IMHO, the big issue is paying for sex-change surgeries and drugs, which should most assuredly NOT be charged to American taxpayers.
If a trannie is already in the service and doing a good job, I don’t see a huge problem. Of course, I spent ten years in SanFran and eventually (but not right away) had a few gay guys as friends,, so I’m probably more liberal on that issue than some here. I do know that gay men and straight men and women can be friends, can rely on one another, can work together.
I’m a woman, have three lesbian neighbors in my large senior apartment complex, and two of them are perfectly fine, helpful neighbors—one was a marine for 15 years. The third one is on psych meds and can be scary. She was, btw, a marine too, and she’s very Christian...Jesus and No Abortion bumper stickers all over her car.
I can’t judge any of this on moral and/or humanitarian grounds, but I can say NO to paying for Trannie surgery/pills/maintenance.
I appreciate your viewpoint on this, you speak quite reasonably. I view homosexuality on an individual basis, and if they keep it to themselves (the same way someone else might keep their S&M or other odd sexual peccadilloes to themselves) I could care less and wouldn’t treat them differently as a person, even if I knew. Everyone is flawed in some way, and they are too.
But we know this is different. We are being forced by Federal law to accept this behavior as normal, and many of these people are willingly wielding that cudgel on us.
Militarily speaking, if these people are serving and we knew nothing about it we could accept it, except that many of these people have knowledge and hold security clearances, which puts them and us in danger. Like many liberal aberrant behaviors, their solution is to make it normal, and then those people aren’t security risks. Yeah, right.
But my main opposition to ANY of this (and that includes women in military combat roles) is that it harms the unit cohesion, complicates logistics (which in war, can mean losing an engagement/battle/war for lack of a nail in a shoe) and diminishes the mission capability across the board.
My feelings on women in combat have nothing to do with respect for women, who I greatly respect, am subordinate to, and work hard to support in the civilian world.
But the military is not the civilian world. If we have 50% of our troops female in combat, and we are attacked by an army that has 0% women in combat, we are going to lose when they come across a field at fighting holes and jump into those holes with our troops brandishing bayonets. No way around it. And that is what counts to me.
Being sexually attracted to a member of the same sex is a phenomenon that has been known, and known about, for thousands of years.
There is even evidence that certain types of same-sex attracted men can become outstanding warriors.
It is not at all the same thing as the false fixed belief that your physical body is the “wrong sex” and that, with certain surgical and other interventions you can become the other one.
The phenomenon of a delusion about your body is just not in the same category of things.
I think there’s a difference between a “transsexual” and a gay person. Until about 15 minutes ago, “transsexuals” were considered to have a major personality disorder. I’m not talking about hermaprodites, born with two sets of genitalia, who are a medical problem, but about people who announce that, appearances and chromosomes to the contrary, they’re really the opposite sex or maybe they’re both sexes.
These people are way too unstable and self-obsessed to be in the military. They are endangering everyone around them with their personal fantasies and making it all about “them” and not about the common project.
Gay people - and I say this as someone with many gay friends - may be somewhat maladjusted, but as long as they can focus on the project, they can function. The only project transsexuals have is their own fantasy life and there’s no way that can work with the military project.