Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 20, 2018, 02:48:39 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: Transgender
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  All Print
Author Topic: Transgender  (Read 6920 times)
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,091

« Reply #20 on: December 28, 2017, 08:09:41 PM »

A more important issue to cadets, one which has been ignored so far, is what is NHQ going to do about PT?
Logged


deepblue1947
Member

Posts: 54
Unit: LA-076

« Reply #21 on: December 28, 2017, 09:36:18 PM »

This whole issue of transgenderism is going to open up a Pandora's box of issues that are going to have to be dealt with.  I see lawsuits a plenty in the future.  The issue of PT that Eclipse brings up is a valid one and just one of many that will arise.

MG
Logged
hamburgee
Member

Posts: 87

« Reply #22 on: December 28, 2017, 10:39:37 PM »

A more important issue to cadets, one which has been ignored so far, is what is NHQ going to do about PT?
As far as I know, the military enforces it according to one's preferred gender. People could argue that this is "unfair" and that "transgender/transsexual cadets have an unfair advantage", however from what I read it's worked fine for the military, and if it does end up being a problem, a gender-neutral CPFT plan could be implemented, where everyone would be held to the same standards, while still being fair for both males and females alike.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,091

« Reply #23 on: December 28, 2017, 10:43:25 PM »

a gender-neutral CPFT plan could be implemented, where everyone would be held to the same standards, while still being fair for both males and females alike.

I don't frankly know why CAP doesn't have this already - one less argument.

"Equal" is "equal".
Logged


LSThiker
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,839
Unit: Earth

« Reply #24 on: December 28, 2017, 10:50:43 PM »

This whole issue of transgenderism is going to open up a Pandora's box of issues that are going to have to be dealt with.  I see lawsuits a plenty in the future.  The issue of PT that Eclipse brings up is a valid one and just one of many that will arise.

MG

Care to provide evidence for said claim?  Or why your opinion has any validity?  Or provide examples of the “lawsuits a plenty”?
Logged
EMT-83
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,881

« Reply #25 on: December 28, 2017, 10:52:40 PM »

This whole issue of transgenderism is going to open up a Pandora's box of issues that are going to have to be dealt with.  I see lawsuits a plenty in the future.  The issue of PT that Eclipse brings up is a valid one and just one of many that will arise.

MG

I disagree. CAP has a long history of accommodating members who may not have welcome in other organizations: physical disabilities, learning disabilities, religious beliefs, sexual orientation don't matter. The organization was founded on the belief that civilians not eligible for military service could serve their country.

This is merely a speed bump on a road that will soon be smoothed over.
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,251

« Reply #26 on: December 28, 2017, 11:02:53 PM »

a gender-neutral CPFT plan could be implemented, where everyone would be held to the same standards, while still being fair for both males and females alike.

I don't frankly know why CAP doesn't have this already - one less argument.

"Equal" is "equal".

So do you set the standard at the current level for males, or do you lower the standards for all, to be at what females do now? Or do you just split the difference, which makes it easier for those who are born male, but harder for those who were born female?

Or just let everyone get by with a 30 minute mile run/walk? LOLOL

No matter what ... standards will be lower.

Recruiting may benefit from this. But few will qualify to wear blues ever again.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2017, 11:06:03 PM by etodd » Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,571
Unit: Classified

« Reply #27 on: December 28, 2017, 11:07:52 PM »

As far as I know, the military enforces it according to one's preferred gender.

No they don't there is a lengthy process involved, a mil member can't just wake up the next morning or on the spur of the moment decide they are different gender.  And should a member feel they are transgender simply saying they are or feeling they are does not allow them any entitlements.

Logged
hamburgee
Member

Posts: 87

« Reply #28 on: December 29, 2017, 12:51:39 AM »

As far as I know, the military enforces it according to one's preferred gender.

No they don't there is a lengthy process involved, a mil member can't just wake up the next morning or on the spur of the moment decide they are different gender.  And should a member feel they are transgender simply saying they are or feeling they are does not allow them any entitlements.
To clarify - by "preferred gender" I meant their legal gender (such as how a trans male would be recognized as a male). Yes, there is a whole process with a medical professional to determine whether gender transition is necessary. At that point, after gender transition, they are to be recognized as their gender.
Logged
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,131
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #29 on: December 29, 2017, 01:01:29 AM »

a gender-neutral CPFT plan could be implemented, where everyone would be held to the same standards, while still being fair for both males and females alike.

I don't frankly know why CAP doesn't have this already - one less argument.

"Equal" is "equal".

So do you set the standard at the current level for males, or do you lower the standards for all, to be at what females do now? Or do you just split the difference, which makes it easier for those who are born male, but harder for those who were born female?

Or just let everyone get by with a 30 minute mile run/walk? LOLOL

No matter what ... standards will be lower.

Recruiting may benefit from this. But few will qualify to wear blues ever again.


Hi, eTodd.

The wear of blues uniforms by cadets under 18 is not in any way linked to performance on PT tests. One does not "qualify" to wear the USAF style uniforms in any way other than being a current member properly groomed and in weight standards; cadets under 18 are currently allowed to be significantly obese and still wear blues without penalty, even as the current PT program urges them to adopt a healthy, exercise-enhanced lifestyle (but we don't withhold the wear of the uniform as a penalty for obesity).

Members (including cadets) over 18 who don't meet the CAPM 39-1 height/weight tables may not wear blues, and will wear other options.

Just trying to make sure we don't cross the streams here...

R/s
Spam

(modified: added grooming/weight)
« Last Edit: December 29, 2017, 01:13:38 AM by Spam » Logged
Cadetter
Seasoned Member

Posts: 224

« Reply #30 on: December 29, 2017, 01:02:10 AM »

So do you set the standard at the current level for males, or do you lower the standards for all, to be at what females do now? Or do you just split the difference, which makes it easier for those who are born male, but harder for those who were born female?

Just an observation: While I know very few females who pass all requirements at both the female and male standards, only one out of six male cadets in my squadron who struggles with PT regularly meets the female standard for his age and rank. And with the new PT program, the differences are even less noticeable, except for PACER, which nearly everyone hates anyway.
Logged
Wright Brothers Award, 2013
Billy Mitchell Award, 2016
Earhart Award, 2018

Planned: Eaker Award, late 2018 or early 2019; Spaatz Award, summer 2019
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,091

« Reply #31 on: December 29, 2017, 01:33:13 AM »

And with the new PT program, the differences are even less noticeable, except for PACER, which nearly everyone hates anyway.

You may want to review those numbers again - they are significantly different, especially at the older end of
the range / phases.





Logged


Cadetter
Seasoned Member

Posts: 224

« Reply #32 on: December 29, 2017, 01:46:27 AM »

The differences [in male cadets who fail PT but meet the female standards], in my squadron, was what I referred to. But let's pretend that I was referring to the blanket difference between males and females:

I'm aware of the numbers. Are you telling me that the difference between an 8:04 mile (male) and 9:22 mile (female) is significantly different, when compared to, hmm, 8:06 mile (male) and 12:11 mile (female), or 6:35 versus 9:14, when both genders are 17? http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Cadet_Super_Chart_94732A5667D92_C5995ABD1FAC3.pdf

In my experience, nearly everyone passes curl-ups under both programs. Push-ups are capped at 18 for males and 7 for females under the new program; those caps were 46 for males and 22 for females under the old. I don't know about you, but I find it easier to go from 7 to 18 than from 22 to 46. So IMO, the gender disparity for PT and potential implications with trans cadets is less serious under the new program (because there's less difference).
Logged
Wright Brothers Award, 2013
Billy Mitchell Award, 2016
Earhart Award, 2018

Planned: Eaker Award, late 2018 or early 2019; Spaatz Award, summer 2019
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,091

« Reply #33 on: December 29, 2017, 02:00:26 AM »

I'm aware of the numbers. Are you telling me that the difference between an 8:04 mile (male) and 9:22 mile (female) is significantly different, 

It's absolutely night and day, and I've personally seen even less margin be the difference between
"I was a Spaatz." and "I basically completed the Cadet Program...Spaatz is just icing on the cake for some..."

A minute on a mile might as well be a month if you're a marathoner and not a sprinter.  Some top out and are never
able to cut their time.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you are significantly discounting the differences,
and should consider yourself luck that your atypical squadron is currently having little
issues with the expectations, because I can assure that's not the general CAP experience.

On the norm you will have cadets hanging for months on 1 or two push ups or curl ups
or 10 seconds on the mile.

The practical reality of a full minute on the mile, double the curl ups, 2/3rds the pacer,
triple the push ups, 25% more curl ups, is that these are not trivial numbers and for
many cadets would literally be the difference between pass or fail.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2017, 02:03:34 AM by Eclipse » Logged


Cadetter
Seasoned Member

Posts: 224

« Reply #34 on: December 29, 2017, 02:12:19 AM »

You're also entitled to your opinion that six cadets failing PT every month is 'luck' - my squadron only has about 12-15 active cadets. I would call it a serious issue.

I didn't say the numbers were trivial. I indicated that they are becoming less unequal with the new program. I consider that a one minute mile difference, while noticeable, isn't nearly as noticeable as a four minute difference. Previously it was double the push ups (but again, 11 more is probably slightly easier than 14-22 more) and 10 more curl ups (now 6, but not with a 1-minute time). "Less" serious does not equal "trivial"

You cut my quote. I said, "Are you telling me that the difference between an 8:04 mile (male) and 9:22 mile (female) is significantly different, when compared to, hmm, 8:06 mile (male) and 12:11 mile (female)..."

Currently I'm struggling to bring down a 9:45 mile to a 9:34. It's eleven seconds. It's not a fast mile, but I'm struggling. I have some understanding of the difference between and 8 minute and a 9 minute mile, because while I can sometimes get 9 to 9:15 and it feels the same, it's not consistent, and getting below 9 minutes will be challenging (hopefully attainable). I have no idea if I will be able to get below 7:30 in a year or two when I attempt Spaatz. The lower the times are, the greater the difficulty in shaving off time. I get that. (translatable to other physical activities as well, of course)
« Last Edit: December 29, 2017, 02:22:57 AM by Cadetter » Logged
Wright Brothers Award, 2013
Billy Mitchell Award, 2016
Earhart Award, 2018

Planned: Eaker Award, late 2018 or early 2019; Spaatz Award, summer 2019
Cadetter
Seasoned Member

Posts: 224

« Reply #35 on: December 29, 2017, 02:15:24 AM »

deleted
Logged
Wright Brothers Award, 2013
Billy Mitchell Award, 2016
Earhart Award, 2018

Planned: Eaker Award, late 2018 or early 2019; Spaatz Award, summer 2019
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,471

« Reply #36 on: December 29, 2017, 02:42:45 PM »

a gender-neutral CPFT plan could be implemented, where everyone would be held to the same standards, while still being fair for both males and females alike.

I don't frankly know why CAP doesn't have this already - one less argument.

"Equal" is "equal".

The military has had that same debate endlessly.

Equality is "hurtful."


Currently I'm struggling to bring down a 9:45 mile to a 9:34. It's eleven seconds. It's not a fast mile, but I'm struggling. I have some understanding of the difference between and 8 minute and a 9 minute mile, because while I can sometimes get 9 to 9:15 and it feels the same, it's not consistent, and getting below 9 minutes will be challenging (hopefully attainable). I have no idea if I will be able to get below 7:30 in a year or two when I attempt Spaatz. The lower the times are, the greater the difficulty in shaving off time. I get that. (translatable to other physical activities as well, of course)

Run faster.

There are people that can run 5:15 miles.
Logged
MrsRoe
Member

Posts: 61

« Reply #37 on: December 29, 2017, 02:56:33 PM »

a gender-neutral CPFT plan could be implemented, where everyone would be held to the same standards, while still being fair for both males and females alike.

I don't frankly know why CAP doesn't have this already - one less argument.

"Equal" is "equal".

So do you set the standard at the current level for males, or do you lower the standards for all, to be at what females do now? Or do you just split the difference, which makes it easier for those who are born male, but harder for those who were born female?

Or just let everyone get by with a 30 minute mile run/walk? LOLOL

No matter what ... standards will be lower.

Recruiting may benefit from this. But few will qualify to wear blues ever again.

Why would standards be lower? As a mother of a female cadet, stop assuming girls can’t run, do push ups etc. Push females to reach their peek physical abilities, and then push them further. I would love to see the PT standards for females changed to a healthier standard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
Just a new SM and mom of a CAP kid trying to figure it out one acronym at a time
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,251

« Reply #38 on: December 29, 2017, 03:16:18 PM »

a gender-neutral CPFT plan could be implemented, where everyone would be held to the same standards, while still being fair for both males and females alike.

I don't frankly know why CAP doesn't have this already - one less argument.

"Equal" is "equal".

So do you set the standard at the current level for males, or do you lower the standards for all, to be at what females do now? Or do you just split the difference, which makes it easier for those who are born male, but harder for those who were born female?

Or just let everyone get by with a 30 minute mile run/walk? LOLOL

No matter what ... standards will be lower.

Recruiting may benefit from this. But few will qualify to wear blues ever again.

Why would standards be lower? As a mother of a female cadet, stop assuming girls can’t run, do push ups etc. Push females to reach their peek physical abilities, and then push them further. I would love to see the PT standards for females changed to a healthier standard.


Great! So there is one vote to move the female standards, along with all transgenders, to the higher standards traditional of males, and just have one set of requirements. I'll second that motion. Shall we vote and let Hdqs know?  ;)
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
MrsRoe
Member

Posts: 61

« Reply #39 on: December 29, 2017, 04:40:30 PM »

a gender-neutral CPFT plan could be implemented, where everyone would be held to the same standards, while still being fair for both males and females alike.

I don't frankly know why CAP doesn't have this already - one less argument.

"Equal" is "equal".

So do you set the standard at the current level for males, or do you lower the standards for all, to be at what females do now? Or do you just split the difference, which makes it easier for those who are born male, but harder for those who were born female?

Or just let everyone get by with a 30 minute mile run/walk? LOLOL

No matter what ... standards will be lower.

Recruiting may benefit from this. But few will qualify to wear blues ever again.

Why would standards be lower? As a mother of a female cadet, stop assuming girls can’t run, do push ups etc. Push females to reach their peek physical abilities, and then push them further. I would love to see the PT standards for females changed to a healthier standard.


Great! So there is one vote to move the female standards, along with all transgenders, to the higher standards traditional of males, and just have one set of requirements. I'll second that motion. Shall we vote and let Hdqs know?  ;)

Dooooo it lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
Just a new SM and mom of a CAP kid trying to figure it out one acronym at a time
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: Transgender
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.074 seconds with 20 queries.