Posted on 07/27/2017 5:21:51 PM PDT by jfd1776
The people whining about the Administration’s latest decision – formally returning to the exclusion of "transgendered people" from the military - apparently don't understand what the military is for.
The Armed Services are not a corner bakery or grocery store. They’re not a school or customer service center, a factory or shopping mall. The military is not a social justice experiment.
The military is a collection of government departments, constitutionally chartered to do certain things that only the government can do (as opposed to things that are better done by the private sector): keeping our borders secure, engaging or defending against foreign threats, etc.
In the same way that your local police and fire department issue enlistment guidelines for potential applicants, there are certain conditions to meet, for anyone who wants to join up: physical ability, youth, training, mental health, etc. They perform physical and mental health checks to judge the applicants against these standards; people who don’t measure up simply cannot join.
Those of us who are old enough to remember the days of the mandatory draft know that the list of conditions that rightly exclude people from military service is long. Chronic pain, criminal convictions, height or strength challenges, poor recovery from past injuries, citizenship issues, either prescription or non-prescription drug use, poor vision, anorexia, bulemia, flatfootedness, bipolar disorder... such things all play a role in whether a potential recruit is deemed fit to serve.
This isn't bigotry.
This isn't saying someone is less of a person, less human, or has fewer Constitutional rights, just because they're kept out of the service.
A myriad of illustrative examples come to mind almost unbidden: However much he may have wanted to, Danny DeVito couldn't be an NBA guard because he's short. Sydney Greenstreet couldn't be a racehorse jockey because he was fat. Gouverneur Morris couldn't be a special forces soldier because he was severely disabled (a peg leg and a burn-damaged arm).
And I couldn't be an Air Force pilot because I have terrible eyesight (9 diopters, plus considerable astigmatism, if you really must know)...
This doesn't mean that any of the above can't live a happy, fulfilling and successful life doing other things. Devito became a great comic, Greenstreet became a great actor, Morris became a great statesman… and as for me, I'm a darned good trade compliance trainer.
Being told you're not right for one thing isn't an insult. There are a million other things you can do instead.
The military has determined that the type of people who call themselves transgender today - as a group – have a greater-than-acceptable likelihood of suffering issues that would cause them, frankly, to “not fit in well” in a cohesive fighting unit. That's all. It’s nothing against them, nothing against any specific individual, just a statement that, in the interest of the most effective fighting force possible, experts have determined that this group isn’t a fit.
If these potential enlistees really want to contribute to America’s national defense capacity, there are a thousand other ways: Get a job with a defense contractor... become an engineer designing weaponry or bulletproof vests... work in a factory manufacturing military transport vehicles...write pro-military screenplays... become a journalist giving positive and fair coverage to military issues. The possibilities are endless.
As an example: In one of the best known anecdotes about Hollywood's connection with World War II, film actor Ronald Reagan attempted to enlist. He was almost thirty at the time… but they were happily accepting actors in their thirties, so that was no problem… until the two recruiters processing him got a look at his vision test. As marksmen would put it, without his Coke-bottle-thick eyeglasses on, Ronald Reagan couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn.
One of the recruiters is reported to have said "If we put a gun in your hand, you'd shoot a General!" To which the other reportedly wisecracked "Yes, and you'd miss him!"
So what happened?
Did Ronald Reagan storm off, and threaten to sue the military for rejecting a half-blind applicant?
No. He found another way to serve the war effort, putting his abilities and fame to the best use, by making training videos and patriotic movies for the duration of the war.
I’ll share a personal story, if I may:
In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was the Republican nominee for President, I wanted to vote for him, but I was a college freshman at the time; I didn't turn 18 until three weeks after the election.
I could argue that 18 is a totally arbitrary and unfair number, that it could just as easily be 17 or 20 or 25... but I accepted it, and found another way to help the campaign. I walked precincts for him, and I volunteered at the Reagan-Bush phone bank in Glenview. And that certainly did far more for the campaign than my single vote would have done anyway.
The message is this: if the people using this new term – "transgender" - really want to support American defense capabilities, there are countless ways to do so, without joining up as a soldier or sailor.
And if they refuse those other options - and insist it's "infantry or nothing" or utter some other such petulant complaint - then it's clear that they never really wanted to support American defense at all, and this was just the political grandstanding that, frankly, it looked like all along.
Copyright 2017 John F. Di Leo
John F Di Leo is a Chicagoland based writer, actor, and international trade professional. His columns are regularly found in Illinois Review.
Permission is hereby granted to forward freely, provided it is uncut and the IR URL and byline are included.
Seems to me the country had enough problems implementing transgender bathrooms in public. I can only imagine all the problems the military would face.
Seems to me the country had enough problems implementing transgender bathrooms in public. I can only imagine all the problems the military would face.
Excellent article, as is this one on same topic:http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267397/transgender-ban-isnt-fair-neither-war-daniel-greenfield
Excellent observations! Thanks for posting.
That bottom picture was probably from a “Walk a mile in her shoes” event which, IIRC, is meant to bring attention to rape.
I will also point out that none of those Soldiers wearing the high heels is wearing regulation socks.
Any man who wants to walk a mile in my shoes should like combat boots. That’s what I wear...
As a white blonde blue eyed born male who now identifies as a transgendered transracial pregnant black female with 50% native American association whose addicted to alcohol and government cheese I’m torn between joining the Aryan Brotherhood or Black Lives matter.
Any advice?
Finally some common sense on the issue. The number of transgendered in the overall population is very small and the number in active military service is smaller still. Yet we are lead to believe by the lying media that the untold thousands of transgendered serving is vital to national security. We must bend the rules for a small handful and compromise everyone else just to be politically correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.