Transgender activist Jean Burleton trained Air Force personnel on the truth of gender fluidity. (142nd Fighter Wing, Portland, Oregon, Air National Guard)

“Only in a fallen, sinful world can we say sexual attraction is permanent — but body parts aren’t.“

The 142nd Fighter Wing of the Portland Air National Guard in Oregon recently held a training session in which the Air Force trained its Airmen that gender is arbitrarily “assigned-at-birth” rather than a product of biology.

TSgt John Hughel begins the official press release by comparing Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s removal of the ban on transgenders with President Eisenhower’s executive order integrating the military — terribly ironic, given that skin color is biologically determined and immutable, while transgender activists claim peoples’ bodies need to be physically “fixed” to match how they feel.

The training session was led by Jean Burleton, an activist who is a male but presents himself as a woman.  For context, Burleton previously defended the ability of 15-year olds to get sex-change operations without parental consent to get around parents who might not be “supportive.”

The Air Force article states:

Statistically, 95% of Americans are cisgender, meaning they identify with the sex they were assigned at birth. For them, it can be a challenge to try and understand how a person born with a penis and raised as a man can identify as a woman.

Yes, it is challenging for some to understand how a man can identify as a woman, just as it is challenging to understand how a person who is 5 ft 6 in tall can claim to be 7 ft tall, or an 18-year old can claim to be 65 (so they can get the senior discount, of course).  The source of people’s lack of understanding isn’t rocket science. (The clever FPIW video highlighting this “problem” has been viewed nearly 2 million times.)

But why does the US military need to train its troops to “understand” the transgender lifestyle?  It doesn’t train Republicans to understand Democrats, or atheists to understand Christians.  Despite what the media narrative might imply, the military doesn’t train people of one skin color to “understand” another.  Rather, the military demands that its troops respect each other, regardless of their views or backgrounds.

It is shocking that the Air Force would call upon and then quote a transgender activist as gospel — if that word can be used. The article presents Burleton’s claims as undisputed fact, including the use of the nonsensical term “cisgender.”

Interestingly, the article again highlighted the US military’s claim to tolerance as justification for accepting all forms of sexual behavior, without noting its apparent selective application [emphasis added]:

“Our mission is to defend this country,” [Secretary Ash Carter] said, “We don’t want barriers unrelated to a person’s qualifications to serve preventing us from recruiting or retaining the soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine who can best accomplish the mission.”

If that is truly the case, why do Sikhs have a de facto ban on serving? The barriers to their service are wholly unrelated to their qualifications. Why does the US military not speak out against those who attempt to push Christians out of the military, when their beliefs have no bearing on their qualifications?

An outside observer might conclude that, as an institution, the military is quick to defend sexual behavior but hesitant to defend religious liberty. This is particularly notable because religious liberty is explicitly protected within the US Constitution, while sexual behavior is not.

It is not certain that the Portland Air National Guard’s attempt to train its troops on how gender really works will ultimately be reflected in DoD policy. It is disturbing, nonetheless, that the military would bring in outside “experts” to train service members how they’re supposed to think about gender and sexuality.

Of course, it’s disturbing that the US government feels the need to “train” anyone on neo-sexuality at all.  Worse still, some government employees who refuse to attend what they call “propaganda” training may lose their jobs.  David Hall, currently employed by the Social Security Administration, is one such employee.  He notes that his likely termination is the very reason other Christians are afraid to speak up and defend their own right to exercise their faith — a faith that finds homosexuality, transgenderism, and other forms of sexual permissiveness an “abomination,” to quote the King James.

The question remains: Why does the US government need to train him about other-sexuality?

The Air Force isn’t alone, of course.  The US Navy recently announced all personnel will have to attend training on the new transgender policies — training that will

emphasize policies and expectations of personal behavior.

Interestingly, the Navy said it was going to be on alert for harassment — that is, a certain kind of harassment:

Service leaders will be on alert for those who seek to single out or mistreat their transgender counterparts.

“We do not tolerate harassment of any kind,” Anderson said. “Treating all service members with dignity and respect is something we take extremely seriously, and when there are any indications that those values are not being followed, we will conduct appropriate investigations and take action as necessary

While spokesman Lt Jessica Anderson made a point of saying “harassment of any kind,” the Navy has not, in practice, indicated any intention of protecting against harassment by other-sexuals.  For example, at least one homosexual Sailor lodged a frivolous complaint against Chaplain Wes Modder — for the intended purpose of getting him in trouble due to Modder’s religious beliefs. The Navy has never indicated that Sailor or any associated with him was punished for his harassment — “of any kind.”  Makes it somewhat hard to believe the Navy takes the harassment of chaplains or Sailors of faith “extremely seriously.”

It is possible, of course, that the 142nd Fighter Wing training was entirely voluntary, it was made clear that these opinions were not official policy, and those who disagreed for religious reasons were encouraged to “confidently practice their own beliefs” in accordance with the protections of Air Force regulations. Perhaps there was even an alternate training session in which an outside faith expert was brought in to help Airmen of faith with the challenges of a culture hostile to their religious beliefs.

If you believe that, there’s a bridge for sale in New York.

Every Airman is free to practice the religion of their choice or subscribe to no religious belief at all. You should confidently practice your own beliefs while respecting others whose viewpoints differ from your own. Every Airman also has the right to individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs, to include conscience, moral principles or religious beliefs, unless those expressions would have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health and safety, or mission accomplishment.

Air Force Instruction 1-1 para 2.11

[Jesus] answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female…?”

Matthew 19:4

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---