I wouldn’t rule it out. Trump would rather send people into war involuntarily than voluntarily. That’s more fun for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, I don’t have a unit anymore. I was medically separated from service 12 years ago for hearing loss from years of small arms fire, engines, helos, getting mortared on occasion and a few IED blasts. I can still hear a little bit, but I’ll be stone deaf by the time I’m 60.

But your arrogance amuses me. I love hearing how fighting men are supposed to conduct themselves from people who’ve never been shot at or killed another man in anger. But do go, because it’s a hoot.


How many oak leaf clusters do you have on your Purple Heart?

Fair enough but the United States Military is financed by ALL of the tax payers. I don't get to not pay up because my kid has the wrong anatomy or appearance and is excluded from the job. The work should be available to those that can do the work regardless of anatomy and appearance.

Our military isn’t a jobs program. It’s not a social experiment. It’s a machine, composed of a particular kind of motivated people, whose mission is to kill enemies and break stuff when that suits the elected leadership of this Republic.

People who have never served this country in that capacity are free to dream up all sorts of fanciful scenarios about what they think the military should be. And those scenarios are as irrelevant to reality as it would be to imagine that an NBA team could be composed of the typical office staff of a nonprofit.

It is a jobs program that eats up enormous sums of all of our money. That does not mean the jobs are not very important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, I don’t have a unit anymore. I was medically separated from service 12 years ago for hearing loss from years of small arms fire, engines, helos, getting mortared on occasion and a few IED blasts. I can still hear a little bit, but I’ll be stone deaf by the time I’m 60.

But your arrogance amuses me. I love hearing how fighting men are supposed to conduct themselves from people who’ve never been shot at or killed another man in anger. But do go, because it’s a hoot.


How many oak leaf clusters do you have on your Purple Heart?

Fair enough but the United States Military is financed by ALL of the tax payers. I don't get to not pay up because my kid has the wrong anatomy or appearance and is excluded from the job. The work should be available to those that can do the work regardless of anatomy and appearance.

Our military isn’t a jobs program. It’s not a social experiment. It’s a machine, composed of a particular kind of motivated people, whose mission is to kill enemies and break stuff when that suits the elected leadership of this Republic.

People who have never served this country in that capacity are free to dream up all sorts of fanciful scenarios about what they think the military should be. And those scenarios are as irrelevant to reality as it would be to imagine that an NBA team could be composed of the typical office staff of a nonprofit.

You think all of that is free? All of the taxpayers pay to support the military. Do you and your family have decent health insurance for you and your family? Millions of taxpayers out here don't have decent health insurance.

I do have members of my family that served for decades in the military. But Americans are entitled to have opinions about the military and about the military budget, whether they have served or not or have family members who have served or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, I don’t have a unit anymore. I was medically separated from service 12 years ago for hearing loss from years of small arms fire, engines, helos, getting mortared on occasion and a few IED blasts. I can still hear a little bit, but I’ll be stone deaf by the time I’m 60.

But your arrogance amuses me. I love hearing how fighting men are supposed to conduct themselves from people who’ve never been shot at or killed another man in anger. But do go, because it’s a hoot.


How many oak leaf clusters do you have on your Purple Heart?

Fair enough but the United States Military is financed by ALL of the tax payers. I don't get to not pay up because my kid has the wrong anatomy or appearance and is excluded from the job. The work should be available to those that can do the work regardless of anatomy and appearance.

Our military isn’t a jobs program. It’s not a social experiment. It’s a machine, composed of a particular kind of motivated people, whose mission is to kill enemies and break stuff when that suits the elected leadership of this Republic.

People who have never served this country in that capacity are free to dream up all sorts of fanciful scenarios about what they think the military should be. And those scenarios are as irrelevant to reality as it would be to imagine that an NBA team could be composed of the typical office staff of a nonprofit.

Lmao…you know that a lot of us here were in or work for or work with the military, right? The military is 20% combat troops. You have no idea what you are talking about and you and SecDef Beavis are completely lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, I don’t have a unit anymore. I was medically separated from service 12 years ago for hearing loss from years of small arms fire, engines, helos, getting mortared on occasion and a few IED blasts. I can still hear a little bit, but I’ll be stone deaf by the time I’m 60.

But your arrogance amuses me. I love hearing how fighting men are supposed to conduct themselves from people who’ve never been shot at or killed another man in anger. But do go, because it’s a hoot.


How many oak leaf clusters do you have on your Purple Heart?

This is like listening to a guy that works at Jiffy Lube lecture us all on how a multinational auto company should be run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Let me guess- female secular Jew progressive/socialist woman, who would choose the bear, thinks all men are predators unless they have black or brown skin, hates America. China thanks you for your service. 😆

DP If “hates America” means loathing the fact that we finance, arm, and politically shield from accountability a genocidal terrorist nation that intentionally slaughters innocent non-combatants and creates regional instability 6,000 miles from our shores, or the fact that we destructively interfere in the affairs of other countries all the time, or the fact that our entire government apparatus is corrupt and for sale to the highest bidder, or the fact of whatever the F you want to call this period in our shared national history … yeah, I’m extremely suspect of anyone who does NOT feel some of that hate on a visceral level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, I don’t have a unit anymore. I was medically separated from service 12 years ago for hearing loss from years of small arms fire, engines, helos, getting mortared on occasion and a few IED blasts. I can still hear a little bit, but I’ll be stone deaf by the time I’m 60.

But your arrogance amuses me. I love hearing how fighting men are supposed to conduct themselves from people who’ve never been shot at or killed another man in anger. But do go, because it’s a hoot.


How many oak leaf clusters do you have on your Purple Heart?

Fair enough but the United States Military is financed by ALL of the tax payers. I don't get to not pay up because my kid has the wrong anatomy or appearance and is excluded from the job. The work should be available to those that can do the work regardless of anatomy and appearance.

Our military isn’t a jobs program. It’s not a social experiment. It’s a machine, composed of a particular kind of motivated people, whose mission is to kill enemies and break stuff when that suits the elected leadership of this Republic.

People who have never served this country in that capacity are free to dream up all sorts of fanciful scenarios about what they think the military should be. And those scenarios are as irrelevant to reality as it would be to imagine that an NBA team could be composed of the typical office staff of a nonprofit.

The military is definitely a jobs program for thousands of young men and women without better choices. I know and knew too many people who joined because they felt they had no options and wanted an opportunity in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump and Hegseth literally made it much harder to join the military in 2025. It was much easier to join under Biden

What is with this misuse of the world literally by some/many younger people? I literally went to the store. Sue literally bought a new car. Tom literally called me.

live languages change with usage

[Anonymous]

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.

You are just making junk up because recruiters are literally ordered to stop applying for so many waivers now

[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

Air Force will not be fighting on the ground. The US does not have the troop strength needed to invade Iran. The US needs about 800,000 to 1,000,000 combat arms troops to invade. Supporting that number requires x10 the support troops. So yes we need the draft.

We don’t need that many people in the military for Putin to have Trump destroy our military capabilities. And that is, clearly, the only point of the Iran war: To help give Putin and Xi control over the world.