Trump Affirms the Military Ain't a Freak Show by Publius Tacitus

Well, let's give Donald Trump credit for one clear act of sanity. The White House announced today that the United States military is not going to surrender to the demands that transgenders be treated as normal people when it comes to fighting wars:

President Trump announced on Wednesday that the United States will no longer “accept or allow” transgender people in the United States military, saying American forces “must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory” and could not afford to accommodate them.

If you disagree with Trump then, in my view, you are an extremist and in denial by human biology. While transgender people exist, they are an extremely small minority. A biological rarity if you will. This is not to say that transgenders should be treated differently under the law. No. They should have the same basic rights as a biological man or woman. But the U.S. military is not a social biosphere for testing social and sexual justice theories. The Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps and the Air Force are predominantly male and heavily dependent on unit cohesion.

The vast majority of the members of the U.S. military units are heterosexual. The social justice warriors who promote the mythology that you can have a gender neutral Army or Marine Corps, for example, have never been around 18 to 20 year old young men who are fully charged on testosterone and generally thinking a lot of the time about having sex with females. One of my old mentors, a retired Marine colonel told me the story of being in South Korea on maneuvers when he was a young lieutenant. As he came out of his tent one morning his nostrils were assaulted by the smell of human sweat and kimchi. The aroma was piercing and his nose led him to the last tent in the camp site. There he found two 18 year old privates enjoying the fleshly delights of a South Korean farm girl who, by the smell of things, had not been a frequent visitor to bath water. 

His lesson to me? "The troops will do anything for pussy." Whether you like it or not that remains a reality today. The vast majority of soldiers, sailors, pilots and marines are not focused on embracing or protecting transgender folks. When they step naked into a shower the vast majority are not ogling one another in hopes of spotting the dude who wants to be a woman. 

Trump made the smart and simple decision--he is not going to subordinate the war fighting role of the U.S. military to pandering to extreme minority political positions based on the notion that transgenderism is a normal, common phenomena. It is not.

Comments

[tim s]

hear, hear!

The correct decision on many levels. The SJW dupes will be frothing at the mouths over this "travesty".

[turcopolier]

All

Trump is definitely a counter-revolutionary. The woman on the street in NY City who was interviewed about him a while back and who said "he is destroying our world" spoke the truth if she meant that he is destroying the "world" of the left. The trans-gender ban will cost him nothing politically. Those who will be offended would never have voted for him anyway. Several other categories will come to Trump's mind:

1. Open gays. They are not protected by law.
2. Women serving in the combat arms (infantry, armor and Special Forces)
3. Women being pushed through very hard infantry skills courses like the Ranger Course and the USMC Basic Infantry Officer course. The services under immense political pressure have been putting carefully selected women junior officers through these courses to prove a false political point. To get them through they have been cutting corners on physical requirements, re-cycling these students to give them a chance at redemption if they fail, and dispatching general officers to supervise instructors to make sure they did give a failing grade.

I presume that service of women in other than infantry, armor and SF would not be affected by any such roll back in allowed roles. pl

[robt willmann]

This is the correct move, since it may help to flush out the slick obfuscation campaign to create legal doctrines about "transgender" and "gender identity" that hide from the public all the possible effects of any legal changes.

The spectrum involved in this hustle is--

1. Crossdresser.

2. Transvestite.

3. Transsexual, Shemale, Tranny, TGirl, TS, Ladyboy (who sometimes describe themselves as "fully functional", as in male sexual functioning).

4. Transgender (a person who has had a sex change operation).

This leaves out the only biological condition that to some degree could apply, but to my knowledge has never been made an issue: hermaphroditism--

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1033669

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8313919

The best policy was the previous one: "Don't ask, don't tell". That way, those who were homosexualist/gay and who got along with with others could not be considered a problem. And those on the list of 4 above, who usually are overt about it, would be excluded.

[AEL]

By reducing the available talent pool the American military will inevitably have lower quality people serving.

Here is some Canadian military propaganda:

[turcopolier]

AEL

Ha! Ha! pl

[b]

I am amused by the "outrage" that the pseudo left is spewing over this.

Trump's aim was to divert attention from the mess the Repubs are making with their health care nonsense. He achieved that with two lazy tweet during his morning dump.

---
There is no reason in my view to allow anyone into the military with this or that special attribute that demands attention or could hinder the mission.

All units that come near the front should be gender segregated (this includes submarines and many smaller ships. The WWII Russian military had female sniper battalions who had some success. That could be way to go.

[Dr.Puck]

(Surely right about not voting for the POTUS.)

Still, just as a matter of simple logic:

This is not to say that transgenders should be treated differently under the law. No. They should have the same basic rights as a biological man or woman.

refutes:

But the U.S. military is not a social biosphere for testing social and sexual justice theories.

The established proposition, your should have, is not subject to "theorizing it away."

The requisite formulation is something like, 'even though trans and gay and bi enjoy the same biological rights as anybody else, they are not effectively fit to the performance requirements of the military, (or some such phrase that erases the appeal to 'theory,' and to the premise that the societal norms need apply in military culture.

[Bill]

Excellent argument, and the fact that it works equal well for race in no way distracts. Purity in the armed forces always serves a nation well.

[Fred]

Col.,

I'm sure we'll see "The Resistance" grow. Looks like Trump is taking control of the media narrative once again.

[SmoothieX12]

Be careful when loading first year naval cadets bed sheets into washing machines--avoid breaking them. Lean them against the wall in a proper order before loading;)

[Lars]

It would seem that ability should be the primary criteria for soldiers and sailors. All the noise about who should be able to serve is essentially theoretical. An extreme point of reference would be the rock opera Tommy.

[MRW]

Hollywood and Silicon Valley are apoplectic.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/26/apple-google-and-facebook-ceos-slam-trumps-transgender-military-ban/

But look at the comments. N on is buying it.

[A.I.Schmelzer]

The Russian female snipers in WW2 actually werent segregated, iirc they alse werent organized in sniper batallions (i think there was a sniper training unit later on that was a batallion, but this was for training)but rather attached to rifle divisions.

Sniper is a pretty lonely job though, the spotter, also known as the person a sniper interacts with the most, was generally female s well however.

Cases in which the spotter was male, or a male sniper had a female spotter, generally resulted in an affair. Thing was, sniper/spotter is a 2 person team, if they love each other it less damaging then if 2 people love and favor each other (over their comrades) in a more then 2 persons setting (which is the issue with female soldiers in male units, not considering jealousy etc.).
Frontline affairs were generally overlooked as long as no pregnancies resulted, although you could be severely out of luck and get a hard ass (hopefully soon to be fragged) politruk.

Night witches werent segregated (Guards bomber rgt 388, the actual night witches, was intended to be segregated but reality intervened) either and had a number of male officers as well.

Russia also had the quite impressively named "Womens batallions of death" in WW1.

Other thing, USSR had a lot of pre war paramilitary opportunities which were also open to women. The women who performed well generally had preexisting paramilitary training, and were generally speaking self selected for martial aptitude.

[Lemur]

This reminds me of a rather amusing satire by Fred Reed, 'Squids and the Inner Light of Being'.

https://www.unz.com/freed/squids-and-the-inner-light-of-being/

[Keith Harbaugh]

First, I'd like to recommend an excellent website opposing social engineering in the military:
Center for Military Readiness, founded by Elaine Donnelly
https://cmrlink.org/

Second, we have all noted how the MSM moves in lockstep on various foreign policy issues,
such as favoring endless, pointless, wars in the Middle East
that only give Muslims in the U.S. an excuse to commit acts of domestic terrorism.
Also how they are united in doing everything they can to get Trump out of power.
But note how the MSM also moves in lockstep on radical social change in the military.

It's worth asking why the MSM is so united on those issues.
I certainly have my answer to that question,
but it might be considered "disruptive" so I'll refrain from giving it.

[jdledell]

It seems to me that the primary quality for the military should be the ability to handle the job. If a gay or transexual can pass the same training standards as a heterosexual male, why should they be excluded? My avowed racist father served during WWII in Europe. Even after the war, he and his army buddies would constantly talk about how bad it was that they had to work and live near blacks. Even though the combat units were segregated, blacks served in support units, cooks, truck drivers etc.

As a young boy I can remember he and his fellow soldiers talk about blacks should never serve in combat units since they were too dumb and unreliable and they would get "real" soldiers killed. Are transexual and gay soldiers the new negros?

[Lemur]

I like that image of Trump as World Destroyer. After Trump's election Le Pen said, 'Their world is collapsing, ours is being built.'

It's phraseology redolent of Yeats' poem, 'The Second Coming.' The last two lines read:

"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"

Yeats believed the Christian foundation of Western civilization was exhausted, and thus a new pagan ethic represented by the 'rough beast' (a reference to the Sphinx in Egypt) must symbolically reorient the spiritual pole of the West.

I prefer to interpret the last two lines less as an anti-Christian polemic and more as a poetic commentary on the renewal of order within a civilization. The denizens of the old order stand horrified and demoralized before the inexorable rise of a new system of values (the 'rough beast'), which contradict their own. But the new values, will habour a vitality inspiring belief, bringing the reign of nihilism and and dissolution to a close. For some of us, that's a message of hope.

[Thirdeye]

Poe's Law strikes again.

[turcopolier]

jdledell

Yes, it may just be too early for this kind of social experimentation. Once again, those who will object to Trump's decision would never serve themselves and his political base will not object. pl

[Thirdeye]

Is having deep-seated emotional dysfunction really the same as being black? I know it sounds judgmental, but the mental health related statistics with transexuals speak for themselves. Suicide rate 20x that for hetero and 5x that for gay in Sweden, the most PC country on Earth.

[Keith Harbaugh]

An interesting report found by following links from the CMR website:
“Transgender Policy Could Cost Military Billions Over Ten Years”
by Peter Sprigg
http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF17F52.pdf
This provides some documentation for the concerns of Rep. Vicky Hartzler.

As to the thinking in the White House that led to Trump's Tweet,
Politico seems to have a good inside account:
“Inside Trump’s snap decision to ban transgender troops”
A congressional fight over sex reassignment surgery threatened funding for his border wall.
By RACHAEL BADE and JOSH DAWSEY
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/26/trump-transgender-military-ban-behind-the-scenes-240990

[Lars]

In 1966, I signed up for the draft, as required, but I was rejected (1-Y). Obviously I am way too old now to serve but I object because it is one of many recent stupid decisions and that base, at best, represents a quarter of the population. For many reasons, in my opinion, it would be proper for the fighting forces to in most ways represent the country that they serve.

[ToivoS]

Trump's policies are indecipherable to me, but his political instincts rival if not exceed those of Nixon and Reagan. This move on his part will cement his support among his base.

In the last few weeks I have felt that the California legislature made a serious error in passing that resolution to boycott North Carolina because of that state's passage of the bathroom bill. This forced them to repeal that bill since California is just too economically powerful -- who in North Carolina would want to lose hosting NCAA basketball tournaments. Even if the state's politicians caved in on the issue it has to have left some deep resentments among their people. Nothing good will come from increasing the red state/blue state division.

[Nancy K]

Kristen Beck served. At least the transgenders in the military are serving. Their CIC was a draft dodger.

[Alaric]

I agree that this is a well timed distraction. As to who should and who should not fight, I think it depends on risk. If you are being invaded by a substantially larger power than it might make sense to use all available personnel though not necessarily in intergrated units. The US does not fight for her existence. The US fights third world nations in the third world. The US can afford to be picky.