The New York Times recently bemoaned that it was “unfair” to US troops who have publicly announced their gender identity issues for the US military to fail to follow through with its unstated promise of letting them serve in whatever gender expression they chose.

To be clear, US military policy states those who “identify” as a gender other than their actual one have issues that disqualify them from serving. In July of last year, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter stood up a “working group” to study the impact of allowing troops with gender issues to serve [emphasis added]:

“At my direction,” Carter said, “the working group will start with the presumption that transgender persons can serve openly without adverse impact on military effectiveness and readiness, unless and except where objective, practical impediments are identified.”

The working group was to study the issue over the succeeding six months.

Eight months later, the New York Times chided Carter for his broken “promise,” though it is clear to the casual observer no “promises” were made.

Still, the implied promise was certainly observed by many, and it would seem the military has apparently taken the cue to try to “socialize” the transgender issue and desensitize the services to it. To that end, the Air Force recently published an interesting official bio in its Through Airmen’s Eyes series.  The Air Force article’s sole purpose was to discuss retired Air Force officer and current Air Force civilian Laura Perry’s “transition” from being a male to calling himself a woman.

Carter’s announcement last year, combined with elevating discharge authority for gender issues to the Undersecretary of Defense, has engendered a substantial amount of confusion within the Armed Forces, according to the NYT [emphasis added]:

There are no clear rules on personal grooming, uniforms and other matters…Some commanders have insisted that comrades of transgender service members continue using pronouns that are at odds with the gender identity of those individuals. There has been confusion over which restrooms transgender troops should use.

Looks like the US military needs a bathroom bill.

As an example of this gender travesty, the NYT tells the story of US Navy Ensign Ali Marberry, a male who, like Perry, chooses to identify as female. The NYT uses female pronouns [emphasis added]:

Ali Marberry…was slated to start fighter pilot training last fall. Soon after the policy review was announced last year, Ensign Marberry came out as transgender and was disqualified from flight school…While her peers have been assigned to Navy units, she remains at the academy in Annapolis performing administrative tasks. She is required to wear the male uniform and use men’s restrooms.

There’s the bathroom again. Who knew this was a thing?  Do we really need the federal government to tell people what bathroom they’re supposed to use?  Apparently, some people are “confused,” and only action by the US government will help.

The New York Times was willing to dedicate an editorial to men who think they’re women and still want to serve in the US military — without regard to the logistical issues that places on the entire US Armed Forces.

Where was the NYT editorial on men who are Sikhs and want to wear a beard and turban, consistent with their faith, an exercise of their protected religious liberty, and of no consequence to anyone but themselves?

Religious faith is both a human liberty and specifically protected in the US Constitution. Sexuality of any sort is neither of those two things.

Yet, in a sad state of affairs, American society appears more enraptured with freedom of sex — and all its many new permutations — than freedom of religion.

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---