If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RealClear)   Panel urges the president to sign an executive order lifting the ban on transgender military service   (realclear.com) divider line 55
    More: Interesting, military service, U.S. Surgeon General, Palm Center, presidential executive order, San Francisco State University, Department of Defense, Chelsea Manning, judicial panel  
•       •       •

888 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Mar 2014 at 9:46 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-14 09:48:43 AM
You don't need a dick to squeeze a trigger.
just an angry inch will do.
 
2014-03-14 09:51:02 AM
You would think republicans would want to see them dying in a far away land.
 
2014-03-14 09:51:24 AM
This is my rifle, this is...where my gun used to be.
 
2014-03-14 09:53:09 AM
Some dude with his junk cut off is more likely to be able to haul a wounded man out of a foxhole  than a chick with fake junk and a bad mustache. In the end, i'm ok with this.
 
2014-03-14 09:55:20 AM
Both transgender people looking to join the military will be grateful if this goes through.
 
2014-03-14 09:55:34 AM

jaybeezey: In the end, i'm ok with this.


I bet.
 
2014-03-14 10:00:24 AM
But Center for Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly, whose group opposed the repeal of the ban on openly gay troops, predicted that putting transgender people in barracks, showers and other sex-segregated could cause sexual assaults to increase and infringe on the privacy of non-transgender personnel.

"I had kept my bigotry to myself, but once a transgender person used the bathroom stall next to me, my irrational hate for them became apparent! Now everyone thinks I'm a horrible person! What about my rights?!"

Also, statistically, aren't transgender people more likely to be the  victims of sexual assault, rather than the perpetrators? So, really, isn't Donnelly saying that we have to ban transgender people from the military because of all of the rapists that are currently in the ranks?
 
2014-03-14 10:04:19 AM
I don't see actively transitioning people being allowed in to the service any day soon. It's not so much the psych aspect, but more health readiness. The military doesn't normally take on people with serious, pre-existing conditions. Asthma, diabetes, cancer, etc... All those are disqualifying. Makes the same amount of sense to me, to prohibit enlistment of actively transitioning people too...lots of medical care required for that group.

As for fully stable post-op types...the line gets a little iffy there.  At that point, there's not a whole lot of difference between MtF trans, and normal female requiring supplemental hormones.

In the end, it's going to take actual professionals sitting down to make the decisions, rather than the "political" demands of either side of the line.
 
2014-03-14 10:06:05 AM
FARK ! That SOB Putin is going to laugh even harder now !!!  :(
 
2014-03-14 10:06:14 AM

mbillips: Both transgender people looking to join the military will be grateful if this goes through.


You'd be amazed. MtF military veterans are a big enough block of people that VA actually has a bunch of policy and rules on dealing with them.

Lots of MtFs, myself included, join the military in an attempt to "man up" and fix ourselves.
 
2014-03-14 10:07:12 AM
And Klingons. We need their hardy warrior instincts.
 
2014-03-14 10:07:32 AM

jaybeezey: Some dude with his junk cut off is more likely to be able to haul a wounded man out of a foxhole  than a chick with fake junk and a bad mustache. In the end, i'm ok with this.


img.fark.net
"Lemon, you're a man. You're a man's man. You're a man's man's man. And more importantly your hand, while strong and masculine, is soft as a velvet child."
 
2014-03-14 10:07:39 AM

IsThatYourFinalAnswer: I don't see actively transitioning people being allowed in to the service any day soon. It's not so much the psych aspect, but more health readiness. The military doesn't normally take on people with serious, pre-existing conditions. Asthma, diabetes, cancer, etc... All those are disqualifying. Makes the same amount of sense to me, to prohibit enlistment of actively transitioning people too...lots of medical care required for that group.


This is also why anyone who gets injured is immediately discharged from the military, regardless of whether they'll recover.
 
2014-03-14 10:07:53 AM

mbillips: Both transgender people looking to join the military will be grateful if this goes through.


They're actually the same person.
 
2014-03-14 10:12:26 AM

Theaetetus: IsThatYourFinalAnswer: I don't see actively transitioning people being allowed in to the service any day soon. It's not so much the psych aspect, but more health readiness. The military doesn't normally take on people with serious, pre-existing conditions. Asthma, diabetes, cancer, etc... All those are disqualifying. Makes the same amount of sense to me, to prohibit enlistment of actively transitioning people too...lots of medical care required for that group.

This is also why anyone who gets injured is immediately discharged from the military, regardless of whether they'll recover.


Depends on the injury. A chronic, long-term injury that impedes the ability to deploy overseas, you'll get medically retired/discharged. It's a decision for med board.

To flip the script, view it like this. We allow actively transitioning person into the service. They get told "Hey, shiat's going down, we're deploying. Conditions are austere, we need to stop your transition. It's unknown when we'll have the specialists needed in-theater to treat you."

Being trans myself, that would SUCK.
 
2014-03-14 10:13:06 AM
Kind of torn on this one. I believe that anyone who bravely wants to grab a gun and work for this country by possibly placing themselves into harmful situations that might get them killed, should be allowed to, celebrated for it and given every oportunity to do so; however, the "ship of state" does not turn on a dime and we're currently working through the kinks (no pun intended) of integrating both women and homosexuals into the military that I think tossing another group into the mix too soon could cause some unintended problems. As crappy as it sounds, I just don't think they're ready for this step yet - give it a few more years to let the first batch get settled in, then bring in the new ingredients.

/yea, cuz it's just like making a darn cake!!
 
2014-03-14 10:14:26 AM
I have a legit question:  aren't there often ongoing hormone injections going on in situations like this?  If so I would think it would be a disqualifying thing based on that.  While not "medically necessary" for health like the diabetus, the military needs soldiers that it can basically dump out in the middle of nowhere with minimal supplies..
 
2014-03-14 10:15:37 AM
I don't think they should, well thats not completly true.

If the military treated their members like Adults, then yes lift it.
But since the military doesn't treat you like an adult no.
 
2014-03-14 10:16:29 AM

IsThatYourFinalAnswer: Theaetetus: IsThatYourFinalAnswer: I don't see actively transitioning people being allowed in to the service any day soon. It's not so much the psych aspect, but more health readiness. The military doesn't normally take on people with serious, pre-existing conditions. Asthma, diabetes, cancer, etc... All those are disqualifying. Makes the same amount of sense to me, to prohibit enlistment of actively transitioning people too...lots of medical care required for that group.

This is also why anyone who gets injured is immediately discharged from the military, regardless of whether they'll recover.

Depends on the injury. A chronic, long-term injury that impedes the ability to deploy overseas, you'll get medically retired/discharged. It's a decision for med board.

To flip the script, view it like this. We allow actively transitioning person into the service. They get told "Hey, shiat's going down, we're deploying. Conditions are austere, we need to stop your transition. It's unknown when we'll have the specialists needed in-theater to treat you."

Being trans myself, that would SUCK.


The bigger issue is that people who are already  in the service want to transition, and are then discharged, regardless of the fact that they'll recover and be viable troops again. This is distinct from people who are already in the service and, say, have back injuries.
 
2014-03-14 10:17:16 AM

mjbok: I have a legit question:  aren't there often ongoing hormone injections going on in situations like this?  If so I would think it would be a disqualifying thing based on that.  While not "medically necessary" for health like the diabetus, the military needs soldiers that it can basically dump out in the middle of nowhere with minimal supplies..


That was exactly my point. during the active phase of transition (hormones and such), there's medications with wonky side effects, hormones itself, psych issues, endocrinology work ups every three months.

Boots on the ground in a early warzone ain't gonna have that.
 
2014-03-14 10:21:06 AM
No.  Just no.
 
2014-03-14 10:21:41 AM

IsThatYourFinalAnswer: mbillips: Both transgender people looking to join the military will be grateful if this goes through.

You'd be amazed. MtF military veterans are a big enough block of people that VA actually has a bunch of policy and rules on dealing with them.

Lots of MtFs, myself included, join the military in an attempt to "man up" and fix ourselves.


You'd think, though, that there wouldn't be a lot of post-surgery applicants, since most military recruits are in the 18-25 age range, which I would think is while people are still working through those identity issues. Seriously, it doesn't matter how many people we're talking about; the fewer, the easier it would be to deal with. Just make the policy and move on.

/I've been in 33 years, active and reserve; this is really not that big a deal except to older lifers with insufficient contact with civilian America to grow up properly. As they retire, it won't be an issue at all going forward. We may lose some conservative Christian recruits, but ::shrug:: we don't get many Amish or Hassidim, either.
 
2014-03-14 10:24:47 AM
Yeah, escape your oppression by joining an organization that facilitates oppression all over the world... great idea.
 
2014-03-14 10:29:24 AM

mbillips: You'd think, though, that there wouldn't be a lot of post-surgery applicants, since most military recruits are in the 18-25 age range, which I would think is while people are still working through those identity issues. Seriously, it doesn't matter how many people we're talking about; the fewer, the easier it would be to deal with. Just make the policy and move on.

/I've been in 33 years, active and reserve; this is really not that big a deal except to older lifers with insufficient contact with civilian America to grow up properly. As they retire, it won't be an issue at all going forward. We may lose some conservative Christian recruits, but ::shrug:: we don't get many Amish or Hassidim, either.


I've actually heard ~rumors~ of a few post-transition MtFs who pull off enlisting.  I agree too, soon the bigotry type reasonings behind keeping trans out of the military will die off. much the same as DADT. The actual medical issues surrounding it though, I'm unsure of.

Really, the easiest policy would be, active transition is a disqualifier for enlistment. Transition while in-service (assuming honorable service) should be handled with a good separation with a RE-1A Reenlistment code (RE-1A - Ineligible to reenlist, but condition waived). That way when they finish transition, they can re-enlist no prob.
 
2014-03-14 10:32:32 AM
Y'all are missing something important here - very few people in the military are combat arms.  About 8-12% in the Army.  The vast majority of folks in the service are in support positions.   Discussions about suitability for grabbing a rifle and storming an enemy position are almost completely off base in this context.

The past ban on gays has certainly boned the military on some eminently qualified young folks in linguistics, psyops, and intel.  You know, the Chairborne Rangers - people who fight with their brains not with their hands .  If my cross-section of trans friends is any indicator, they're leaving some plenty smart (and useful to the nation) folks behind by enforcing the ban on people with non-standard sexual identity too.

- Coming from a long line of folks with legitimate draft deferments due to doing research and similar work for the defense industry, I hold these force-multiplier positions in high esteem.
 
2014-03-14 10:32:42 AM
What a weird 'ban' to have.
 
2014-03-14 10:36:13 AM
cdn.frontpagemag.com

/Approve
 
2014-03-14 10:38:03 AM

AtomicPlayboy: Y'all are missing something important here - very few people in the military are combat arms.  About 8-12% in the Army.  The vast majority of folks in the service are in support positions.   Discussions about suitability for grabbing a rifle and storming an enemy position are almost completely off base in this context.

The past ban on gays has certainly boned the military on some eminently qualified young folks in linguistics, psyops, and intel.  You know, the Chairborne Rangers - people who fight with their brains not with their hands .  If my cross-section of trans friends is any indicator, they're leaving some plenty smart (and useful to the nation) folks behind by enforcing the ban on people with non-standard sexual identity too.

- Coming from a long line of folks with legitimate draft deferments due to doing research and similar work for the defense industry, I hold these force-multiplier positions in high esteem.


Yes and no, there (damn I'm posting a lot in dis thread).  As the boondoggle in Iraq proved, there's no such thing as "front lines" anymore.  Everyone is expected to be able to grab a rifle and do an infantryman's job.

This, of course, has jack-all to do with being transgender. If Jenny (who was Jim) can do the job and pull her weight, I'd be more than willing to have her on my team.

It'll give new meaning to the joke "my balls are bigger than yours" too!
 
2014-03-14 10:38:39 AM

IsThatYourFinalAnswer: mbillips: Both transgender people looking to join the military will be grateful if this goes through.

You'd be amazed. MtF military veterans are a big enough block of people that VA actually has a bunch of policy and rules on dealing with them.

Lots of MtFs, myself included, join the military in an attempt to "man up" and fix ourselves.


So how'd that work out for you?
(not sarcasm,  it just sounds like it)

Also, as a MtF,  what's you opinion on trans types in the military?


/ex Navy
 
2014-03-14 10:44:19 AM

AugieDoggyDaddy: IsThatYourFinalAnswer: mbillips: Both transgender people looking to join the military will be grateful if this goes through.

You'd be amazed. MtF military veterans are a big enough block of people that VA actually has a bunch of policy and rules on dealing with them.

Lots of MtFs, myself included, join the military in an attempt to "man up" and fix ourselves.

So how'd that work out for you?
(not sarcasm,  it just sounds like it)

Also, as a MtF,  what's you opinion on trans types in the military?


/ex Navy


Go Army Beat Navy.

Now that THAT is out the way....hard question. The military didn't help me "man up" at all. It did help me grow up, which was something I needed a helluva lot more.  Full-blown gender dysphoric transgender is nothing you can really fix, except with actual transition.

As for my opinion, I think that people actively transitioning shouldn't be serving. Not out of any moral reason, but more due to deployment issues and having proper medical care in austere environments.  If a transgender person is A. not seeking transition or B. already done with it, I see no reason for keeping them out.
 
2014-03-14 10:44:47 AM
29 posts without this?

Fark, I am disappoint.
 
2014-03-14 10:45:47 AM

AtomicPlayboy: Y'all are missing something important here - very few people in the military are combat arms.  About 8-12% in the Army.  The vast majority of folks in the service are in support positions.   Discussions about suitability for grabbing a rifle and storming an enemy position are almost completely off base in this context.

The past ban on gays has certainly boned the military on some eminently qualified young folks in linguistics, psyops, and intel.  You know, the Chairborne Rangers - people who fight with their brains not with their hands .  If my cross-section of trans friends is any indicator, they're leaving some plenty smart (and useful to the nation) folks behind by enforcing the ban on people with non-standard sexual identity too.


Yes, but if push comes to shove, any person in the military could be immediately transferred to a front line combat position, if that's what the force required. That's why all military people have to take fitness tests and stay in shape, regardless of position.

www.outofregs.com
For example, this is one of our fighting elephants.
 
2014-03-14 10:46:34 AM

IsThatYourFinalAnswer: AtomicPlayboy: Y'all are missing something important here - very few people in the military are combat arms.  About 8-12% in the Army.  The vast majority of folks in the service are in support positions.   Discussions about suitability for grabbing a rifle and storming an enemy position are almost completely off base in this context.

The past ban on gays has certainly boned the military on some eminently qualified young folks in linguistics, psyops, and intel.  You know, the Chairborne Rangers - people who fight with their brains not with their hands .  If my cross-section of trans friends is any indicator, they're leaving some plenty smart (and useful to the nation) folks behind by enforcing the ban on people with non-standard sexual identity too.

- Coming from a long line of folks with legitimate draft deferments due to doing research and similar work for the defense industry, I hold these force-multiplier positions in high esteem.

Yes and no, there (damn I'm posting a lot in dis thread).  As the boondoggle in Iraq proved, there's no such thing as "front lines" anymore.  Everyone is expected to be able to grab a rifle and do an infantryman's job.


Yeah, not really. The fact that there no front lines just meant that fobbits like me were subject to indirect fire all the time, plus IED attacks if we left the FOB. It takes no special athletic ability to shelter in place. I know they always CLAIMED we needed to be combat ready, but there were an awful lot of fat old farts just carrying pistols. There are two kinds of combat zone: real war zones like the Gulf War or the three-week push to Baghdad (with mil-on-mil combat), and counterinsurgency ops with a high terrorist threat but very little actual combat in headquarters areas. 

We already make accommodations for female troops during pregnancy; I don't see this as being super different from that.
 
2014-03-14 10:48:36 AM

IsThatYourFinalAnswer: As for my opinion, I think that people actively transitioning shouldn't be serving. Not out of any moral reason, but more due to deployment issues and having proper medical care in austere environments.  If a transgender person is A. not seeking transition or B. already done with it, I see no reason for keeping them out.


Seriously, though, what if they're flying a drone in a room outside of Las Vegas? Or pushing papers at the Pentagon? Or training troops at Fort Benning?
 
2014-03-14 10:57:27 AM
... that people who identity with a gender different from the one assigned at birth suffer from a mental disorder.

From a completely non-judgmental standpoint...they DO have a mental "disorder"  The idea that they are the "wrong" physical sex IS in their minds; how they feel about their bodies; how they relate to their bodies. The alternative would be to say that their physical bodies are actually wrong...and unless they have the genitalia of one sex and chromosomes of another then that's not the case.

None of this means that shouldn't be able to serve...but it is a mental condition, not a physical one, and every case needs to be evaluated on it's own merits.  It not a disqualifying check mark, but it is certainly a "needs further evaluation" check mark.

Of course, in a world increasing intended to be black and white...a grey answer won't be tolerated.
 
2014-03-14 11:03:56 AM

vudukungfu: You don't need a dick to squeeze a trigger.
just an angry inch will do.


Absolutely brilliant. We are done, here, folks. I'll get the lights.
 
2014-03-14 11:05:31 AM
Excuse me, but aren't people mentally sick enough to mutilate their selves supposed to be kept away from weapons? Does it really matter whether this mutilation was self-inflicted, or clinical?
 
2014-03-14 11:07:42 AM
Theaetetus:
Seriously, though, what if they're flying a drone in a room outside of Las Vegas? Or pushing papers at the Pentagon? Or training troops at Fort Benning?

That actually brings up a good point, in a way.  I remember back during OIF, the army mobilized a bunch of drill sergeants straight out of TRADOC posts training soldiers, into Iraq and 'stan to train their military.  There were quite a few issues with NCOs who'd been too long in the schoolhouse, and couldn't qualify themselves for the actual deployment.

*IF* there were a position open that didn't require deployment to austere conditions, then sure!  Sadly, it's a requirement (on paper) that all servicemembers be able to deploy to said austere conditions.

mbillips has a point in that, in reality, there's quite a few jobs in the military that realistically, will never see that sort of deployment.  Then again, there's always that chance (see above DS example) where it may happen.  Telling someone in the middle of transition "Nope, you gotta stop, you're going overseas somewhere" could be pretty damn devastating, depending on said person's mindset.
 
2014-03-14 11:09:23 AM

HAMMERTOE: Excuse me, but aren't people mentally sick enough to mutilate their selves supposed to be kept away from weapons? Does it really matter whether this mutilation was self-inflicted, or clinical?


0/10

Here comes the Fark ignorant hate brigade.
 
2014-03-14 11:10:05 AM
Why doesn't this panel explore something useful like ending the discriminatory requirement for MEN only to register for Selective Service.

If females can join combat units, let's require females to register like young men are required.
 
2014-03-14 11:10:50 AM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: ... that people who identity with a gender different from the one assigned at birth suffer from a mental disorder.

From a completely non-judgmental standpoint...they DO have a mental "disorder"  The idea that they are the "wrong" physical sex IS in their minds; how they feel about their bodies; how they relate to their bodies. The alternative would be to say that their physical bodies are actually wrong...and unless they have the genitalia of one sex and chromosomes of another then that's not the case.


Except that when you acknowledge that the mind is a product of the brain - i.e. not a separate spiritual or ghost in the machine concept - then it's equally accurate to say that the idea that they are the "wrong" physical sex is in their brain, no? And the brain is a physical object, part of the body, yes?
Accordingly, whether something is a "mental" disorder or a "physical" disorder becomes pretty irrelevant.
 
2014-03-14 11:12:19 AM

IsThatYourFinalAnswer: mbillips has a point in that, in reality, there's quite a few jobs in the military that realistically, will never see that sort of deployment.  Then again, there's always that chance (see above DS example) where it may happen.  Telling someone in the middle of transition "Nope, you gotta stop, you're going overseas somewhere" could be pretty damn devastating, depending on said person's mindset.


Telling Sergeant Sausage up there that he's going overseas and he's gotta stop eating pizza and lose 150 pounds could also be pretty damn devastating.
 
2014-03-14 11:22:20 AM
Meh, they already ban people with troublesome asthma from joining for medical reasons... it seems to me that the maintenance issues for being a transsexual would disqualify them. I don't have a problem with it in theory, but in practice, the hormones, necessary checkups, and potential medical issues really outweigh the benefits of having a few dozen extra applicants.
 
2014-03-14 11:22:55 AM

MattyBlast: I'll get the lights.


*bows*
 
2014-03-14 11:24:04 AM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Of course, in a world increasing intended to be black and white...a grey answer won't be tolerated.


unfilteredpop.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-14 11:37:33 AM

IsThatYourFinalAnswer: mjbok: I have a legit question:  aren't there often ongoing hormone injections going on in situations like this?  If so I would think it would be a disqualifying thing based on that.  While not "medically necessary" for health like the diabetus, the military needs soldiers that it can basically dump out in the middle of nowhere with minimal supplies..

That was exactly my point. during the active phase of transition (hormones and such), there's medications with wonky side effects, hormones itself, psych issues, endocrinology work ups every three months.

Boots on the ground in a early warzone ain't gonna have that.


Gotta disagree with you, based on anecdotal information. My transition has not required wonky meds (spironolactone, estradiol pills only), both of which are commonly available and easy to ship. I have never seen an Endo; my PCP checks my kidney & liver function 4 times per year, but that's a standard blood test. Treat surgery like any other major operation.

/If they eliminate this DADT, I can... still be disqualified by at least 5 other conditions.
 
2014-03-14 12:34:38 PM
biatchiness is deadly
 
2014-03-14 01:28:49 PM
Exception Collection:
Gotta disagree with you, based on anecdotal information. My transition has not required wonky meds (spironolactone, estradiol pills only), both of which are commonly available and easy to ship. I have never seen an Endo; my PCP checks my kidney & liver function 4 times per year, but that's a standard blood test. Treat surgery like any other major operation.

/If they eliminate this DADT, I can... still be disqualified by at least 5 other conditions.


Hello fellow trans person! I was actually referring to the spiro/estradiol combo as the "wonky" bit.  It's not that they are strange medications, but more along the lines of bodily effects.

Spiro itself is the biggy. A non-potassium sparing diuretic *CAN* be a deadly drug, depending on circumstances.  Mix that in with conditions in, say, Iraq, and you have a recipe for hyperkalemia. Again anecdotal, but we had two soldiers go down with just that, who were on spiro for blood pressure. Blood pressure meds can be switched, I only know of a couple other anti-androgens out there, and they come with worse side effects than spiro. There's also the risk that water could be rationed (we were only allowed 2 bottles a day, at the beginning of OIF).

Estradiol is pretty famous for triggering DVT too, in the doses given for transition. I spent a lot of time out on convoys sitting in a cramped HMMWV. At this point, you're piling up risks that otherwise wouldn't be there.

As for testing, VA has me seeing an endocrinologist ~6mo, with 3 month blood draws for testing, YMMV, depending on your PCP.


WIth the shipping part, medical units have a specific formulary they bring with, for deployments.  Space is tight, more so when you're looking at initial boots-on-ground phase. I can promise you, the medical guy doing the pack-out is going to toss estradiol as unessential, if it means he can haul in more, say IV fluids or morphine.  Again, going from my experience, it took us about 4-5 months to have a settled in supply chain that let us bring in non-essential medical gear. It would be likely our hypothetical transitioning soldier would just be told "Nope, no transition for deployment", and that would be very unpleasant.
 
2014-03-14 03:34:12 PM
If push comes to shove, Spiro can be reduced or eliminated. There are at least a half-dozen antiandrogens, though. (Anecdotally, it's not pleasant, but is survivable).

Estradiol's DVT risks are no higher than any other hormone treatment. Are female soldiers forbidden use of birth control?

If a soldier had PCOS, they'd need Spiro & hormones (progesterone, which is even MORE fun...) ... though PCOS might be a "no serving for you" issue to start out.

Of course, this assumes a medical transition during service. Right now, merely identifying as trans gets you thrown out. What if they say "OK, I'm transitioning, whether I can take the meds or not"?

Or what if they must get permission from their CO, in advance, with a temporary transfer to the chairborne? Pretty sure pregnant soldiers don't ask permission every time, and that they don't get thrown out on their ears. Surely there are quite a few positions - at secure long-term bases - where trans soldiers can perform useful duties. Germany, for example. Supply. Other stuff.
 
2014-03-14 03:55:38 PM
The way I look at it, if I have to bunk and shower with people who are in to my body, then EVERYONE should bunk and shower together. Males and females, lezies and gays. And 'other'.

www.thegayuk.com
/Rico says "Am I right? Look at Dizzy over here and tell me you wouldn't want to shower with th--Hey! what's poking me in the ass?! Dammit Jerry! That's no where penis goes and you know it!"
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report