SuperWSO Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Gay, lesbian troops perform in drag at Kadena Air Base fundraiser Sophie's Choice - this, or Kadena, don't they fly light grays there? I hate to stereo type, but sometimes the shoe just fits. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panchbarnes Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) Gay, lesbian troops perform in drag at Kadena Air Base fundraiser Sophie's Choice - this, or How can the Air Force allow such promotion of excessive sexuality to take place on base and at the same time crack down on workplace display of personal items that might be interpreted as sexually offensive. The attendees should be labeled as bystanders and cowards for not reporting this violation to leadership and SAPR. Regardless of your sexual preference this is just total hypocrisy. Would it be okay if someone held a heterosexual female pole dancing contest at the O-club? No, it would be an outrage in this day and age. The organizers and attendees would be punished severely and kicked out of the AF. On the other hand, the GLBT fundraiser organizers will probably get rewarded with quarterly awards and firewall 5s for this little event. Last thing, GLBT activists should be outraged at them for perpetuating the stereotype (unless it's true) that gays and lesbians are nothing but freak shows & cross dressers instead of the regular hardworkin' warfightin' airmen that they should be. Edited March 3, 2014 by PanchBarnes 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egghead Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 How can the Air Force allow such promotion of excessive sexuality to take place on base and at the same time crack down on workplace display of personal items that might be interpreted as sexually offensive. The attendees should be labeled as bystanders and cowards for not reporting this violation to leadership and SAPR. Regardless of your sexual preference this is just total hypocrisy. Would it be okay if someone held a heterosexual female pole dancing contest at the O-club? No, it would be an outrage in this day and age. The organizers and attendees would be punished severely and kicked out of the AF. On the other hand, the GLBT fundraiser organizers will probably get rewarded with quarterly awards and firewall 5s for this little event. Last thing, GLBT activists should be outraged at them for perpetuating the stereotype (unless it's true) that gays and lesbians are nothing but freak shows & cross dressers instead of the regular hardworkin' warfightin' airmen that they should be. I missed the pole dancing in there. Drag isn't sexual (at least that show wasn't). It's no worse than the hilarious powderpuff games I've watched at high school games with the guys in cheerleaders outfits and chicks in football jerseys. What about all the youtube vids of soldiers/marines/airmen/sailors in only short shorts singing madonna or Brittany spears? Mountains out of molehills. 1 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panchbarnes Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) The point is if we are going to play gotcha games with a picture of a girl in bikini at your desk and throwing out runner's world, then the show was in gross violation of the AF's policy of a healthy work climate (people do work at the club). Pole dancing was just hypothetical. Okay, how about a swimsuit contest at the O-club? The video highlighted one of the male cross dressers prancing around suggestively in corset and stockings. I'm no prude, but again the AF is trying to promote sexual assault prevention awareness and workplace professionalism. They need to get with the program. Edited March 3, 2014 by PanchBarnes 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hispeed7721 Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 The point is if we are going to play gotcha games with a picture of a girl in bikini at your desk and throwing out runner's world, then the show was in gross violation of the AF's policy of a healthy work climate (people do work at the club). This. There is blatant hypocrisy with the sole objective of "being fair" at the expense of consistency. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk It's no worse than the hilarious powderpuff games I've watched at high school games with the guys in cheerleaders outfits and chicks in football jerseys. Really? What does high school have to do with this? When was the last time you saw "guys in cheerleaders outfits and chicks in football jerseys" in the AF? Comparing drag to HS powderpuff has dick (sts) to do with anything in the military Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egghead Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Really? What does high school have to do with this? When was the last time you saw "guys in cheerleaders outfits and chicks in football jerseys" in the AF? Comparing drag to HS powderpuff has dick (sts) to do with anything in the military OK, history fun fact of the day: WW2 U.S. Soldier Drag Show (1942) | The Public Domain Review Panch, someone seriously thought runnersworld was distasteful? Holy $H**. I can understand where you're coming from better now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HercDude Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Panch, someone seriously thought runnersworld was distasteful? Holy $H**. I can understand where you're coming from better now. What rock have you been living under? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hispeed7721 Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 OK, history fun fact of the day: WW2 U.S. Soldier Drag Show (1942) | The Public Domain Review Panch, someone seriously thought runnersworld was distasteful? Holy $H**. I can understand where you're coming from better now. Not to drag your previous statement out, but a WWII drag show still doesn't have dick to do with a HS powderpuff game. A drag show then vs a drag show now, got it. Hopefully that second statement is a joke, my sarcasm detector may be inop this morning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoopyeast Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 OK, history fun fact of the day: WW2 U.S. Soldier Drag Show (1942) | The Public Domain Review Does that mean we can put noseart back on the jets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egghead Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) Does that mean we can put noseart back on the jets? Bring an extra paintbrush and I'll help. Edited March 5, 2014 by Egghead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deaddebate Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Gay marriage now available for over half of all Americans--legal in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, & Wisconsinhttp://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/same-sex-marriage-is-now-legal-for-a-majority-of-the-u-s http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/symposium-the-supreme-courts-opt-out-means-more-marriage-equality-but-continuing-harms-to-gay-and-lesbian-couples http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-declines-to-review-same-sex-marriage-cases/2014/10/06/ee822848-4d5e-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/us/denying-review-justices-clear-way-for-gay-marriage-in-5-states.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Everyone's probably already seen this (it went "viral" today), but for the few that haven't... U.S. Army Spc. Sabryna Schlagetter kisses her wife, Cheyenne, after returning home to Fort Carson, Colorado, with other members of the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team on Friday, November 14. The couple married on Valentine's Day this year before Sabryna deployed to Afghanistan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoleIt Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zrooster99 Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Hot! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/10/usa-today-capital-download-air-force-secretary-deborah-lee-james/20165453Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James says the ban on transgender troops is likely to be reassessed and should be lifted. "Times change," she told Capital Download, saying the policy "is likely to come under review in the next year or so." Asked whether dropping the ban would affect military readiness, she replied: "From my point of view, anyone who is capable of accomplishing the job should be able to serve."I previously wrote about this topic here: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickhistory Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Ick. But then so was the previous decision. That "needs of the many" thing doesn't seem to be a military necessity anymore. Definitely a first-world problem. We can discuss the ramifications of such an individual becoming captured by less progressive enemies elsewhere, I guess. Have fun. I freely acknowledge my dinosaurness. Proudly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Apparently I'm cisgender. I had no idea the trannies would come up with an equally bizarre term for a normal person. I'll save y'all some googling:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestik Møøse Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Written by the same guy who advised the use of the term "PMV-4" instead of "car". We're really swimming in "technical correctness" and hyper-inclusiveness these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoleIt Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Man Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Ick. But then so was the previous decision. That "needs of the many" thing doesn't seem to be a military necessity anymore. Definitely a first-world problem. We can discuss the ramifications of such an individual becoming captured by less progressive enemies elsewhere, I guess. Have fun. I freely acknowledge my dinosaurness. Proudly. Honest question: what is your position on black people? 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirkDiggler Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Just like the Katoy bathrooms in Thailand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickhistory Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) Honest question: what is your position on black people? Taste like chicken... But on a more serious note: 1. edited to delete the F. U. I originally had written 2. I don't equate race with LGBT. Great if you do, I don't. 3. What is the percentage of transgenders compared to the overall male/female population, particularly that percentage within the military? Given that ithe percentage is going to be exceedingly small, the amount of attention, the funds, and the asspain (sts) expended to accomodate this miniscule percentage doesn't make economic or military sense. 4. Another example of the very large majority having to adapt to the even tinier minority that is the "T" part of LGBT. edited to delete the original "Oh yeah, before I forget, F.U." I had written. Having walked away from the Lena Dunham-like non-accusation accusation, in this case, that I'm racist, I will attempt to make my point. If there are to be standards for serving, why? If those standards can be changed to accomodate, relatively speaking, a small percentage, i.e., gay/lesbian, and I think it is a given that the transgender percentage is waaaay smaller than that, then why are the remaining standards any more valid? We could make reasonable accomodations for the severely crippled. We could find uses for the mentally retarded. If you think these points are ludicrous, then why? Wouldn't your 'standards' be arbitrary and discriminatory to someone who, by definition, doesn't meet those 'standards' and are excluded because you decided to do so? Giving a military order and expecting it to be obeyed is a standard enforced by law. But unless that order is given to everyone, isn't it discriminatory? "Go fly this exceedingly dangerous mission with a good chance of you not coming back. I don't need the entire squadron to perform the job, just one jet/crew. That's you." Sure seems arbitrary to me and a smart 'victim' class can make the argument that the order is discriminatory. Silly? Absolutely. But it does follow the logic train being ridden by the LGBT brigade. Logic and common sense aren't necessarily the same thing. Edited December 12, 2014 by brickhistory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Man Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 Taste like chicken... But on a more serious note: 1. edited to delete the F. U. I originally had written 2. I don't equate race with LGBT. Great if you do, I don't. 3. What is the percentage of transgenders compared to the overall male/female population, particularly that percentage within the military? Given that ithe percentage is going to be exceedingly small, the amount of attention, the funds, and the asspain (sts) expended to accomodate this miniscule percentage doesn't make economic or military sense. 4. Another example of the very large majority having to adapt to the even tinier minority that is the "T" part of LGBT. edited to delete the original "Oh yeah, before I forget, F.U." I had written. Having walked away from the Lena Dunham-like non-accusation accusation, in this case, that I'm racist, I will attempt to make my point. If there are to be standards for serving, why? If those standards can be changed to accomodate, relatively speaking, a small percentage, i.e., gay/lesbian, and I think it is a given that the transgender percentage is waaaay smaller than that, then why are the remaining standards any more valid? We could make reasonable accomodations for the severely crippled. We could find uses for the mentally retarded. If you think these points are ludicrous, then why? Wouldn't your 'standards' be arbitrary and discriminatory to someone who, by definition, doesn't meet those 'standards' and are excluded because you decided to do so? Giving a military order and expecting it to be obeyed is a standard enforced by law. But unless that order is given to everyone, isn't it discriminatory? "Go fly this exceedingly dangerous mission with a good chance of you not coming back. I don't need the entire squadron to perform the job, just one jet/crew. That's you." Sure seems arbitrary to me and a smart 'victim' class can make the argument that the order is discriminatory. Silly? Absolutely. But it does follow the logic train being ridden by the LGBT brigade. Logic and common sense aren't necessarily the same thing. Thanks for the response; despite your anger towards me for pointing out your bigotry, you almost made sense. Couple more questions for you: - How are we expending "attention, funds, and asspain" to accommodate said individuals besides just allowing them to serve? - Are you also against females serving since their PT standards are different? - What standards were changed after the repeal of DADT? Also, crews get hand-picked for missions all the time, so not real sure what your point is there. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickhistory Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 Neatly done. I'm a bigot for not agreeing with the concept. But those who think that the majority should be bent to the will of the minority are not? Convenient. Couple, actually only one, of questions for you: How are you gonna solve the problem of accomodating a transgender individual in a military unit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 This will definitely make piss tests more interesting... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now