As previously noted, a steady stream of media articles and pushes by activist groups aim to keep the issue of “transgender military service” in the current conversation.

An article at the Washington Post was entitled “Transgender military members are in a precarious position,” which is quite the understatement, given that “transgender military members” are, by definition, not supposed to be serving in the military to begin with. The article says some servicemembers were told they were allowed to serve in their “chosen” gender role, only to subsequently have that permission revoked. Such confusion would likely be the result of lower level commanders not following Department of Defense policy — which, if followed, would eliminate such confusion.

Not unlike the push for open service by homosexuals, transgender advocates say there are “about 15,500 transgender people serving in the military,” a statistic based on pure conjecture (a 2008 survey of about 6,500 self-described transgenders and their military history).

In December, USA Today quoted Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James supporting repeal of the ban on transgendered service, saying

From my point of view, anyone who is capable of accomplishing the job should be able to serve.

While the article noted advocates for transgendered service “applauded” the Secretary’s remarks, they seemed to have missed how broad that statement is.  The military has a plethora of requirements for enlistment — far more than a simple “is the candidate capable of accomplishing the job?”  Ever wonder why there are no convicted felons in the military, or why aspiring enlistees worry about past “experimental” drug use?  If “doing the job” is the only standard, these two groups are just a few of the many that have nothing to worry about in the future.

The ACLU celebrated a decision by the Army to allow two transgender veterans to change their names on their DD-214s — something the ACLU said the Army normally didn’t allow, “in the interest of historical accuracy.”  But the Army apparently made an exception in the case of a transgendered person, and it was worthy of an Associated Press headline.

Still, advocates for broader sexual liberties — like Ashley Broadway’s American Military Partner Association — are “growing impatient” at the Defense Department’s lack of acceptance of people of one biological gender who choose to identify as the other.

At the Army Times, transgender activists repeated the same arguments used to support the repeal of the policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but didn’t realize they were hurting their own cause as they did so:

“This change needs to happen because it benefits the military,” said Paula Neira, a former lieutenant and surface warfare officer who served in the Navy as a man from 1985 to 1991. “We accomplish the mission better, we’re more effective as a force, we have more combat efficiency if we can all be who we are … as opposed to trying to hide, trying to fit in.”

According to even its supporters, the repeal of DADT has had zero effect on the US military. In other words, if the repeal on the ban on transgenders is to have the same result, there is no positive outcome to be achieved in the mission, force effectiveness, or combat efficiency, despite unsupported claims to the contrary.

By contrast, Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness maintains the negative effect of “transgenders” on their peers in the US military could be substantial.  She cited a recent case in which the US government’s Office of Special Counsel accused the Army of discrimination because it asked a male employee to stop using the female bathroom and to stop discussing his sex change with his peers.

Another Army Times article used the examples of “sexual liberty” in foreign militaries as a model for the US military (again, the same argument as the repeal of DADT). Ironically, despite claiming there are more than 15,000 transgenders serving in the US military, countries with open service literally claim only one or two individuals.

And while the US military initially claimed the repeal of DADT did not require US troops to change their beliefs about homosexuality, advocates for foreign militaries say that’s precisely what is required for transgenders to serve [emphasis added]:

“The main challenge is to change the norms and attitudes of personnel. This is done through direct, firm messaging from leadership,” said Helena Hoffman, a gender equality specialist with the Swedish Armed Forces.

If foreign services are such a wonderful model of sexual freedom, its a surprise no one has advocated for open co-ed bunking, which Norway experimented with last year:

When the Norwegian army experimented with unisex dorms by putting two female and four male service members in the same room, the women felt less emphasis on gender differences, according to “The Local,” an English-language media outlet in Europe.

“To them, there was nothing strange about the unisex rooms,” study co-author Ulla-Britt Lilleaas was quoted as saying. “They had entered a common mode where gender stereotypes had disappeared, or at least they were less obvious.”

Sounds great on paper, and as former US Rep Barney Frank was once asked, if two people who are sexually attracted to each other can bunk or shower together if they’re the same biological gender, why can’t two who aren’t the same?

It seems the US military agrees with Frank, and doesn’t think mixed-gender private accommodations are a good idea. When asked if the US military would follow Norway’s lead:

“The answer is, ‘No,’ ” Marine Corps spokeswoman Capt. Maureen Krebs said.

“The Navy is not currently considering any type of unisex living quarters,” Navy spokeswoman Lt. Stephanie Homick said.

“No. Each airman has their own bedroom and bathroom,” Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said.

“You may report that the Army declined to comment on this Norwegian initiative,” Army spokesman George Wright said.

The terse answers are almost dismissive of the question — as if it’s a ridiculous question to ask.

It would seem there are some moral lines people don’t think should be crossed, regardless of the examples of foreign militaries — or the unbridled social push for what Dr. Al Mohler called “erotic liberty.”

For now, at least.

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---