BreakPoint Blog
|
Our New Transgender Military By: Anne Morse|Published: February 4, 2011 2:00 PM Announced on Friday afternoon during the week of a snowstorm: The Pentagon must now accomodate homosexual and transgendered soldiers. I'm having a hard time trying not to picture what this will look like, or what it might have looked like in the past. Guys in skirts storming San Juan Hill with Teddy Roosevelt. Paratroopers--their dresses flying up--landing in France on D-Day.
Does anybody really think that--if our military is forced to accept applicants who consider themselves transgendered--that they will not also be forced to allow male transgendered soldiers to dress in feminine clothing, if that's what they feel best conforms to their identity? Those who support throwing the military open to anyone who wishes to serve, gender confusion notwithstanding, don't seem to understand that military service is about giving up one's identity for the sake of the group, not insisting that the group accomodate the individual. No competent military could otherwise function. The most powerful military in the world, one that protects many countries besides itself, should stand up to those who demand it knuckle under to accomodate special interest groups, particularly those who represent people who are--and yes, I know I am taking my life in my hands by saying this (that is, telling the truth) in a time and place in which intense pressure is brought to bear by a tiny but vocal and powerful minority upon those who don't conform to their "standards," which appear to be based primarily upon hatred of faithful Christians, orthodox Jews, and orthodox Muslims--sexually disordered. |
Comments:
Though you may not have figured it out, the military is a hierarchial, collectivistic institution that demands suppression of individuality. In fact, Ben, one might even say that the military is-oh my, oh my-MILITARISTIC!
I was thinking of calling attention to Brian’s Freudian Typo, where, when he listed nations that allow gays & lesbians to serve openly in their armed services, said (and I quote), “These nations are amongst our *closet* allies…”
But, with what can only be called sangfroid, I decided not to.
Not only that, but Brian's discussion of gays, when Anne was talking specifically about transsexuals, strikes me as equivocation. Neither gay men nor lesbians are likely to request separate restroom or shower facilities, for example. (And IIRC, this is a special problem for the Navy, where retrofitting ships - particularly submarines - is not straightforward.)
And yes, Anne's reference to paratroopers having their skirts fly up is something of a deliberate enticement to argue. Females are permitted to wear skirts while on military bases, please note. I suspect that some who join the military do so not out of a desire to defend their country, but because of the benefits. This is why I'm interested to read someone's argument about why military service is different from civil service.
A sincere thank you from me to your sister-in-law.
And IMNSHO, the best fighting uniform is a kilt. Even for paratroopers.
Jason said, "And Christ's acceptance is irrelevant to being a vital part of the armed forces."
I agree, which makes me puzzled as to why LQ also brought it up, saying "As to fact checking, as I recall you were somewhat less interested in that when it came to the Bible itself. I think you should let the sword cut both ways." I don't think the Bible has much to say about the composition of the military.
Jason, your view is that soldiers who speak out about military policies are disloyal, is that correct? But in the case of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT), it's not the military who's keeping it around, it's Congress. Don't soldiers in this democracy have a right to speak out about how their elected representatives vote?
As for the military effectiveness, the Defense Secretary, General Gates, favors repealing DADT, and has a comprehensive report that shows it will not decrease military effectiveness. There are no arguments made for DADT that weren't also made for keeping blacks and women out of the military, and those groups seem to have integrated just fine. As regards the US public, about ~70% favor repealing DADT.
For that matter, I boggled as to why Anne thinks our military "should stand up to those who demand it knuckle under... a tiny but vocal and powerful minority", when it's 70% of the public, many of the leading generals of our military, and our Commander in Chief who all favor repealing DADT. This is a "tiny minority"?
By the way, Jason, "all I have to say" is a figure of speech, and usually isn't meant to be taken literally.
I also read an article via re:News (thank you, Gina and Kim!) that talked about "Entitlement Derangement Syndrome" as evidenced in Wisconsin. It made me wonder if someone has written (to the level of quality of a PFM writer, say) about why military service is not merely civil service. This is prompted by your remark, Anne, that "military service is about giving up one's identity for the sake of the group". I have a sense that pushing paperwork in the military is qualitatively different from pushing papers in any other federal government job, even though both should be about *service to others* rather than about the benefits one can accrue.
And it's interesting - those who hated Jesus for being too accommodating to sinners were also those who hated His wild-eyed, spit-flinging fundamentalist cousin, John the Baptist. And, Jesus seemed to have adopted John's habit of telling sinners to repent or they'd end up in Hell.
Brian, it's good to see you again. (Yes, *sincerely*.) I'm intrigued by the fact that your response focuses primarily on gay soldiers, not on transgendered ones (which was Anne's focus here). Note, also, that Anne has at least two family members that even *I* know about who are either active or retired military, so she presumably has access to people who would disagree with your friends. As to fact checking, as I recall you were somewhat less interested in that when it came to the Bible itself. I think you should let the sword cut both ways.
Finally, Anya: you said "everyone who proclaims to be a Christian". Would that include, for example, Bishop Gene Robinson of the Episcopal church? It seems that Christians are not the only ones who can be "narrow minded prejudicial bigoted ignorant people". Some of us, including me personally, have been the targets of GLBT anger, and we have difficulty convincing ourselves that the GLBT community doesn't have an "the ends justify the means" philosophy, including intimidation and vandalism and even injury, to this day.
And Christ's acceptance is irrelevant to being a vital part of the armed forces. Lepers were also accepted by Christ.
And "get over yourselves" is clearly not all you have to say, as you have said quite a bit more.
Why is it so hard for people to think that just because someone is a member of the GLBT Community that they cannot be a vital part of the armed forces of this country?
Do you really think you are better than they are?
Well let me remind you all that Jesus accepted all and shuned no one, all who came to my brother were welcomed. Yet everyone who proclaims to be a Christian are the most narrow minded prejudicial bigoted ignorant people I know. All I have to say is get over yourselves.
Why not protest for their right not to be yelled at by drill-sergeants, or their right not to polish boots?
Your post is factually incorrect.
First, transgender soldiers are still barred from serving in the United States military under separate regulations.
Second, before Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal goes into effect, military chiefs must certify it will not impair their effectiveness. If they can't/don't certify, no dice. It's hard to say they are being forced to when they effectively have veto power over implementation of repeal.
Third, the USA will join at least 25 other nations in allowing gays & lesbians to serve openly. These nations are amongst our closet allies, including:
Israel
United Kingdom
Denmark
Italy
France
South Africa
Germany
and many others
It's really hard to imagine the end of our military when so many of our allies already function this way. My friends in the military get dismayed when they hear this kind of rhetoric. They've said to me "Does the public really have that little faith in us? That we won't be able to function in the presence of gay people? C'mon!"
Fourth, I suppose your fanciful images of guys in skirts storming San Juan Hill makes for exciting writing, but it's not sound, it's distracting, and it's straw man. Gay soldiers, like all soldiers, wear military uniforms. They are strong. They are loyal. Many of them are already serving openly with the support and encouragement of their units.
If all you have are some tired old stereotypes and blatant misinformation about the reality of the legislation and the capacities of our allied militaries, I'm not sure how you've "tested everything, hold fast to that which is true."
I'd expect more from a Christian blog.