selective service (the draft) and trans people

[dead0man]

from earlier today, Lawmakers drop proposal to add women to the draft as defense bill headaches mount

[Ferguson97]

The selective service should be abolished, but until we abolish it all adults should be signed up regardless of gender.

[Del Tachi]

Option #7

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Keep it the way it is.

[GregTheGreat657]

Keep it the way it is.

Why should men have to sign up for the selective service registry, but not women (coming from someone who believes women should have to meet the same physical standards as men)?

[CEO Mindset]

Option #1. Imagine thinking compulsory military service is a good idea lmfao.

[7,052,770]

Keep it the way it is.

Why should men have to sign up for the selective service registry, but not women (coming from someone who believes women should have to meet the same physical standards as men)?

That's literally everyone who supports having women in the military. No one is saying that we should lower the quality of our military just so we can include women.

[dead0man]

Keep it the way it is.

Why should men have to sign up for the selective service registry, but not women (coming from someone who believes women should have to meet the same physical standards as men)?

That's literally everyone who supports having women in the military. No one is saying that we should lower the quality of our military just so we can include women.

but we've always had lower standards for women than for men.  The Army is trying to change that, but have been asked by Senate Dems to put a halt to it because it's not fair to women.  cite

Democratic senators appealed Tuesday for support of a legislative proposal that would suspend implementation of the Army’s new fitness test, arguing that the high-profile initiative to improve physical readiness is based on faulty data and could undermine the goal of creating a diverse force.

In an Oct. 20 letter to the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) called the rollout of the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) “premature” and said the exam could damage some soldiers’ professional prospects.

“We have considerable concerns regarding the negative impact [the test] may already be having on so many careers,” they said in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. “It is imperative that we pause implementation until all questions and concerns are answered. Soldiers’ careers depend on it and the continued lethality of our force requires it.”

The senators asked the committee leaders to ensure that a measure that would suspend rollout of the test until an independent study can be conducted is included in the final version of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. The provision appeared in the Senate-passed version of the bill, but not in the House version. Lawmakers are expected to convene to reconcile the two versions of the bill after the Nov. 3 elections.

The test has become a charged issue within the Army as it pits the service’s effort to establish ­gender-blind standards and improve soldier readiness against fears it could pose an additional challenge to retaining skilled troops and compound obstacles for underrepresented populations within the force. Critics say it could have a disproportionate impact on women, who make up 15 percent of the Army but occupy few leadership positions.

Army data shows that 18 months after small cohorts of soldiers started taking the test on a provisional basis, women continue to fail at dramatically higher rates than men. In the second quarter of 2020, 54 percent of women failed the test, compared with 7 percent of men.

a letter written by the Army’s first female infantry officer.

As the Army’s first female infantry officer, I have long awaited the elimination of a gender-based fitness test. The drastically lower female standards of the old Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) not only jeopardized mission readiness in combat units but also reinforced the false notion that women are categorically incapable of performing the same job as men. The new Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) promised to alleviate these issues by finally assessing women on the same fitness scale as men and setting minimum physical standards based on branch requirements rather than gender.

However, these gender-neutral standards have recently garnered criticism. Due to an initial ACFT fail rate of 54 percent among women, activist groups have raised concerns that the test will disadvantage female servicemembers. As such, lawmakers directed the Army to halt implementation of the ACFT until the service can prove it will not negatively impact the recruitment and retention of soldiers in critical support jobs, particularly those with large female populations. To address this concern, the Army is considering reverting to gender-based fitness scoring for promotion and reducing the minimum standards for combat arms. Based on my experience, I feel compelled to share how this potential reversal in policy will negatively impact both combat arms branches and the women who serve in them.

First, reverting to gender-based scoring could drastically reduce the performance and effectiveness of combat arms units. Specifically, without a separate, minimum standard for combat arms, the requirements to join the nation’s combat forces could soon be as low as performing ten push-ups in two minutes, running two miles in twenty-one minutes, deadlifting 140 pounds three times, and performing only one repetition of a leg tuck or, failing that, two minutes of a plank exercise. Proponents of this ACFT standard will undoubtedly claim that it is an appropriate predictor of success for combat arms soldiers; as a recent infantry company commander, I can promise you it is not. While these low standards may have seemed adequate in a controlled study, I know from experience that they will not suffice in reality.

Indeed, the presence of just a handful of individuals who cannot run two miles faster than twenty-one minutes has the potential to derail a training exercise, not to mention an actual combat patrol. Entire companies of 130 soldiers will be forced to frequently halt operations in order to medically evacuate the ill-prepared as they succumb to fatigue and injury. Missions will be delayed and other soldiers will be overburdened with the weight of their unfit teammates’ equipment. This scenario is inconvenient and bad for morale during a training exercise; in combat it could be deadly. Instead of addressing the issue of having some soldiers insufficiently prepared for the physical rigors of combat, which sparked the APFT’s revision in the first place, a gender-based ACFT in combat arms will normalize it and make it unmanageable. It is wholly unethical to allow the standards of the nation’s premiere fighting units to degrade so badly, just to accommodate the lowest-performing soldiers.

As long as there have been women in the military there have been people saying women should have lower standards.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The social security administration could provide data if we ever needed to call up an actual draft.

[Former President tack50]

Option 3. If the US ever get into a war where a draft is necessary I am sure it can be restarted with relative ease?

[7,052,770]

Keep it the way it is.

Why should men have to sign up for the selective service registry, but not women (coming from someone who believes women should have to meet the same physical standards as men)?

That's literally everyone who supports having women in the military. No one is saying that we should lower the quality of our military just so we can include women.

snip

I'm not talking about fitness tests, I'm talking about specific mission assignments and stuff. Like when Seal Team 6 went to go kill Osama, nobody thought that they should add underqualified women to the mission for "gender equality" or whatever. You just had to put the absolute best people on that team who could get the job done, regardless of whatever ratio came out of it.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Keep it the way it is.

This is my position also.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

As someone who will have to be eligible for this in four years, I think it is stupid.


Boomers are using jingoistic talking points against China for political wins and my generation (always screwed over by said Boomers) will have to take the brunt of any possible war.

That said I will consider on doing ROTC in college so if the 'Hooters is socially acceptable' generation gets us into a war I'll at least be an officer.


What we need to do is abolish the draft (America's shores are not threatened by anyone except  the MAGA lunahicks) or at least make women sign up.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Never should have been created in the first place.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I don't view conscription of citizens for military service as a morally legitimate government power. Abolish it for all genders.

[parochial boy]

Being a little bit parochial, this is question that does occasionally come up in regards to military service here. Overall, it winds up pretty much on a case by case basis but the overall picture is that someone who starts to transition before military service doesn't do it (unless they want to, but that is also the rule for ciswomen) whereas someone who starts to transition during military service will continue to do it (unless they don't want to).

That said, we do actually seem to be heading towards women also having to do military of civil service as well as men. At least, there is legislation currently underway to that effect. Given the social capital that military service does actually give you, and considering that abolishing it is basically not on the cards, that kind of seems to be the best solution.

[Del Tachi]

The social security administration could provide data if we ever needed to call up an actual draft.

Unless you're actively receiving benefits, the SSA cannot determine your residence (which makes calling up draftees based on their SSN impossible.)

[CEO Mindset]

Never should have been created in the first place.

This is the only logical answer to this kind of thread.

Given how the US is so biased in a "force the individual to "contribute" while doing nothing for them" mode to be in the same kind of territory as south korea, I'm honestly surprised at this point that the draft wasn't kept/brought back sometime in the 80s or 90s.

[vitoNova]

Selective Service is inherently immoral, and should be eliminated. 

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Can the #7 respondents please provide reasons? Do men and women occupy separate spheres in your minds?

[The Mikado]

Keep it the way it is.

Just for practical reasons, I think this is a disaster in the event a draft actually comes back. If you look at modern South Korea, where there is a draft, men complain to no end that women have a gigantic career head start because women are draft exempt and men have to waste several years of their prime in the military, a total burden on them that limits their career opportunities and potentials compared to their sisters who don't have to serve.

If conscription is going to exist, to avoid unfairly limiting men's career options by leaving them out of the workforce for so long, it really should be uniform for the entire population, like Israel does.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Keep it the way it is.

Just for practical reasons, I think this is a disaster in the event a draft actually comes back. If you look at modern South Korea, where there is a draft, men complain to no end that women have a gigantic career head start because women are draft exempt and men have to waste several years of their prime in the military, a total burden on them that limits their career opportunities and potentials compared to their sisters who don't have to serve.

If conscription is going to exist, to avoid unfairly limiting men's career options by leaving them out of the workforce for so long, it really should be uniform for the entire population, like Israel does.

Your points are valid, but tinkering with a system we haven't used since 1973 just seems unnecessary.   Just stop requiring anyone to register for the draft and be done with it all.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Keep it the way it is.

Just for practical reasons, I think this is a disaster in the event a draft actually comes back. If you look at modern South Korea, where there is a draft, men complain to no end that women have a gigantic career head start because women are draft exempt and men have to waste several years of their prime in the military, a total burden on them that limits their career opportunities and potentials compared to their sisters who don't have to serve.

If conscription is going to exist, to avoid unfairly limiting men's career options by leaving them out of the workforce for so long, it really should be uniform for the entire population, like Israel does.

Your points are valid, but tinkering with a system we haven't used since 1973 just seems unnecessary.   Just stop requiring anyone to register for the draft and be done with it all.

That contradicts your original post. "Keep it the way it is." would not entail stopping requiring registration. It sounds like you're actually for abolishing Selective Service then.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Keep it the way it is.

Just for practical reasons, I think this is a disaster in the event a draft actually comes back. If you look at modern South Korea, where there is a draft, men complain to no end that women have a gigantic career head start because women are draft exempt and men have to waste several years of their prime in the military, a total burden on them that limits their career opportunities and potentials compared to their sisters who don't have to serve.

If conscription is going to exist, to avoid unfairly limiting men's career options by leaving them out of the workforce for so long, it really should be uniform for the entire population, like Israel does.

Your points are valid, but tinkering with a system we haven't used since 1973 just seems unnecessary.   Just stop requiring anyone to register for the draft and be done with it all.

That contradicts your original post. "Keep it the way it is." would not entail stopping requiring registration. It sounds like you're actually for abolishing Selective Service then.

If the military feels it's still needed I'm fine with it the way it is.  My personal preference is to get rid of it, yes. 

[politicallefty]

It should be eliminated. However, so long as it exists, everyone should be required to register.