The inability of the internet generations to use 10 seconds of their search engine of choice is pretty pathetic.
From Wikipee, who's rarely unbiased, but in this case managed some basic facts (Infogalactic is better):
Under current law, all male U.S. citizens between 18ΓÇô25 (inclusive) years of age are required to register within 30 days of their 18th birthday. In addition, certain categories of non-US citizen men between 18ΓÇô25 living in the United States must register, particularly permanent residents, refugees, asylum seekers, and illegal immigrants.[2]
The illegals better run. I need popcorn for the Demorrhoid reaction.
In February 2019, the male-only military draft registry was ruled to be unconstitutional by a federal district judge in National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System.[52] Following the ruling, the Selective Service's Legislative Liaison Jacob Daniels told reporters: "Things continue here at Selective Service as they have in the past, which is men between the ages of 18 and 25 are required to register with Selective Service. And at this time, until we receive guidance from either the court or from Congress, women are not required to register for Selective Service."[53]
That was your guidance from the court. At any point you attempt to implement, you'll be shut down.
The Selective Service System considers the term "male" in the federal law to refer to the sex observed at birth, so trans women are required to register, while trans men are not.[54]
Yeah, I need popcorn for the GOP response now. And the Demorrhoid freakout that transfemales might actually have to be treated like males. Basically, neither side has any intellectual consistency on this.
First draftees are inducted: According to current plans, Selective Service must deliver the first inductees to the military within 193 days from the onset of a crisis.[75]
After the President asks, and a Congress determined to fight everything he does agrees (good luck with that). Though they might do it just to be able to blame him. Because The Demorrhoids excel at fucking their own people in the ass to make a point that didn't need made.
And then you have to train them to do something useful.  And make sure they're reliable and not going to sabotage anything, which even volunteer millennials have done to high profile (That little bitch Bradley Manning for example).
So, at least a year. 
There are zero foreseeable future conflicts in which that timeframe will ever be relevant, and it's much cheaper to offer bonuses than fight the lawsuits or convene the boards, especially when a bunch of recruits never actually make use of the benefits in the first place.

So I'm going to disagree with a friend on a board that Selective Service is "Alive and well."  It's a barely breathing, corpulent relic that serves no purpose and exists due to the bureaucracy's inability and unwillingness to ever euthanize a terminally ill patient.

And speaking as a retired vet--we don't want the pathetic kind of untermenschen who need to be ordered to backfill support roles we can fill with reservists, retirees, civil service, and contractors for cheaper per-slot costs.  And we sure as shit don't want you pretending to be line troops. If you could pass the physical training. Which most of you soibois cannot. So bleat on Twitter, drink your energy drinks, eat your junk food or "organic" bullshit, watch your Youtube, and play CoD.  And otherwise keep quiet. The men will handle this.

And let's look at the history of these protests:

Rescue run to Grenada: "ZOMG! DRAFT!"
Dig out a guy in Panama: "ZOMG! DRAFT!"
Several debacles in the Balkans, Africa and Caribbean under Bill Clinton: INFORMATIVE SILENCE.
Expedition to Kuwait: "ZOMG! DRAFT!"
Operations in Iraq: "ZOMG! DRAFT!"
Operations in Syria under 0bama: DEAFENING FUCKING SILENCE.
Angry tweet about NK. "ZOMG! DRAFT!"
Single fucking missile on a legit target. "ZOMG! DRAFT!"

It's a childish protest bleat.

EDIT: in response to that last:

In response to my snarking commentary on hemorrhoid pussies shrieking about a draft, 
some liberal shithead called
Rebecca Anne Smith said: I strongly doubt that pattern exists anywhere outside of Mr Williamson's memory and that of people equally effected by bias confirmation.
Me: I strongly doubt you have a clue what you're talking about.

Nixon ended Vietnam and the draft, but somehow gets blamed for the war started by Truman.

Carter reintroduced Selective Service. Now, which party was he?  Oh, right.

I moved to the US in 1978, and was SERVING IN THE US MILITARY from 1985-2010 and watched nearly every minor operation lead to Demorrhoid pussies shrieking about a draft.  Except from 1993-2000.  The Balkans never happened and we don't still have troops there (except it did and we do) and "Clinton ended that war and brought the troops home" except they're still there.  Mogadishu never happened.

From Bush down, officials say there'll be no draft--but makings are there WAR IN THE GULF

Charlie Wrangel re-introduced a draft in 2003, shrieked to the press that Congress was considering a draft and it was all Bush's fault. No one else supported it, and his grandstanding stunt died in committee.

"Sooner or later, the government will need a draft to fight a longer or larger-scale war, or to maintain a permanent occupation force in Afghanistan, Iraq," (which also contains the liberal lie that the Mujahideen became al Qaida)

"Widespread fears of a new draft crash selective service system."
The earlier ones are not easily found online, but I remember plenty of people railing about them both in person (including a couple of my alleged "educators") and in the press.

So anyone thinking otherwise can take their OWN selection bias and fuck themselves with it.  


And itΓÇÖs down in Blacksburg Forest is where I long to be
Lying in the dark with a Luau company
A comrade on me left and another one on me right
A mag of ammunition for me little Armalite

[Verse 1]
We were insulted by the governor, he said ΓÇ£You all are scum
Clinging to religion and your compensating gun,"
We tried to argue logically, our manners were polite
But all the time IΓÇÖm thinking of me little Armalite

And itΓÇÖs down in the swampland is where I long to be
Lying in the dark with a Boogaloo company
A comrade on me left and another one on me right
A drum of ammunition for me little Armalite

[Verse 2]
Well this brave State Policeman came marching up our street
Six hundred National Guardsman he had lined up at his feet
ΓÇ£Come out you cowardly criminals, come on out and fightΓÇ¥
He cried ΓÇ£IΓÇÖm only jokingΓÇ¥ when he heard the Armalite

And itΓÇÖs down in Appalachia is where I long to be
Lying in the dark with an Igloo company
A comrade on me left and another one on me right
A crate of ammunition for me little Armalite

It's inevitable that when you're in the process of pointing out that the state is stealing something or someone for the "greater good," for social purposes, that some soiboi leftist cog will bleat, "That isn't socialism."

I like how "real socialism" is whatever they want it to mean at a given moment, so they can tell you you "Don't know what socialism is."

Venezuela--it was real socialism, until it failed, which was somehow capitalism sneaking in there.

Sweden--is real socialism, despite having multibillion dollar corporations. But wait, we'll come back to that.
The American welfare state--Someone actually told me that, "It's not socialism. It's just taking resources from those who have them and distributing them to those who need them."  Which is LITERALLY THE FUCKING DEFINITION of socialism. But it's not real socialism. Except they want it to be universal for everyone.  

Roads--socialism, even though they date from the Palace Economy of the Bronze Age and had as their primary purpose (when government built), enabling taxation to bring assets TO THE PALACE. There were also privately built roads in Celtic nations, thus disproving the myth that only governments can build roads. And this is 4000 years ago. But that's not convenient to the narrative that only governments can build roads, roads are socialist, but somehow "right wing" governments are also socialist in this regard, despite not being socialist.
National Socialism--actually capitalism, even though the government nationalized half the corporations, set up socialized medicine and transport, and fixed most prices. Oh, and outright confiscated land, and outlawed "Speculation." It was "Right wing socialism." That's sort of like "male pregnancy" or "libertarian socialism" or "Fictional reality." All of which are things leftards believe are real. After all, these are people who still believe legions of Russians are monitoring Fecesbook and blogs to downvote their comments, and that somewhere Donald Trump really has a Russian birth certificate, because Russia magically has something he needs or wants.
Fun Fact:  99% of liberals have zero fucking clue what a "right wing" actually is, and even think America is "right wing," to the point that "The democrats would be center-right in Europe, not left wing."  This is based on the mutiple mistaken notions that: anyone should give a shit what Europe or anywhere else in the Third World thinks about politics--remember that we told them to fuck off a couple of hundred years ago, and my family personally told them to fuck off in 1978 when we moved here. And that: The Euro peon baseline is relevant and unbiased. HINT: it's not. Almost all of those nations have Marx's cock 12" down their throat and up their ass, you'd have to be Howard Zinn or Joseph Stalin to actually cross their line to the left.  Also, that's one hell of an accomplishment given that Marx had a 2" dick on a good day.

But wait!  Let's go back to Sweden, a western democracy with a large capitalist sector--it's "real socialism" when the "liberal" thinks they've accomplished something the US hasn't (They actually haven't), but switches to "not real socialism" when they claim "Real socialism has never been tried." It's Schroedinger's Socialism!
I could parody this with, "You don't know what drugs are," and "pot isn't a real drug," and "everyone uses drugs, so drugs are good" (including meth and carfentanyl). Except I've actually heard that bullshit from leftists.
What was my point here?  Oh, right--most leftists are hypocritical shitheads, and you should always throw them from the helicopter.

Ironically, the ACTUAL hardcore socialists (Trotskyites and such) actually have a grasp of capitalism and see it as a useful tool. Which is why most of the left hates them, too.
So whenever one of them opens their facial anus, pre-empt the debate by first informing them that THEY don't know what real socialism is, and then the undisputable fact (they'll try anyway) that real capitalism has never been tried.

Oh, yes--and get them a helicopter ride. Because whatever Pinochet was, he wasn't really right wing. Though you could use an autogyro, since it's not a real helicopter.

There's a an Op-Ed, or maybe a Pre-Op-Ed at the WaPoo about how to address people who refuse to use the gender norms human languages have had literally forever.

I think I was 13 the first time I was called "ma'am" on the phone. I didn't bother correcting the business because I understood as a young male youth my voice could be mistaken. It didn't break my emotional well-being, and I lived through the experience.

The entire article is drivel, and...well, here:

First of all, fuck you, I'll make any fucking jokes I like about any fucking thing I want, any time I fucking feel like it. Don't like it? Fuck off.

In a serious note, I will address you as you present. If you're at an historical re-enactment wearing 10th Century Norse female garb, I'll assume you are "miss," "damen," "my lady," or "ma'am," accordingly.  If for some reason you want to dress and present as a female, but not be called one...then you need deeper therapy.

If I am not sure (and this applies to status, rank, sex presentation, class, etc), and it's relevant, I may ask, "How should I address you?"

And then we will get on with our lives.

If you have to start with, "My pronouns are she and hers," I'm going to tell you, Our pronoun is "The Shitlord," and We are only addressed in the third person. Also, you will have to do it in this language I just made up that changes every week. Or in my native Gaelic. Or you can just fuck off.

What you don't get to do is dictate how other people talk.  Here's a relevant excerpt:

The backlash was instantaneous. By the end of the night, Cuomo had apologized on Twitter, noting his sorrow as ΓÇ£an ally of the LGBTQ communityΓÇ¥ ΓÇö but still not managing to state his pronouns. And I wondered, not for the first time: Why canΓÇÖt cisgender people be semi-normal about this?


Why does he have to play your game and "State his pronouns"?

Why do you display the bigotry of accusing him and us of being abnormal? "Cisgender" is an external, false euphemism you have assigned to NORMAL PEOPLE, identified as the 99.995% of the population who are male or female (whether or not they accept that is another issue). One can be straight, gay, bi, asexual. One is male, female, or has a chromosome or physiological mismatch (rare). Those latter are the only non-"cis" people. Claiming you're with them actually denigrates them.

Why do you assign us the identity "cisgender" over OUR protests, but expect us to kowtow to your preferences?

This is the fascism of a minority culture, full of hatred, intolerance, and refusal to accept the norms of the majority.

The first big step toward terrorism.

And anyone who doesn't believe it borders on terrorism is invited to "misgender" some high-profile freak on TWITter and wait for the screaming backlash and attempts to dox you.

There was even wailing about someone being called "it," except there IS a high profile freak of some sort who has publicly stated their pronoun is "it."  

You see how this game is played?  Worthless failures who can't get attention any other way are demanding that everyone address them in a clever, unique fashion known only to them, changing at whim, with no set rules.  There was also another article that people who DO use these terms are "patronizing."

So, no, Kat, you're a fucking freak, and an obnoxious one, and you need to grow the fuck up and grow some balls, or boobs, or something, or else take some tequila and sleeping-pill therapy. You not only have issues, you have entire subscriptions that make Publisher's Clearinghouse look sedate. But they are not my subscriptions and I'm not buying any.