LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: Transgender Men in Women’s Showers Must Get ‘Dignity and Respect,’ Says U.S. Army
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... -get-dignity-respect-u-s-army/
Published: Jul 7, 2017
Author: Neil Munro
Post Date: 2017-07-07 16:51:25 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 5342
Comments: 33
Female soldiers must give “dignity and respect” to transsexual men who join them in their shared shower rooms, according to training manuals leaked by soldiers in a mandatory class. But this “dignity and respect” is a one-way street, according to the training slides, which were developed by officials working for former President Barack Obama. “Transgender Soldiers are not required or expected to modify or adjust their behavior based on the fact that they do not ‘match’ other Soldiers,” according to the slides, which were first leaked by TheFederalist.com: The insistence that women remain mute when a man enters their shower room “shows a lack of respect for the vast majority of service members [because] no consideration is given to their feeling about this circumstances,” said Peter Sprigg, senior policy studies expert at the Family Research Council in Washington. Female soldiers in showers are supposed to ignore visible biology and “act as if nothing has happened when some male … is all of a sudden in the shower room with them,” said Austen Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. “This is a flat-out humiliation of women. … Females will have their dignity and respect violated [and] they are being told this does not matter even a little bit,” he added. Female soldiers will not even be allowed to cover themselves because it could signal a lack of “respect” for the transsexual man in the shower, Ruse said. Several nations have decided to accept transsexuals into their militaries, including Sweden, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In 2014, a group of those transsexual soldiers held a joint press conference with the ACLU in Washinton D.C. See photo above. The demand for “dignity and respect” of transsexuals is shot through the Army documents because the “transgender ideology” insists that normal Americans — including American soldiers — must respect claims by men who insist they are women, regardless of their visible genitalia, civic practices, law, and science. The justification for this transsexual demand is the unproven claim that all people have a so-far unverified “gender identity” that can be disconnected from their obviously female or male body. Transgender activists then argue that a person’s “gender identity” is more important than the fundamental sexual distinctions between male and female humans, and, in fact, also requires that the transgender men be treated as legal females, whether or not they have had surgery. Because a person’s “gender identity” is deemed more important than a person’s actual sex, the Pentagon’s rules do not require that transgender soldiers undergo sexual surgery before they switch their legal sex. According to the new rules, a soldier who has a conflicting “gender identity” is deemed “stable in preferred gender” once: a documented medical treatment plan is complete, no functional limitations or complications persist, and the individual is not experiencing clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. Continuing medical are, including but not limited to cross-sex hormone therapy, may be required to maintain a state of stability. The shift to pro-transgender, anti-sex language also means there are no recognized male or female bodies in the military, nor are there any recognized members of the two sexes. Instead, the sex of each soldier is reduced to a mere “gender marker,” which is amputated from Americans’ expectations for the behavior of members of the male sex and the female sex. According to the new rules, the “gender marker” is a just “data element” in the “Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting system.” This shift in focus from the sex of a soldier to the “gender marker” has additional impacts. For example, all soldiers are expected to take periodic drug tests by peeing into a cup in front of a higher-ranking soldier. This means female soldiers will be required to pee into cups while sitting beside a soldier with a female “gender marker,” even when the observing soldier is male. According to a document provided with the training. “It is DoD and Army Policy that a urinalysis sample must be collected by direct observation and that, absent an exception to policy, the observer will be the same gender as the Soldier being observed (as reflected by the gender marker in DEERS).” The new policy of ignoring sexual differences in favor of a “gender marker” will apply throughout many Army procedures, including sharing bedrooms: “For facilities subject to regulation by the Army, a Soldier uses those billeting, bathroom, and shower facilities associated with the Soldier’s gender marker in DEERS.” The rules also say that men who declare themselves to be women only have to meet the lower physical standards required of female soldiers who tend to be smaller and lighter and have less testosterone. This means that normal soldiers must provide “dignity and respect” to the transsexual male soldiers who are only obliged to meet the lower standards for female soldiers. These military documents establish the transgender ideology as a government-backed belief system in place of Americans’ long-standing treatment of women and men as equal, different, and complementary, says Sprigg. The transgender rules are “really serving an ideological purpose, not a military purpose,” he said. However, on June 30, Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced a six-month delay on the planned July 1 recruitment of transsexuals, scheduled by Obama officials, who also dropped the ban on open transsexuals in the military and commissioned the new training manuals. The Mattis delay gives the military time to debate and prevent Obama’s damaging pro-transgender policies, said Sprigg. Under Obama, the military was “never asked ‘Do you think this is a good idea?’ – they were told this is what is going to happen,” he said. For example, the financial costs of the pro–transgender rules will be enormous, he said. Obama’s officials promised to pay for the hormones and surgeries sought by new recruits, and accepted the extra costs of replacing transsexuals who cannot go to war because of their unique medical requirements, such as the muscle-weakening female hormones, he said. Those costs could reach $3.7 billion over the next ten years if the number of transsexual people in the military matches claims by transgender activists, he said. If the military offers free medical services to transsexual recruits, the number of transsexuals in the military might increase, further boosting costs. Already, military doctors are required to provide transgender-related services to soldiers even if they judge those services are harmful, according to the Center for Military Readiness. And if the military agrees to establish the transgender ideology at the end of the six-month delay, the pro-transgender campaign will be boosted in the nation’s courtrooms, capitols, and classrooms, said Ruse. “Every transgender activist can point to the military to say, ‘They’ve done, it, so we should do it… in grade schools, high schools, colleges, everywhere,” said Ruse. The progressive outcome is possible because White House officials have not taken a strong stand against the transgender ideology’s hostility towards the two sexes, he said. “I’m very nervous,” said Ruse. “We have not seen a lot of concern from Trump … [so] we’re working closely with allies on Capitol Hill,” said Sprigg. The long-term goal “is cultural transformation, not one of increasing the effectiveness of our military,” said Sprigg. The transgender ideology demands that the federal government force Americans to accept the “gender identity” sex-switching claims made by each person, regardless of scientific data about genetics, biology, and the variety of normal behavior and appearances shown by normal, equal, different, and complementary women and men, boys and girls. The progressive push to bend Americans’ attitudes and their male-and-female civic society around the idea of “gender” has already attacked and cracked popular social rules for how Americans handle the many charming differences between complementary men and women. These pro-gender claims have an impact on different-sex bathrooms, shelters for battered women, sports leagues for girls, hiking groups for boys, K-12 curricula, university speech codes, religious freedoms, free speech, the social status of women, parents’ rights in childrearing, practices to help teenagers, women’s expectations of beauty, culture and civic society, scientific research, prison safety, civic ceremonies, school rules, men’s sense of masculinity, law enforcement, and children’s sexual privacy. To read more about the “transgender” ideology, visit here. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
This is incredibly STUPID !!! I can just imagine the reaction if George S Patton were brought back to life, and you tried to explain the current situation to him !!
Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Stick a fork in it. The US hasn't won a war since 1945, and never will again.
This is what the other side of the rabbit hole looks like.
This is from TheOnion, right?
That's hardly fair. It's not as though we actually tried. But i gotta tell you, it sucks being 0-1.
I hope so but i'm afraid not.
I'd call it 0-2-4 I'd say we tied in Korea and Iraq, lost in Cuba, Vietnam and Somalia, and are doomed to lose in Afghanistan. To the extent we're "in" Syria we will be losing that one also.
I only count the one i was in. My old man was in wwII, korea and vietnam. I figure he was 1-1-1.
My dad was in WWII. That was a win. I was in Gulf War I, which looked like a win at the start (sort of like France 1940 looked to the Germans), but then came the Iraq War II, and the insurgency, and now the place is sullen and essentially an Iranian ally, run by Shiites. A draw, at best. And then IU was a helicopter pilot in Mogadishu. We all know how THAT turned out. I'm not a fan of the Empire. In my youth I was very gung ho for it, but time and bad experience have taught me that I was wrong.
You use differing criteria in your analysis. For example Vietnam and the gulf war.
Me, either. But i couldn't pass up a month of college for a month in the army. And then i got a nine month extension, forty-five months of college for thirty-six months of active duty. And to top it off, i went to school in san jose when ca had the 'freedom of education' act. Sweet. But i'd still rather be 1-0.
I use a meta-criterion: did we get our way thereafter? We won the Revolutionary War because we got our way. We won the War of 1812 because we grabbed a bunch of territory and drove the British Indian allies down and out. We won the Mexican War because we obtained the Southwestern USA. The Union won the Civil War because the Confederacy was broken, forced back into the Union, and slavery was ended. We won the war against Spain because we took Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines. We still have two of those, and one of them is an ally. We bobbled Cuba, but later. World War I was a draw for us. The German Empire was broken and ended, and our troops did the breaking of it at the end. But we lost the peace because we were unable to impose our will at the Versailles peace conference. So we went home, embittered, did not join the League of Nations, and ended up fighting Germany all over again 20 years later. We won World War II because we crushed our enemies, killed their leaders, and remade them in our image - they are still stalwart allies, linchpins of our world alliance system. We came to a draw in Korea because we preserved half of the peninsula and provided the shield so a new government could set itself up. That has been successful. But we were driven out of the North by the Chinese Army. We lost Vietnam because the government we were fighting invaded and conquered the country we were defending, and today rules it all. We lost Cuba (admittedly it was a skirmish) because the Communists drove out our ally, and the Castro dictatorship outlasted the American embargo. We won the first phase of the Iraq war, by driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait, but then we got bogged down for a decade. Finally we broke Saddam, pulled out too fast, and ended up having an insurgency strip the government we propped up of authority. So we had to go back, at considerable loss of life. In the end a sort of peace was restored...by crushing down the Sunnis and having the Shi'ites rule their country...effectively making it a satelite of Iran. So, we bled and fought and broke a government...and ended up handing strategic control over the population to our fiercest adversary in the region. That's a loss, but if we want we can call it a draw. It's certainly not a win. We've been in Afghanistan for longer than we were in World War I, World War II and the Civil War COMBINED. And we're still bleeding, drip-drip-drip, just like the Soviets did. We have no possibility of ever winning the war, which means we will either just sit there forever and bleed lives and treasure...to sustain a "draw". Or we'll leave and the country will fall back to the Taliban. We're as far as we have ever been from getting our way in Afghanistan. And we're paying dearly for it in lives and treasure. We're stuck there forever, bleeding. That's a defeat. We invaded Somalia, a place in chaos. We got ourselves shot up and shot down and we left the place, in chaos, to take no more losses. We accomplished nothing and retreated. A loss. My standard is pretty consistent over the century. If you want to argue that Iraq, with it's Iranian-oriented government, is a "win", well, I can't stop you. I see a draw, at best. We could have had a series of spectacular World War II style wins, if we were willing to use our forces. But we have not been willing to do so since 1945.
Family was a shipwreck. No money for college. So I went to Annapolis. Did 8 years of active duty after that, and another 6 of reserves. Resigned in 1999 when the time burdens of law practice made it impossible to keep up with the drill schedule.
Good deal. Does that require a congressional appointment?
Like I said you use different criteria. Did Viet name get it's way thereafter? No they collapsed and had to turn capitalist.
One more step in promoting cultural collapse and degeneracy.
They're still a communist dictatiorship, just like China. They merely liberalized their economy in order to be more prosperous. Is that why we spent 55.000 American lives, and another 250,000 American limbs, not to mention 2 million Vietnamese lives? To force them to adopt a certain economic system? No. We did it to prevent them from becoming part of an enemy coalition that was arrayed against us. We failed. Our big naval base there was used by the Soviets. Today, Vietnam trades with us, as does China, and Russia. But Vietnam is no ally of the United States. It is not a place where we can base our troops or call upon in a fight against, say, North Korea. The relationship between Vietnam and the USA is at best the relationship between the USA and Britain in 1818. The war is over. Both sides have a similar capitalist system - and with the British we shared language and much culture also. But the two sides were in no sense friends, or allies. We traded with each other for our own benefit, not in some spirit of friendship. We deeply resented each other and were not friends. During the Civil War, the British were poised to come in in force to shatter the USA. They didn't primarily because of pressure on their empire from the Russians, who had their own reason to resent the British. The war has been over long enough for the Vietnamese to not hate us. But they celebrate their victory over us every year. We did not win in Vietnam. And we weren't fighting and dying over there to preserve an economic system.
Yes.
What is the proper etiquette if one of the ladies can't help but notice that one of the "ladies" is sporting wood? Exactly how does one transition from male to female without surgery? Whatever happened to old method: dick=dude?
Congressmen, among others, make nominations, not appointments. Nominations may also be made by the President and Vice-President, among others, and there are some special categories such as children of medal of honor recipients. https://www.usna.edu/Admissions/Steps-for-Admission/Nomination-Sources/index.php Each member of Congress can have five constituents attending the Naval Academy at any time. When a constituent leaves the academy, a vacancy is created. Members may use any one of the following methods to nominate candidates to fill their vacancies: In each of these methods, one fully qualified nominee is offered an appointment to the Naval Academy to fill the vacancy. The remaining fully qualified nominees also are considered carefully, and many are selected for admissions to fill the entering class from a national competition of qualified alternates. The governor of Puerto Rico and the delegates to Congress from Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Northern Marianas Islands: Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas Islands may each have one midshipman attending the Naval Academy. American Samoa may have two, and Guam and the Virgin Islands each may have three at the academy. Ten nominations are permitted for each vacancy. Children of Medal of Honor Awardees. Candidates in this special category who are fully qualified for admission are automatically appointed. There is no limit to the number of midshipmen who may be at the academy with this source of nomination. An unlimited number of presidential nominations are available for children and legally adopted children of career officer and enlisted personnel of the armed forces, active or reserve, including the Coast Guard. One hundred candidates may be appointed with these nominations each year. Up to 65 midshipmen may be in attendance at the academy based on nominations as children of military personnel who were killed in action; died from wounds, injuries or disease while on active duty; sustained 100 percent disability from such wounds, injuries or disease, as certified by the Department of Veterans Affairs; or who are currently prisoners of war (POW) or missing in action (MIA). The children of civilians in POW or MIA status also are eligible. Adopted children are eligible. One hundred seventy appointments are available annually to regular and reserve Navy and Marine Corps enlisted personnel. For more information, see your command's career counselor and OPNAVINST 1420.1 or Marine Corps Order 1040.43. All Navy ROTC units and all Navy and Marine Corps JROTC units are eligible to nominate three candidates each. All Navy and Marine Corps Honor Units with Distinction are eligible to nominate an additional three candidates each. All Army and Air Force Honor Units with Distinction are also eligible to nominate three candidates. All Army and Air Force units must submit a copy of their orders along with the completed nomination form available online.
Yes, that is correct. Nominated by a Congressman, Appointed by the Academy. I don't think that all of those alternative pathways existed in 1980. Back then I think that for Congressmen it was just that they could have 5 attending at a time (the VP and the President also could make nominations, and there was some deal for the children of Medal of Honor winners. But I never paid close attention to the details. I received my appointment for the Academy PENDING a nomination - so, if I got a nomination, I was appointed. This was based on the strength of my record. My local congressman gave me the nomination, and that was that. Coast Guard does not require nominations, and I got an appointment there too. Went to Navy once I got the nomination. My life would have been very different had I taken the appointment to Coast Guard.
damn, that bunch in the photo is one bunch of uglies !!
Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
I'm tired of hearing about degenerates claiming they are normal. The government should execute everyone of those freaks who open their mouth about some imaginary transvestite rights, kill them Trump they are 1 percent sickos.
We lost the gulf war even though the enemy surrendered, but Vietnam won a war over us. What the fuck did they win?
I hate to see the uniform clothing clowns.
Why not to create special uniforms? Like unisex trooper uniform?
Yes, that's right. Germany lost World War II, to France, even though at one point France surrendered to Germany. Because the conquest of France was not the end of it, for Germany or even for France. French forces and territories fought on, as part of the Allies, and BECAUSE Germany invaded France and thus created a power imbalance that the British Empire could never, ever accept, in the end the British, the Americans, and also troops from all of the countries Germany invaded: France, Holland, Belgium, Poland, Denmark, Norway - all defeated Germany. The Gulf War was the first act of a decade-long war with Iraq. We pushed the Iraqis out of Kuwait and could have overthrown Saddam (just as the Germans probably COULD have toppled Stalin had they moved in 1940 - but they didn't). But we didn't. Those opposed to him rose up all over Iraq, and we didn't send in forces to support them. In fact, we let Saddam slaughter them, such that when - thanks to Saddam continuing to shoot at our planes and sponsor terror against us for the next ten years - we finally invaded and toppled him under W Bush, there was no great uprising of pro-Americans - THEY were all DEAD - slaughtered in 1991-1994, by Saddam, while we stood by and let it happen, sort of like the Soviets stood by and let the Germans slaughter the Poles who rose up in Warsaw, and only rolled in AFTER the native rebels were dead. So, we rolled into a country and toppled its government, an apparent win - but there was nobody on the ground who supported us. We had already let THEM be wiped out. What there WAS on the ground were Iranian-aligned Shi'ites whom Saddam had held down. We did them the huge favor of removing Saddam's regime. Then we left, precipitously. And then the great Iraqi rebellion came. Sunni versus Shi'ite versus Kurd. The Shi'ites were "the people" in most of the country except Kurdistan, but they were aligned with their religious leaders, who are in Iran. Stability under Shi'ite government MEANS stability under the Iranian Shi'ite "Pope" - the Grand Ayatollah. We didn't like that. Our other option was the Sunnis - a severe minority who had been the base of Saddam's power. Well, the Sunnis sure hate the Shi'ites, and the Kurds, but they also hate US, and it is they who launched a civil war of terror against all. We propped up the "government" - which means the Shi'ites, because they are the heavy majority. We propped up the Kurds with a no fly zone, but didn't arm them (and so they were not able to hold their major cities against ISIS). After our "victory" everything went south, and soon, under Obama, we were "surging" more and more troops, to "stabilize" the country. Ultimately we won the civil war for the pro-Iran Shi'ite faction, and they now rule the country. Iraq is an Iranian-aligned state now. Our influence there is limited to continuing to beat down the Sunni ISIS zealots, whom the Iranians and Iraqi Shi'ites hate. In no sense did we "win" anything there. We destroyed a dictator we didn't life and made Iraq an Iranian satrapy, now very firmly aligned with Iran in a religious sense. We could not fight a war with Iran from Iraqi soil: the government would not allow it, and if we did, then the Shi'ite majority would be conducting terrorism against us. We did not "win" anything there. We knocked over a chess game and scattered the pieces, and got our way on essentially nothing. What did the Vietnamese win? The exact same thing that WE won in our war of independence from Britain: they drove out the foreign occupier, united their country, and gained their full sovereignty and rule over their entire land. They won their independence from American- controlled puppet government, and from having American forces on their soil. The Vietnam War was as titanic a defeat for America as the loss of the American Revolution was for Britain. The world's greatest superpower had to strike the colors and leave, and lost all control over territory they formerly held in their hands. That's a win for the natives - be they American or British.
Why not just create a special organization - the "organization of transgenders and homosexuals". Give them paychecks and desk jobs, even if it's doing nothing. It's cheaper to isolate them into their own little clown camps than to wreck the whole military with this nonsense. If we want them in the military, then have special corps of them - the Tranny Corps. Let them bugger each other in barracks to their heart's content, and then use them as regular units.
One Polish professor, I know, said that "France is a perfect state. They placed themselves in such position in WWII that not matter what side would win they would be on the winning side. Either under de Gaulle or Petain."
What state is that? The bow tie looks STUPID !!
Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
No. use them when you need to sacrifice some troops. Send them on suicide missions. Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Now now. We don't need to intentionally kill them. Just let them be them, with each other, and when the time comes to fight, let them fight as a unit. That way they don't destroy everybody else's morale. The same argument was made for black segregation, but the difference is that in the case of the blacks, black skin is real, but the difference between black and white soldiers is not. By contrast, with trannies, the state of being "transgender" is not real - it's a fantasy - but the differences that indulging that fantasy creates are real and pretty devastating to morale. We pretended that black skin made a difference, but that was always a fantasy. It doesn't. Never did. Genitalia DO make a difference, and we're trying to pretend they don't. Same shit, different day. Back then, it was because some loud assholes had to have segregation. And today, it's because some loud assholes have to have integration of the insane.
Yeah, I guess so. They will all eventually die from aids or some other STD ! Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#2. To: cranky (#0)
#3. To: Stoner (#1)
This is incredibly STUPID !!!
#4. To: cranky (#0)
Female soldiers will not even be allowed to cover themselves because it could signal a lack of “respect”
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
The US hasn't won a war since 1945, and never will again.
#6. To: A Pole (#4)
This is from TheOnion, right?
#7. To: cranky (#5)
(Edited)
But i gotta tell you, it sucks being 0-1.
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
I'd call it 0-3-4
#9. To: cranky (#8)
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
I'm not a fan of the Empire.
#12. To: A K A Stone (#10)
#13. To: cranky (#11)
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#13)
So I went to Annapolis.
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
use a meta-criterion: did we get our way thereafter?
#16. To: cranky (#0)
The long-term goal “is cultural transformation, not one of increasing the effectiveness of our military,” said Sprigg.
#17. To: A K A Stone (#15)
Did Viet name get it's way thereafter? No they collapsed and had to turn capitalist.
#18. To: cranky (#14)
Does that require a congressional appointment?
#19. To: cranky (#0)
#20. To: cranky, Vicomte13 (#14)
Does that require a congressional appointment?
#21. To: nolu chan (#20)
Congressmen, among others, make nominations, not appointments.
#22. To: cranky (#0)
#23. To: cranky (#0)
#24. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
#25. To: Stoner (#22)
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
I hate to see the uniform clothing clowns.
#27. To: A K A Stone (#24)
We lost the gulf war even though the enemy surrendered, but Vietnam won a war over us. What the fuck did they win?
#28. To: A Pole (#26)
Why not to create special uniforms? Like unisex trooper uniform?
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
Germany lost World War II, to France, even though at one point France surrendered to Germany. Because the conquest of France was not the end of it, for Germany or even for France.
#30. To: A Pole (#26)
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
" If we want them in the military, then have special corps of them - the Tranny Corps. Let them bugger each other in barracks to their heart's content, and then use them as regular units. "
#32. To: Stoner (#31)
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
" Now now. We don't need to intentionally kill them. Just let them be them, with each other, "
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]