Amidst much brouhaha, Donald J. Trump twit-nounces this: American Armed Forces no longer will accept (or keep?) self-announced so-called TransGendered apolicants. Many mystified; more murked and puzzled; and, even more painting signs, signing up lawyers and getting march-routes delineated – on both sides.
Well, I have a separate side, if you please. Here’s some of it:
The argument that the military is no place for Social Experiments is bogus. Can you say Integration? How about meritocracy? We won’t get into regularizing Women in Combat roles, but I do note the first person at Parris Island’s USMC rifle range for recruits to score a 250-possible was a Woman Marine, back in the last century when the gals were just allowed to qualify with rifles and still were doing pushups from the knee-touching position. Blacks owed acceptance to standard Combat – and other fields of military occupation without segregation – due to a Social Experiment called an Executive Order by President Harry S Truman, though some Blacks were seconded to French infantry units from American stevedore units during World War I and were heartily received and well-decorated. Only the exigencies of combat casualties took Montford Point (segregated and relegated to non-combat support roles) Marines of World War II to combat frontline service in at least one but I believe two cases of Amphibious Invasion operations in the Pacific. Marines were the last outfit to integrate fully. And, getting closer to the point of this, Women Marines still train in recruit depots at Parris Island separately. With combat arms opened up by the Last Administration’s executive fiat, one wonders if sex-mixed boot camps will come soon to PISC and to MCRD San Diego as well? With women flying combat aircraft in both Naval branches, Army Ranger and SEAL slots opening up for the distaff side, the questions are moot about Social Experimentation: already been done and for the most part successfully so. When I studied The Psychology of Women my junior year in college – the only one of six guys and about 20 women to get anatomy and details of female sexual response 100 percent on tests: when asked how I did so well, I replied: “Well, ma’am. The Marine Corps taught me a basic tenant: know your enemy.” – I encountered this observation I hold to have been true then and is true now…
The range of physiological expressions includes the strongest of women range somewhere above the weakest of men; and the range of the weakest of men falls just about somewhere above the weakest of women. More succinctly: Strong women (upper-body which for combat and other high-stress physical occupations like police and fire and construction) come close to strong men, but the vast majority of women range at or below the average strength of men. Weak men generally fall just ahead of the weakest of women on the continua of comparable strength.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the so-called Transgendered. There is no such thing as one gender becoming another. It’s a DNA thing. In some cases where continuing government grants no longer obtain, Transgenderism is classified a mental condition. No amount of surgery, hormone therapy and enforced social acceptance makes a woman a man or a man a woman. And male “periods” are a case in point.
More to the point, a military contract for acceptance and employment makes no room for transgenderd status, as well it should not. I have few legal and some moral qualms about homosexual, bisexual, asexual and just about any other category of sexuality being acceptable to military enlistment. None of those categories requires tax monies to be expended – unless separate housing is required for poly-gendered group-housing during recruit training and possible unit deployments – and well they should not. I believe the military long ago quit issuing rubbers to its male members before granting liberty. I am not even sure I like the concept of military medical-supplied contraceptives for uniformed (or even civilian support) members: that should be an expense borne by the willing and not the U. S. Taxpayer.
And now, the crux. The Taxpayer should have no responsibility to bear the burden of an enlisted (and, yes, that term includes commissioned officers, too) elective surgery, psychological counselling and other factors entailed in physically attempting to make a man a woman or vice-versa. The cost is not acceptable with a smaller and smaller budget. And the argument that psychological needs demand such fiscal support for those soldiers who choose to turn-sex once enlisted begs the question of motive? One joins the military for many reasons: to get a so-called sex-change has no business being on the list.
The military has the right to screen applicants for psychological or mental defect. And the same military has the right to reject applications made for fraudulent reasons.
We still are hashing out the pregnancy issue for single military moms – and why not dads, one may ask – and the resultant costs have little bearing on military objectives – breaking things and killing people.
And that is the bottom line.