Thanks for your response. Appreciate your explanations of the dangers of women in combat. I don’t support that either. My non-scary lesbian marine neighbor was in charge of caring for horses at some base in Virginia. I don’t think anyone would have a problem with that.
AS for security clearances, I heard from military friends long ago that gays were not good security risks. I thought this was because they could be compromised if anyone found out they were gay. Now that everyone’s out, what? One might suppose that sexual ambivalence that trannies exhibit would indicate other kinds of ambivalence, but I cannot say that’s a fact.
This year, several cases were reported of transgender “female” athletes winning girls’ sporting events. And in one case the “female” was sporting a mustache. This should put a stop to some of the nonsense, but no. “Instead of calling this exactly what it is–a male unfairly competing against females (cheating), Yearwood is being commended for ‘her’ bravery.”
I don’t see us winning battles by confusing the enemy to death and am really delighted that Donald said NO.
LOL, “confusing an enemy to death”...we might do just that. I can see the conversation now among our enemies: “Hell no, I don’t want to conquer them...who needs all that? Do we have to have separate POW camps, do we put them all into one big camp...what?”
As for security risk, I believe they would still be security risks, because I think there are many of them (particularly in the “transgender” grouping) to whom their other issues they may have are simply compounded by their sexual behaviors and desires. That can happen with heterosexuals as well, but I believe it is worse with homosexuals.