Trump Is on the Losing Side of the Culture War With Transgender Military Issue

The administration thinks it will resound with Trump voters. But during the campaign, he claimed to be a better friend to the LGBT community than Hillary Clinton.

|

Michael Nigro/ZUMA Press/Newscom

The culture war has been going on a long time, and it won't end any time soon. But the outcome is not in doubt.

Some conservatives were gratified to see President Donald Trump bar transgender people from the military. The backlash suggests it will be much like the Native Americans' victory at Little Bighorn—memorable but ultimately irrelevant.

White House officials saw this announcement as a brilliant political move. "This forces Democrats in Rust Belt states like Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin to take complete ownership of this issue," an anonymous administration official gloated to Axios.

Democrats, however, have put their names on the issue the way the president emblazons "Trump" on buildings. If they feared being out of step with their constituents, House Democrats would not have voted unanimously this month against legislation to stop the Pentagon from paying for hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery.

The proposal was defeated—thanks to 24 Republicans who sided with them. Even Speaker Paul Ryan "declined to fully endorse" it, reported The Washington Post.

Making the case to cut off funding for transgender treatments is easier than making the case for Trump's decree. "House Republicans were never debating expelling all transgender troops from the military," reported Politico. "'This is like someone told the White House to light a candle on the table and the WH set the whole table on fire,' a senior House Republican aide said in an email."

The political wizards in the White House don't seem to have noticed that voters in one of those Rust Belt states, Wisconsin, elected an openly lesbian U.S. senator, Tammy Baldwin, in 2012. Michigan's Sen. Debbie Stabenow had a 92 percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign, which favors gay rights, when she buried her Republican opponent by 21 points in 2012.

A lot of conservative Republicans are not lining up with Trump, either. Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama—Alabama!—said, "You ought to treat everybody fairly, and you ought to give everybody a chance to serve." Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah—Utah!—said, "I don't think we should be discriminating against anyone. Transgender people are people, and deserve the best we can do for them."

Those who pushed the ban believe it will resound with Trump voters. But during the campaign, he claimed to be a better friend to the LGBT community than Hillary Clinton. He also criticized North Carolina's bathroom bill and invited Caitlyn Jenner to use any restroom she wanted at Trump Tower. Trump's fans didn't seem to mind.

The truth is that the number of Americans inclined to support Trump on this matter isn't large. A Rasmussen survey in June revealed that only 31 percent of voters opposed the Obama administration's policy of allowing transgender troops.

A poll last year by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 53 percent of Americans—and 36 percent of Republicans—oppose laws requiring transgender people to use the restroom corresponding with their sex at birth. Nearly three-quarters of Americans support laws forbidding job discrimination against gays and transgender people—and 62 percent of Republicans concur.

The zealots cheering Trump won't help his cause. The right-wing Family Research Council had denounced "President Obama's use of the military to engage in liberal social engineering." But the same argument was used against integrating the military, opening the service academies to women and lifting the ban on gays. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

The FRC had vilified Obama's "wicked" policy and "the forces of darkness that gave birth to it." But overtly religious appeals have lost potency. In 2004, the Pew Research Center notes, only 11 percent of white evangelical voters wanted to legalize same-sex marriage. Now it's 35 percent. Support among Catholics has gone from 36 percent in 2004 to 67 percent today.

Attitudes toward transgender people have grown more liberal even though most Americans don't know many of them, if any. But the parallel with gay rights is too compelling to ignore.

Once the norm has been established that gays should be full and equal members of society, it's hard to rationalize penalizing transgender people. In a free and modern society, the nature of inclusion is to expand, not contract.

Trump may get his way on transgender troops, but only temporarily. In the long run, those who see him as an ally should realize how the culture war will end: They lose.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Local Opposition Halts Planned Minor League Stadium Subsidy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I remember seeing in the previous article on this subject that RAND corp estimated 8 million $ in trans surgery costs, vs. 100+ million in Viagra/Cialis costs for cis-het folks.

    My question- well, other than “what in the ever-sweet-lovemaking fuck is the military doing paying for dixer-upper pills”- is: what is the PER-CAPITA cost of a trans soldier, to the military?

    As it happens, I think we should be willing to accept a certain higher cost for trans troops- owing to A, how few there are, and B, how stomach-crateringly high their suicide rate is- but if it’s two or three or more times higher than a cis-het line dog, then at the very least objections to their service may be accepted as reasonable, even if still incorrect.

    1. There is a long list of medical conditions that bar people from military service. Gender dysphoria is more serious and costly than many of them.

      Sorry, but accepting people who require gender reassignment surgery or lifelong hormone treatments makes no sense.

      1. This

        As I was being onboarded for my first enlistment, they were still filtering out people for medical and mental problems. The guy I sat next too on the plane down to Parris Island was sent home the next day.

        Now these assholes think the military (and me the taxpayer) should be covering the cost of massively expensive elective surgery. And deal with the disruption in training, assignments, quarters and the rest.

        1. You people are so fucking stupid it’s painful.

          1. You’re such a fucking ignoramus, it’s a wonder you can breathe.
            Please ask your mommy why she didn’t help the world and have you aborted, you slimy piece of lefty shit.

          2. Another solid arguement from Tony.

          3. Suicide is painless, Tony.

      2. You mean elective sterilization via surgical mutilation . Ain’t no changing genders . Any reasonable person knows that .

      3. YES!!!!!!!!!!

    2. If they really want to serve, have them sign a waiver that they will not seek the surgery or hormone therapy.
      Per capita expense is a good way to judge. So is readiness.
      As far as fairness? During a 4 year enlistment, how much time do they require to be off?

      IMO it applies to females also.

      1. What people really want is not the basis for who is considered fit to serve. Like it’s some kind of negotiation or accommodation.

        It’s not.

        1. Why invent nonsense reasons to reject people?

          Nonsense reason: trans people make me feel icky.

          1. Non-nonsense reason: “Trans” people suffer from a severe mental illness, will require lifelong hormone therapy to stay “reassigned,” and have an incredibly-high suicide rate. Given that even a mild case of, say, asthma, can be grounds for discharge, why enlist people who’ll require a great deal more care?

            And just WHO decided that these Chaos-warped Bedlamite lunatics should be the cause du jour, anyway?

            1. You’re on the other side of Orrin freaking Hatch. Time to move on.

            2. Excuse me, but . . . being “trans” as you put it is NOT a severe mental illness. Not even close since any mental health condition’s degree of severity is based on its adverse impact on daily life functioning by the individual. Thus, major depression, extreme phobias, the more serious forms of schizophrenia, etc all qualify as serious mental health illnesses. Gender Identity Disorder (the more current name for the condition) affects daily life functioning only to the extent that its accompanying confusion and background distraction detract from one’s engagement with life.

              More to the point: once a person with GID begins the transition process, she (or he) often becomes more productive because the background distractions have been eliminated. Thus, in no way does the presence of a transgender individual in a military unit weaken unit readiness or overall effectiveness. So yes, it does make sense for DOD to cover all necessary transition costs for transgender service members.

              1. “Once a person with GID begins the transition process” then the condition most certainly is having an “adverse impact on daily life functioning” even if it wasn’t before. And if it’s NOT a severe condition that has serious impacts on functioning, then isn’t “transitioning” with major disfiguring surgery and poisonous levels of hormones an unacceptably drastic “treatment”? You’re trying to have it both ways here.

          2. Why invent nonsense reasons to reject people?

            Translation from lefty nonsense: We FEELZ the Department of Defense should spend its defense dollars to help trans people and trans people should not foot the medical bill.

          3. Right, and issues with women serving are about fear of vaginas, and have nothing to do with having the physical strength of a pubescent boy.

          4. We don’t let diabetics who need regular shots of insulin serve either, fuckwit.

    3. I’m not sure how that’s relevant though – unless we’re saying that trans-people will never need Viagra/Cialis . . . because they never have sex? Because they’re always up for it?

    4. The Rand estimate was way too low, because they didn’t take into account that the military would have to provide hormones for life. Anytime the military provides surgery, they are on the hook for continuing that treatment even after the person gets out of the service. For life.

      But even if the estimate was spot on, it’s irrelevant. Buying a few service members brand new Ferraris would also be a small drop in the bucket, but that wouldn’t make it right either.

      1. How many people commit suicide because they couldn’t get a Ferrari? (Which isn’t to say there aren’t any…)

        The trans suicide rate is 100 to 200 times higher than general population. That the US military shouldn’t be on the hook for it, doesn’t mean that putting the US military on the hook for it is “the worst thing evah”.

        1. Not very convincing evidence that sex change surgeries solve the suicide issue. From what I’ve read, the goose hangs high and rates are low for a few years, then back to the normal 40%.

          BTW, the trans suicide rate is ~40% vs ~4% for general pop. That makes it 10x… you’re numbers are an order of magnitude (or two) too high.

          1. I think that’s *attempts*, over lifetime… 4% of the US population doesn’t attempt suicide every year. Neither do 40% of trans people.

            I remembered hearing that something like 1 in a hundred (1,000 per 100,000) trans commit suicide. Versus an annual gen pop rate of 13 per 100k every year.

            In retrospect, I think the “1 in a hundred” must be over lifetime, which wouldn’t be comparable to annual, so your numbers are probably correct. Still not good.

            The point is that “lots of studies” (yes, I know, “damned lies and statistics”) have shown decreasing LGBT suicide rates alongside growing cultural acceptance. Rejecting their service partially reverses that, whereas the cost to the government is minimal.

          2. To further clarify my initial reply to you: I don’t think “gender reassignment surgery” reduces trans suicides, or that it doesn’t. I have no opinion on that possibility; I am referring to the greater social isolation that results in the trans community when they are rejected from a distinguished public institution, especially in the gross and dismissive way Trump went about doing it.

            Social isolation/deprivation is the #1 predictor of suicidality. Humans are social creatures that don’t take rejection well. Incidentally, this is something all libertarians should remember: because it is the main reason suicide rates are higher around gun-owning (eg rural, eg more-isolated) areas.

            1. Arguing that transgenders have especially fragile egos is not a point their favor.

              1. Apparently rural gun-owners do too, if you insist on conflating “high suicide rate” with “fragile ego”.

                Social acceptance has nothing to do with pride or ego- any more than desiring your mother’s love does.

                1. I am more addressing the idea that transgenders mental health as a group requires the military “accept” them unconditionally otherwise they will suicide with increased frequency is not an indication of a mentally fit demographic. And, yes, it does suggest on your part that that group has weak egos.

                  1. No, it doesn’t. Social dislocation and self-esteem are linked, but separate, concepts.

                    More importantly, I was never suggesting that trans recruits be given special treatment in evaluation: if a trans soldier fails their psychiatric evaluation, off they go. Just give them a chance to TRY.

                    1. Not believing the biological definition of what sex one is, is called delusion.
                      Delusional people should be immediately rejected, since it will be unknown what else that is empirically true, they will not believe.

                    2. Has it ever occurred to you that trans people might actually have the Central Nervous System- or at least element thereof- of their perceived sex, thus making them biologically transsexual?

                      Not saying I believe that. Not even saying it’s credible. But don’t assume your worldview can’t be incorrect, or that people who disagree are delusional.

                      Hell, let’s face it: we all here think Chavez-worshipping Socialists and bible-thumping Social Conservatives are “delusional”, right?

                      Welp, if we don’t let them serve, that’s us fresh out of 90% of our recruitment pool right there!

                    3. Think about this: are short men less male than tall men? Take your time.

                    4. Are you alleging that proper Hermaphrodites are not intermediate between the genders? Because my point was that trans folks may actually *be* a sort of hermaphrodite, one which we hadn’t discovered before now.

                      Like I said: I have no idea what actually makes someone “trans”. Maybe you’re right, and it really is a form of schizophrenia. OR, maybe my idea is right, and transgenders are actually “neurological hermaphrodites”, if you will.

                      The point is: do not apply the Precautionary Principle to collectives. ONLY to individuals. If a trans recruit fails a psych eval, that does not reflect on the next trans recruit. And if every single trans fails the test, then so be it.

                    5. Are not short men “intermediate between the sexes”? Men, on the average, are taller than women, are they not?

                      Or, is height irrelevant to whether one is male or female?as is ones neurological configuration?

                    6. So you’re saying there are no differences between the male and female brain? No different lobes, wiring, instincts?

                      How remarkably egalitarian… and likely wrong.

                      For instance, it seems almost inarguable that homosexuality is the result of a “female sexual attraction suite” (eg, “Ooh, George Clooney!”) being inserted into a male brain that would normally have a “male sexual attraction suite” (eg, “Ooh, Kate Upton!”). Lesbianism being the result of the reverse. Which in turn demonstrates there is at least one area (sexual attraction) where the male and female brains are undeniably different… and indicating there could be many, many more.

                      Transgenderism *may* simply be a far more thorough version of that. Which in turn would mean it is not really a delusion.

                      But even if it *is* a delusion, if it does not interfere with The Warfighter (TM)’s ability to warfight, who gives a shit? Let each individual take the tests.

                      “Let the boy… girl… thing, earn its spurs!”

                    7. There’s an easy way to tell what I’m saying: read what I wrote. If you don’t see it written there, it’s not what I’m saying.

                    8. I did read it, and it’s nonsensical.

                      There are differences between the genders *that are unique to them*. Externally, genitalia are the most obvious of those, which is why we’re having this debate in the first place, if you’ll recall.

                      There is no reason to believe there are not aspects of the central nervous system that are *also* unique to each gender. And if a large number of those, say, female CNS components end up inside an otherwise male body, that would make that “male” a hermaphrodite: just as having an otherwise female body, but with a penis, makes you one.

                      If you want to arbitrarily declare that the male and female brains’ differences are not relevant to biological gender, then fair enough… but that makes no sense.

                      You might just as easily arbitrarily declare genitalia to be irrelevant to biological gender by that logic, and something tells me you’re not.

          3. 100 and 200 are the same order of magnitude.

      2. First of all, I am against the government paying for transgender surgery. Having said that, you guys are fishing for excuses to bar them from serving. Our taxpayer money can just as easily be spent on them if they took a regular government job. So what did we save after all of that? So even if one dismisses the xoncept of “it’s only a fraction of the military cost” , at the end of the day, we are paying for it if we force them to take another job that pays them the surgery benefits.

        I personally think transgenderism is a mental more than a physical issue. Psychiatrists have been wrong before on things and they can be wrong on this one too. Still, IF THEY are willing to volunteer in my place to fight wars, who am I to stop them if they are fit to do their duties?

        1. of course, it’s mental. It used to be called Gender Identity Disorder. The ‘disorder’ part might be a clue. The name has changed to something more politically palatable, a bit like calling the mentally retarded “challenged” even though it changes nothing about who they are, or in a different sense, repackaging race-based discrimination as ‘affirmative action.’

        2. First of all, I am against the government paying for transgender surgery. Having said that, you guys are fishing for excuses to bar them from serving. Our taxpayer money can just as easily be spent on them if they took a regular government job.

          Elective surgery and treatment, which trannyism is in total, shouldn’t be covered at all. For a LIBERTARIAN site, the “It really doesn’t cost THAT much more” is why nobody should ever take Libertarians seriously.

          1. LINOs abound.

      3. Anytime the military provides surgery, they are on the hook for continuing that treatment even after the person gets out of the service. For life.

        This is exactly correct and never addressed in the media. If you have any service connected disability or injury you file for Veterans Affairs benefits after leaving the military. You get medical care for life and a monthly stipend.

        Adding people to that taxpayer cost on purpose knowing that they will barely serve their enlistment duties because of surgeries, limited duty, medications, etc is INSANE.

    5. Who the fuck would want one of these natures freaks in a foxhole with them?

      When the shit gets tough you need someone who has your back, not some freak that is going to commit suicide because freak reasons.

      1. “Who the fuck would want one of these natures freaks in a foxhole with them?”

        Who the fuck would want some stranger to fire weapons at them? Nobody, that’s who. Yet people join the military in any case.

        1. Well, the Taliban never invites us to their coffee clatches, how are we supposed to get to know them?

          The military is not supposed to cater to your delusions, the job entails a lot of violent and primitive hardships and it not work too well with diabetics needing insulin, hemophiliacs or blind people either. There is no reason the military should knowingly take on liabilities just to make someone ‘happy’. If the Navy proposed building a carrier long enough for a jet to take off at anchor, every libertarian would freak at the waste of cash on such an white elephant. We don’t want the gov’t ‘doing’ for us, we know how that turns out all to often! There has never been a gov’t project that came in under budget or on time that wasn’t mainly performed by private companies..

          1. “The military is not supposed to cater to your delusions, the job entails a lot of violent and primitive hardships and it not work too well with diabetics needing insulin, hemophiliacs or blind people either. ”

            They have the hell pampered right out of them. Soldiers in Afghanistan have ice, for example, flown in from bases in Saudi Arabia. You think they eat the local food? They don’t. Again everything is flown in from across the world. Primitive hardships, my arse.

            1. So, tell us about your time in the shit tough guy.

              1. They have ice, so all the bullets and bombs don’t count.

            2. “They have the hell pampered right out of them”

              Well, you just proved you are a gigantic idiot with that statement. Nor do you have the first fucking clue what military life is like, let alone deployment to a hostile area.

              You should really go fuck yourself. Disrespectful little shit. Why don’t you go down to your local VFW and spout that shit? Even if you had guts, you would likely end up shitting your own teeth for the next week.

              1. For the record, I agree with the Last Shitlord. On this specific issue, at least.

                Seriously, “mtrue”, you don’t have to like the US military or what it does to appreciate that being a soldier is a shitty job, in a way no amount of “imported ice” is gonna balance out.

                1. “being a soldier is a shitty job”

                  I agree. As I said before, that’s why the military has long been the last resort for society’s misfits. And most here seem to agree that tranpeople fit the bill.

                  1. Funny how you called them “pampered” then. “Pampered” and “Shitty” do not go together.

                    Also, “last resort for society’s misfits”? And here I was thinking that was “libertarianism”. “Misfit” is the opposite of an insult.

                    1. “Pampered” and “Shitty” do not go together.

                      You should try a tour in Afghanistan.

                    2. A reply which in no way answers the question of how it is that a job can be a pampered experience, and a shitty experience, at the same time.

                    3. Free housing, food, clothing, medical care, musical entertainment, nine hole golf courses… Pampered and shitty simultaneously.

                    4. All those amenities are no more “free” than the doughnuts at a corporate meeting: they’re there to help compensate for the awful. The army isn’t pampering them with free ice anymore than your employer is “pampering” you when he gives you your paycheck.

                      Said awfulness consisting of: being shot at, having shrapnel rattle on your door, actually being shot, actually being hit by shrapnel, seeing your friend die from a sucking gunshot wound to the chest, seeing your friend’s mangled jawbone on the roadside after his humvee gets vaporized by an IED hidden in a dead cow, throwing a grenade into a hostile’s village hut only to have to live the rest of your life knowing you blew up his 3 kids who hadn’t evacuated the village when they heard the loudspeaker…

                      Oh, and hauling 102 pounds of vest, camelback and mags for 20 klicks across the real life answer to Mordor. Yeah, that golf course really was a waste, wasn’t it?

                    5. “Said awfulness consisting of: being shot at, having shrapnel rattle on your door, actually being shot, actually being hit by shrapnel, seeing your friend die from a sucking gunshot wound to the chest, seeing your friend’s mangled jawbone on the roadside after his humvee gets vaporized by an IED hidden in a dead cow, throwing a grenade into a hostile’s village hut only to have to live the rest of your life knowing you blew up his 3 kids who hadn’t evacuated the village when they heard the loudspeaker.”

                      Doesn’t sound much worse than what the Taleban militia face. And they do it without an airforce, navy, marching bands, macdonald’s restaurants, internet access, frozen pizzas, lobster thermador, promises of pensions, free modern education and medical care etc. And they’re winning in spite of all that lack of pampering.

                    6. Yeah, well, that’s Asian labor laws for you.

                      I fail to see how the fact that Taliban fighters have it worse, somehow means our troops have it “good”.

                      It is, in fact, possible for one job to be shitty, and another job to be *considerably shittier*, without the first job becoming magically “non-shitty” from the comparison. “Less Awful” is just a subspecies of “Awful”.

                    7. “I fail to see how the fact that Taliban fighters have it worse, somehow means our troops have it “good”.

                      I’m not saying good, but pampered.

                    8. If the end result of the US military’s “attempts” at pampering is that US troops in Afghanistan would still rather be almost anywhere else, then that is not “pampering”, it is *compensation*. And it is a good and admirable thing.

                      If the level of misery our troops experience is still insufficient for you, you have my condolences.

              2. “Why don’t you go down to your local VFW and spout that shit?”

                I don’t have a local VFW. I’m a victim too.

                1. “I don’t have a local VFW. I’m a victim too.”

                  No, you’re an asshole too stupid to know how dumb you are.

            3. “…Again everything is flown in from across the world. Primitive hardships, my arse.”

              And trueman puts foot in mouth once again!
              Hey, trueman, those “flown-in” powdered eggs and milk were a real luxury.

              1. Any grunt in an old war zone, when ice became popular in drinks, would have loved to have ice. Amenities make the shit easier to deal with. Luckily, the US Military is so superior with logistics that it can get ice to troops in shit holes for them to enjoy.

          2. The mmilitary is not exactly overflowing with qualified applicants. It woulds be stupid to bar any possible qualified ones whether they are gay or transgendered.

            1. That is the point, they are not qualified. They have medical needs BEFORE even entering the military and that has been disqualifying in the past because the military has 241 years of learning what works and what does not.

            2. There’s a lot more to the military than just infantry. Separate from the cost issues, there are thousands of trans people in the military already. Kick them out? Why? Because we have to pay for hormones for them? We’re paying for meds for lots of people in the services. If they were mentally ill enough to be a big problem they should not have been allowed in the military in the first place. They could have been screened out day one. If they weren’t and they are not capable to serve, then the people who recruited and admitted them were incompetent. If they were capable to serve and are serving well, they should not be kicked out due to hormone costs (not that much once you’re already there surgically) or prejudice.

              1. There are not “thousands of trans people in the military already”.

                Those few that are never informed the medical staff at MEPS that they were trans and if they were other wise fit for service, they were admitted into the military.

                If the DoD does not provide them hormone injections, then these people will weed out or pay for the surgeries themselves.

      2. Fuck off with the “freak” shit. They are human beings.

        1. Doesn’t stop them from being mentally disturbed, does it.

        2. Yes, human beings who are freaks. Doesn’t make them evil, they just don’t belong in the military.

    6. Trump is right in this issue. Case closed.

    7. I guess Boners are bad? Or is it just a military man standing at attention which offends? Effin patriarchy. But last I looked it is a normal physical function (and I suspect that a lot of women benefit from the old high hard one?). So lets compare apples and oranges and go off topic. Last I looked erectile dysfunction drugs are used to fix a physical ailment (and these numbers are inflated for it includes all veterans receiving the drugs and I suspect there are a LOT more men in the military than transgenders, (even old WWII guys need a little love). And the fact that they (Trans) might have a psychological problem should be overlooked? http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15145/. And not for nothing, dude don’t look like a lady…still is dude looking and even the daily estrogen shots don’t change that.

      1. My point was that the military shouldn’t be paying for ANY ailment that didn’t derive from military service. Lost a leg to the Muj? Uncle Sam should pay. Anything else, no.

        I don’t think the military- or any government agency- should pay for “gender reassignment” surgery. I am simply saying that, if the military is going to pay for general healthcare, cracking down on trans troops should be on the bottom of the list.

        1. So, if a soldiers child gets the flu, well that’s not derived from military service, no pay. A service member gets into a car accident? No insurance. Spouse gets pregnant? Sorry.

          Sorry to get all “real world” on you but when I saw your post, just had to jump in.

          Refine your point because right now, it doesn’t seem to express what I hope you mean.

          1. *sighs*

            I don’t think the military should be any different than any other employer, outside of service-related injuries. OBVIOUSLY I think that pregnant soldiers should get leave. OBVIOUSLY you should have car insurance, and your kid should have insurance.

            The point is that the military already pays for these things: VIA THE SOLDIER’S PAYCHECK. The way libertarians think most things should be payed for, remember?

            This trans situation is a classic example of why: asking the military to *guarantee* these things distorts the “market price” of a soldier’s labor, opening doors to people joining the military exclusively to get free stuff. If an average soldier can’t afford his/her/xer child’s insurance, then that is a problem either deregulation (to lower prices) or, failing in that, private charity and crowdfunding from a grateful public needs to solve.

            I would be more than willing to contribute to such a charity, and I would recommend others to do so, in case that somehow wasn’t QUITE clear.

            1. “This trans situation is a classic example of why: asking the military to *guarantee* these things distorts the “market price” of a soldier’s labor, opening doors to people joining the military exclusively to get free stuff. If an average soldier can’t afford his/her/xer child’s insurance, then that is a problem either deregulation (to lower prices) or, failing in that, private charity and crowdfunding from a grateful public needs to solve.”

              I am as yet ‘conflicted’ on the issue, but thank you for making a clear and logical argument for one side. We also have to remember that the military are pub sec employees with all the public choice incentives built in.
              And as a pub sec employer, the military needs to hire at the market-clearing price, not some arbitrary ‘aren’t we wonderful?’ premium.

      2. “I’M ALL WOMAN AND IF YOU DISAGREE I’M GOING TO STRANGLE YOU WITH MY HUGE MEATY HANDS!!”

    8. I think we should be willing to accept a certain higher cost for trans troops- owing to…how stomach-crateringly high their suicide rate is

      Why is that a reason? Is it because we should feel sorry for them, or because their small # to begin with will further be depleted rapidly? Ordinarily I’d think a high suicide rate would be detrimental to any job, except maybe music where it’s de rigeur.

      1. Oh, didn’t see it was Chapman, king of non sequiturs. Never mind.

        1. I am not Chapman. And I wasn’t primarily talking about trans service members, either.

          There have been numerous studies showing that a “climate of tolerance”- eg, growing acceptance of gay and trans people- correlates with reduced suicide rates. That is a *good thing*. And it affects ALL trans people: eg, .6/.7% of the US population, eg 2 *million* people. With a suicide attempt rate of 40% (as another commenter corrected me above), that is *800,000 people* attempting suicide in their lifetimes.

          And denying trans people certain dignities- such as that of military service- especially in the blatant and aggressive way that Trump did- cannot but subtract from that “climate”.

          Like I said above: I would rather that they be allowed to serve, WITHOUT the military paying for surgeries. My point is that, if that is not an option, it is better to let them serve, even if it costs more, than to crack down on a group that is already suffering enough.

          Even if the cost is 3x RAND’s estimate, 24 million is a tiny percentage of the military’s 650 BILLION budget. Specifically, less than .005%, if my slap-dash math is correct.

          1. “And he was such a good doughboy in the last war”, Patton re: Bradley.
            So you make a wonderful argument above regarding market distortions regarding free shit, and now you claim we should do so anyhow?
            OK, how are YOU going to pay for this wonderful social program which you hope will reduce suicides?

            1. My comments are not contradictory.

              There are 3 outcomes possible: A, military lets trans serve, *and* pays for their surgery; B, military lets trans serve, and DOESN’T pay for their surgery; and C, military doesn’t let trans serve at all.

              My opinion of the desirability of the various outcomes is as follows:

              BEST OUTCOME: military DOES let trans serve, DOES NOT pay for surgeries
              MIDDLING OUTCOME: military DOES let trans serve, DOES pay for surgeries
              WORST OUTCOME: military DOES NOT let trans serve

              I want to let trans people feel welcome in society AND save Uncle Sam some cold hard cash. I just happen to put the former goal above the latter. But I don’t want to have to choose; I want private charity to pay for trans surgeries. Any questions?

            2. Why is ‘trans’ so special?

              Why do they get a pass over all the much less costly and less disruptive disorders that also preclude service?

              Go and look at that list and then tell me why people with a condition that requires perpetual psychotherapy, perpetual hormone therapy, drastic surgery–with no guarantee that all of that will do ANYTHING to help in the end should be accepted when people with ingrown toenails are not.

              1. Well, firstly, if the army actually rejects people for ingrown toenails, that’s kinda dumb too, innit?

                More to the point- and I really fail to see why I have to keep explaining this- I DON’T want them to get special treatment- in training OR in surgery. My point is that between 8 and 24 million dollars (the latter of which is my own, randomly-generated number, don’t forget) is a smallER price to pay then beating on the most suicidal identity group in the country, IF that is the choice.

                Given a choice between wasteful spending and sexual discrimination, I choose the former. Sue me.

                1. The reason for disqualification is that people prone to toe infections cause medical evacuations from war zones, potentially.

                  The reasons for keeping pregnant military members from the battlefield is medical evacuations and injury to a fetus.

                  The military does some wacky stuff but much is rooted in experience. Medivacs risk other military folks to death to save you when its not a battlefield casualty.

                  1. Well, I have ingrown toenails- always have- and not once have I gotten an infection. And I assure you I’m not staying in the Ritz Carlton, either.

                    You do realize military bureaucrats are still GOVERNMENT bureaucrats, right? Their standards for recruitment are probably just as prone to the usual governmental ludicrousness as the Veterans Health Administration’s waiting list criteria.

                    If libertarians don’t trust government to take care veterans, why do we trust it to be able to consistently know what makes a good recruit?

          2. And denying trans people certain dignities- such as that of military service- especially in the blatant and aggressive way that Trump did- cannot but subtract from that “climate”.

            Yet ALL of the other folks who cannot serve for medical reasons don’t have high suicide rates.

            Perhaps we’re watching Darwinism in action…

            But spending more to spare their feelings seems like an incredibly bad idea.

            1. Good thing I never endorsed “spending more to spare their feelings” IN AND OF ITSELF, then.

              I merely noted that spending more on them is the LESSER OF TWO EVILS, compared to applying the Precautionary Principle to them.

    9. It really is not about the money. Nor is it about sticking it to transpeople. It is about mission effectiveness and combat readiness. Gender dysphoria is a mental illness; Why would you want to undermine combat readiness by purposefully enlisting people with a pre-existing mental illness?

      Did you know that sleep-walking is a condition that you can be barred from military service for? Flat-feet? Sleep apnea? There are a whole host of reasons why a person should not be allowed to serve in the military.

      Let’s also not forget Lady Gaga’s tweet that “40% of trans-people between the ages of 18 and 25 have attempted suicide”. The military already has higher than general population suicide rates (approximately 22 veterans commit suicide every day). If people who aren’t questioning their sexual or gender identity in the military are suffering from such traumas, how do you think trans people will react?

      The military is not a social engineering petri dish. They have one job: Win wars. You do not have a right to join your military. Hate to break this to you, but military service is a privilege, not a right, and I would say that fewer than 10% of our population is qualified to meet the standards of eligibility for military service. I hate this trend of SJW’s trying to undermine the military’s combat effectiveness and mission readiness by DEMANDING that we recruit people who will detract from our effectiveness.

      1. No one was arguing that *individual* trans recruits should be given any special treatment compared to regular troops. If a trans is unable to live up to preexisting standards, I am in no way suggesting they should be given a pass.

        The point is that they should be *allowed to try*: try to pass boot camp, psych eval, PE, and all the other tests I don’t know the names of.

        Barring them from *attempting* to enlist is a form of the Precautionary Principle: an old enemy of free markets, in which government (in this case, Trump) arbitrarily disqualifies certain laborers from attempting to prove their worth, on the assumption that “bureau knows best”. But everyone deserves a chance to prove themselves… Regardless of how unlikely they are to succeed.

        1. A “trans” person is BY DEFINITION unable to pass a psych eval.
          We don’t treat the man, who thinks he is Napol?on Bonaparte, like the Emperor of France. We don’t treat the man, who thinks he is Jesus Christ, like the son of God.
          We wish those people to seek mental health help. We should be wishing the same on the gender delusional, not taking them into the military.
          We’ve done enough social engineering, there, already and none of it has made the military any stronger..

          1. Believing you are in a different era (eg 1790s to 1810s Europe) and possess a different rank (eg Supreme Commander of the French Empire) materially interferes with your ability to fight as Corporal Trans-Dude, circa 2017 Afghanistan.

            Similarly, believing you are the Son of God will probably affect your decision making when it comes time to make a bold attack, or try to make an unlikely shot.

            Believing you are a woman trapped in a man’s body will not likely affect your decision-making in combat. Men and women are equally allergic to Sudden Lead Ingestion Disorder, and trans people are perfectly lucid regarding their location, time in history, currenly held rank, and (lack of) supernatural qualities and abilities.

            If there are other “delusions” that demonstrably do not interfere with one’s combat abilities, they should not be excluded either.

      2. It is about mission effectiveness and combat readiness…. I would say that fewer than 10% of our population is qualified to meet the standards of eligibility for military service.

        This is ignorant at best, mendacious at worst. In recent wars 83-89% of our military forces have been non-combat personnel. There’s no way that 90% of our population is unqualified to perform basic logistical or bureaucratic duties.

        1. Those “non combat personnel” SHOULD be able to take up a combat role, at a moment’s notice. To take in people, who will not be able to, is a waste of the resources allocated for our defense.

    10. stomach-crateringly high their suicide rate

      Why isn’t this an obvious reason to keep them out?

      1. Then the suicides reasons can be blamed on the military rather than that these people have serious delusional mental problems.

      2. Because that is straight up discrimination. That would be like keeping blacks out because they have higher rates of diabetes and heart disease, or keeping women out because of breast cancer. You can’t use statistics for a group to judge an individual. That is libertarianism 101.

        1. The army already “discriminates” against people with diabetes, myopia, flat feet, and countless other conditions. Discrimination isn’t automatically evil.

      3. No one is suggesting that trans people should be immunized from psychiatric evaluations.

        If the psychiatric evaluation is insufficient to the task of predicting latent suicidality, then focus on fixing the damn test.

        And if trans people “happen” to fail those evals far more frequently, then so be it. I was never calling for “trans affirmative action”: merely stating my opposition to “trans Jim Crow”.

        Say it with me: “individuals, not collectives”.

    11. The suicide rate for military personnel is more than double the rate for civilians.

    12. My question- well, other than “what in the ever-sweet-lovemaking fuck is the military doing paying for dixer-upper pills”

      Gotta keep your troopers virile.
      “A soldier who won’t fuck, won’t fight.” – Gen. John “Blackjack” Pershing

    13. I’d say even more important is that a secretive tranny-wanna-be might decide to leak classified data if (s)he stays in the closet (ahem!). Paying for these folks to be psychologically happy could be a good national security move – although it might end up making the military drawing in these folks to get the free treatment.

      1. Sadly, I don’t think there’s any such thing as “Stop-Being-Chelsea-N?e-Bradley-Manning” surgery.

        Manning isn’t a dick (or is it twat now?) because s’he’s trans. S’he’s a dick because s’he’s a dick.

    14. Citing one ridiculous expenditure (dick pills) is not a justification for another (gender reassignment surgery/hormones).

      The argument shouldn’t be ‘we already spend $100m on Viagra, so therefore we must allow transgender troops no matter the cost’, the argument should be ‘the military shouldn’t spend money on Viagra’.

      1. Which was exactly my point in the many, many comments above.

        The comparison is merely to show that this is not exactly a financially urgent call. The “risk” of allowing trans recruits to *attempt* to enlist is not life-or-death. Contributing to trans social isolation almost certainly is.

        1. Who cares. Its not the military’s problem to fix these mentally disturbed trans-testicals.

    15. Viagra is used to treat PTSD related ED.

      1. If it can be reasonably shown to be connected to service-related trauma, then I have no objection to it.

        … but something tells me if we’re spending more than 100,000,000 on it, the number of people with actual PTSD is significantly exceeded by the number of guys gaming the system. Not that that is necessarily a reason to… “drag them down”, of course.

  2. Social conservatives have lost every single culture war issue. Thankfully it looks like only 1 more generation needs to die off before they will have to surrender the war on drugs and fuck off forever

    1. You must be confused because the Social liberals have just as much of a hard-on for the drug war as any Jeff Sessions. They’ve been particularly keen on ramping it up everytime they’re in the Oval Office and then you have socially liberal places like LA, Detroit, Washington, DC, NYC, etc that have no problems with expanding the state and police powers under the guise of stopping drugs.

      1. You are truly delusional if you believe that. Its ok to accept that liberals might actually on the right side of a single issue.

        1. liberals might actually on the right side of a single issue.

          Obama’s admin was just as aggressive as Bush’s in asserting that Federal Law should over-ride state policy re: enforcement of drug law.

          from the right-wingers @ Slate:

          …not long after he got into office, his administration began a crackdown on growers and dispensers in states that had legalized it. By 2012, he had publically changed his tune from 2008, arguing that not to enforce federal anti-pot statutes in states where medical marijuana was legal would be to “nullify congressional law”

          Since then… Congress passed a measure explicitly telling the Obama administration to cease spending funds to prevent medical marijuana providers from operating in states that have legalized it. Ironically, Obama has opted to ignore this particular legislation and continues to prosecute these cases, essentially nullifying congressional power…

          …in 2012, Obama’s justice department was pacing to exceed George W. Bush’s administration in terms of medical marijuana raids, with more than 100 in his first three years alone. Since then, the administration has continued to prosecute numerous dispensary operators and growers.

          lefties pretend to care about liberty. until they get power

        2. The leftist rank and file is “right for the wrong reasons” on marijuana legalization. However:

          1. The leftist politicians they support have not supported MJ legalization.
          2. They do not support legalization of other drugs.
          3. They do support banning or severely penaltaxing other ingestible items (GMO and fatty foods, soda) which conservatives do not.
          4. Once MJ becomes legal, they want to tax and regulate the shit out of it to pay for social programs.

          And, as in the case of gay marriage, being “right for the wrong reasons” is a problem because once they get what we agree with them on, they’re going to start going in a direction that we do not agree with them on (as in the case of gay marriage legalization being used as a stepping stone for criminalizing businesses that do not approve of homosexuality).

        3. Only if you believe the drug war begins and ends at Mary Jane. Here in the leftist paradise of California, all the while marijuana was increasingly legalized/decriminalized, the laws and regulations surrounding pretty much everything else has gotten more punitive. Even to the point that vaping products are treated as harshly as tobacco products even as marijuana smoking products are made more accessible. And never mind access to medications for pain sufferers. (Of course, if you want to knock yourself off due to the pain, that will soon likely be easier than actually getting an opiate prescription for it.)

          So, sure, so-called liberals might actually be on the right side of a single issue, but only for an extremely narrow single issue.

      2. You must be confused because the Social liberals have just as much of a hard-on for the drug war as any Jeff Sessions.

        WA, CO, and NV legalized weed with strong support from the ‘yokel’ vote.

        woke-lefties in San Francisco, by contrast, still can’t figure out how to implement a legal-weed environment without getting all control-freak about it.

        Some places, like the cities of Napa and Santa Rosa, are considering allowing cannabis shops, farms, kitchens or personal gardens. That contrasts with many localities on the Peninsula, such as Colma, that have banned anything pot-related.

        But most Bay Area cities and counties fall somewhere in the middle ? either doing nothing or passing temporary bans as they wait for more direction from the state, their citizens and neighboring cities.

        “There’s no difference now since before the election,” said Dale Gieringer, director of California NORML, a marijuana-rights advocacy group. “You can’t even tell marijuana is legal in California.”

        Or, consider uberliberal NYC, where weed was ‘decriminalized’ in the 1970s…. yet arrest people far more frequently than other cities.

        lefties have never been reliable opponents of the drug war. the only difference w/ socons is rhetoric.

        1. 78% of liberals want weed to be legal, only 33% of conservatives do. http://www.pewresearch.org/fac…..s-to-rise/

          1. ICYMI = “”lefties pretend to care about liberty. until they get power””

            polls about people’s feelings != sincere political difference

            the fact is that the Leftiest politicians who’ve ever held office have been *at least* as bad as the so-called SoCons, if not worse. It was the Clintons who created the huge sentencing disparities in crack-cocaine, ‘three strikes’ rules, and other Drug War wonders. And Obama was the best chance we’ve ever had at actual liberalization of drug war approaches and instead he became a fucking hawk just like every Left-Wing urban mayor does.

            I bet you could find polls that say liberals are less “pro war” as well. Yet it would ignore the entire history of the USA, where ‘liberal’ politicians have been just as if not more likely to use military force abroad. The only difference is that the so-called “antiwar” public goes silent when liberals wage war. Reductio ad Pew Poll is a stupid form of argument

            1. polls about people’s feelings != sincere political difference

              Trying to figure out how that one works. Is it 1 of those deals where people say it only because they can’t do anything about it, but if they could do something about it they wouldn’t? So it’s just that they like having things to perpetually bitch about?

              I don’t think it works that way in No. Amer. on this issue. I think there’s a sincere difference there. I think it’s culture war. They’re on their respective sides so they can make people on the other side unhappy. For historic reasons, pot’s been countercultural. The pot smokers would like to blow it in the face of the antis, the antis would like to see people cry for not having pot.

              1. What it comes down to is, people are mostly nice, but they’re also mean, so they need to have some minor way to blow off their mean steam so they can continue to be mostly nice. Apparently cannabis & some other culture war stuff is considered minor issues they can take sides on w/o seeming to be raving maniacs setting fire to other people to watch them burn. It’s acceptable to carry on this enmity w political force that only the police exercise directly, & then only in the context of enforcing democratically adopted laws, or ancient common laws, most of which of both types people agree on.

                I’m starting to think the only reason we’re mostly free & just is because society allows certain potential freedoms to be clamped down on to satisfy blood lust, & to allow those deprived of such freedoms to bitch about their depriv’n. We channel persecution into mostly minor channels to minimize the amount of time it comes out in major ways like pogroms. So for instance, bashing fags for acting faggy rather than for being fags is more genteel than bashing people for being Jews or Indians or whatever. Taking people’s property & paying for it, or taxing them, is more genteel than simply dispossessing classes of people w 0 recompense. So maybe if we succeeded in abolishing taxation, we’d soon have people having everything taken from them & being thrown into a crocodile pit.

            2. Gilmore, why are you confusing the liberal voter with a liberal in power. Those are two very different beasts. It is undeniable that it is conservative voters that keep the drug war going.

              1. I’m not confusing anything, and you’re wrong. The Drug War is a bipartisan effort, and there’s no difference of any significance between liberals and conservatives from a practical policy POV.

                opinion polling, as Mark22 pointed out below, tells you what liberals or conservatives want to say they care about. What they *actually* care about is what they tolerate from their candidates. And liberal pols have been just as bad (in some cases worse) as conservative ones.

          2. Holy shit, a poll!

            Well, I’ll just ignore what they actually do while governing and believe what they tell a pollster instead.

          3. 78% of liberals want weed to be legal, only 33% of conservatives do.

            Liberals want all sorts of things that sound nice, many of them mutually contradictory.

            For example,
            ? liberals want to help low income workers yet they want a high minimum wage.

            ? Liberals want to end crony capitalism and want a European style healthcare system, yet they oppose Medicare cuts and favor the ACA.

            ? Liberals want free speech, yet turn livid at Citizens United.

            The problem with liberal voters is not that they don’t have good intentions, the problem with liberals voters is that they are stupid and let politicians sell them snake oil over and over again; the same politicians then go off implement increasingly authoritarian and crony capitalist policies when they are in power.

            Maybe you’re too young to have figured this out yet. But a single presidency like Obama’s should drive it home. I was a registered Democrat before Obama’s presidency and Hillary’s political, and both made it clear that I would be stupid to give them my vote again. I left the party, and I won’t be going back.

          4. A lot of liberals want single-payer healthcare, and yet California and Vermont, two of the bluest states in the country, and Colorado, which is an increasingly reliable blue vote, have all rejected implementing such systems. Can you guess why?

            1. They can’t print money.

          5. Thanks everyone for the screeds about citizens united, single payer, and how liberals suck, im well aware of all that. Im not sure what that has to do with my post refuting the guy claiming liberals are to blame for the war on drugs. I guess according to you conservatives love obamacare because their elected representatives refuse to repeal it

          6. The problem is, Democratic politicians are largely tethered to law enforcement and corrections unions, whose jobs largely depend on these policies.

    2. As much as I would like to believe that I don’t. We never run out of Puritans. They’re just different flavors of Puritan.

      1. So anyone with a lick of decency and a sense of standards is a ‘puritan’?

        1. No, those are called Never Trumpers.

          1. At least that’s what Never Trumpers tell themselves. Of course, if you actually listen to them, you see that they are at as batshit crazy as the people they are screaming about being batshit crazy.

    3. So they won every single issue not counting the ones they haven’t won yet? Is that how that proof works?

      Anyway slow change that takes generations to occur would be the definition of Burkean conservatism, not progressive dominance. A key goal of the culture war seems to be ramming change down one’s repressive dad’s throat.

    4. A society with no standards is what the progtards want. Look how fucked up things are now. It is t a bug, it’s a feature.

      1. That is just one prong of the strategy to undermine the freedom we barely have anymore in the USA.

        Mass corruption and citizens not wanting to risk their lives for rule of law is what many latin countries have. Its an example of what would happen to the USA if most Americans turned a blind eye to corruption and ignoring rule of law. Hence, the lefty push for the collapse of American way of life.

    5. Social conservatives have lost every single culture war issue.

      True. I suggest you look at history what happens next, because the “culture war” has been fought before, with disastrous consequences: there are no winners.

      Thankfully it looks like only 1 more generation needs to die off before they will have to surrender the war on drugs and fuck off forever

      The war on drugs is just as much a progressive issue as a social conservative issue.

      The sad fact is that both progressives and social conservatives are, in the end, totalitarian assholes. And 1930’s Germany shows that too in the aftermath of Germany’s culture war.

      1. The war on drugs is just as much a progressive issue as a social conservative issue.

        More, much more because “socon” support for a war on drugs is mostly grounded on progressive principles and arguments rather than socially conservative ones.”The left” has never held a monopoly on progressivism. Some of them once (and are) victims of it.

    6. Just like in ancient Rome in the 300s (right before being overrun by barbarians), ancient Athens in the 500s BC (right before being invaded by Macedon).

      But I’m sure America is immune to that — it’s lasted for such a long time, almost a third as long as Islamic Iberia did.

    7. Social conservatives have lost every single culture war issue.

      They have to, don’t they? Any time anything in culture changes, they lose. They can never win, because never trying to achieve anything. So isn’t this a trivial statement?

    8. Yes, heroin has been the saving grace of so many people.

      (/end sarc)

      1. Why not? Grace has saved many heroines, hasn’t she? So turnabout.

    9. Social conservatives have lost every single culture war issue. Thankfully it looks like only 1 more generation needs to die off before they will have to surrender the war on drugs and fuck off forever

      Hm.. drugs were not illegal when conservatives were in charge and then they were made illegal.

      There were few government welfare programs until FDR and now these programs have a slight chance for tiny cuts.

      Ignoring illegals entering and living in the USA was commonplace until Trump.

      Public schools messed up generations of kid’s education potential in the last 40 years and conservatives are pushing mass voucher programs for private schools to educate kids to proper levels.

      Lefties have been restricting gun ownership and possession for decades and conservatives are pushing to make constitutional carry the commonplace.

    10. Everyone has lost.

      The issues haven’t been decided in a way that favors liberty–they’ve been decided in ways that empower the state. And the people behind it are more than happy to use that power.

      Sadly, they’ve a proven track record of being far less open-minded when they get full control–because any free liberties interfere with the policies of reward for obedience that they prefer.

    11. Wrong. Gun control is going down in flames.

  3. “You ought to treat everybody fairly, and you ought to give everybody a chance to serve.” Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah?Utah!?said, “I don’t think we should be discriminating against anyone. Transgender people are people, and deserve the best we can do for them.”

    The military is the one place where principles don’t apply. When it comes time to start killing the shit out of people, killing the shit out of people is all that matters. The military doesn’t exist to serve people, it exists to kill people. When you join the military, you put your body and your soul, your head and your mind under someone else’s control. You’re no longer an individual, you’re a cog in a killing machine and the health and welfare of the machine is all that matters. The military doesn’t, shouldn’t, cannot function as a dispenser of fairness and equality and whatever other happy horseshit goes into serving the individual and individualism. I’m as libertarian as the next guy, but that only applies to civilian life. The military is no place for individualism, we’re not concerned with what transgenders – or anybody else – “deserves”, deserves got nothing to do with it.

    1. “The military doesn’t exist to serve people, it exists to kill people. ”

      Sounds like you’ve been watching too much TV. You’ve definitely not been in the military. It’s one giant, no expense spared playground for social engineers. It always has been.

      1. Sounds like you have never been in the military or even close.

        1. I’ve worn some military clothing and fired military weapons. That’s as close as I want to get.

          1. Based on your previous comment I don’t doubt that.

      2. Btw, you are too short for this ride.

      3. Mtrueman speaks for his first-hand experience in the NAVY SEALs!

        1. You don’t need to join no navy seal. Just watch a few hours of Armed Force broadcasting. It’s about anything but killing. A few transpeople would fit right in very nicely.

          1. There no amount of watching too much TV that can’t be fixed by watching more TV.

            1. You really should try to watch a few hours of Armed Forces broadcasting if you doubt that the US military is a playground for social engineers.

              1. And really, there’s no amount of too much TV that can’t be solved by watching more TV.

              2. Nobody watches Armed Forces Broadcasting.

                I lived on base in Japan for two years before the internet and it was the only English language programming available – and still nobody watched it.

                1. Do you think that political correctness in the military has increased or decreased over this period? I’d say increased. I remember watching when DADT was the law of the land,

                2. AFN relies on content that is donated by broadcasters, it doesn’t have a lot of choice regarding what is given to them.

                  1. They have (or had, at least) self-produced ‘commercials’ that fill in the ample space that the programming of the corporate broadcasts leave to fill. Short bits on American civil and military history, first aid tips, and lots of pc stuff to boot.

      4. Uh…..no it isn’t.

      5. No. Just. No.

    2. And anything about an individual that interferes with their ability to fight and kill, whether physical, psychological, religious, emotional, whatever that is should prevent them from serving in combat. It’s not quite as important in support roles like medicine or logistics support, depending on how close to combat they are.

    3. The military is the one place where principles don’t apply.

      You’re barking up the wrong three there. Yes, non-discrimination should apply in the military, as it should in all government institutions. But non-discrimination does not imply accommodating costly and complex medical conditions for the sake of political correctness.

      Gender dysphoria is a medical condition requiring major surgery and on-going drug treatment; excluding people for medical conditions is not discrimination. That’s in contrast to skin color or homosexuality, which do not require any medical intervention.

      1. Yep. We should be getting these people the help they need. Not feeding their sick delusions and putting our service members at risk.

  4. 1. really don’t give a shit about trannies/whatever, but I don’t want to pay for their surgery/meds, JUST LIKE I don’t want to pay for the viagara for the generals…
    2. don’t think ANYONE -LGBTABCXYZ, straight, or whatever- should be signing up to defend Empire… ANYONE who goes into the military thinking they are REALLY ‘defending democracy’, blah blah blah, is a FUCKING IDIOT with eyes wide shut…
    3. as a matter of making some sort of ‘sense’, WTF do non-standard sexual beings have any business going into EMPIRE’S military which wants to -ultimately- DESTROY them as an enemy of all that is good and holy ? ? ? it is like a black person joining the KKK, why not just slit your own throat and be done with it …

    1. Run out of meds? Or just forgot to take them today?

  5. If we are going to enlist people who don’t know who they really are then why not enlist people who think they are Napoleon?

    Sure Napoleon had a bit of a problem invading Russia but who doesn’t and if those darn Prussian hadn’t shown up he would have Brexit the Duke of Wellington back across the English Channel.

    If the Napoleons work out right then we can expand to the Patton’s, Caesar’s,, or even those Wellington guys

    1. What about people who think that they are Jesus or God, do we have to let them sign up as well?

      1. They might be useful for amphibious landings. We can see if they really can walk on water.

        Or is that an ability confined to certain “youthful,” “Kennedyesque” Democratic presidents?

  6. Still nothing from Reason about Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the arrest of her IT guy and all the related shenanigans going on for years by him and his relatives in the employ of democrats.

    To make up for their deficiency, here is a National Review story about it.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..bank-fraud

    1. Many congressional staffers are convinced that they’d long ago have been in handcuffs if they pulled what the Awans are suspected of. Nevertheless, no arrests were made when the scandal became public in February.

      Read it and weep.

    2. But Trump… Russia….Trump…

    3. Gee, I wonder why they’re not interested in this story!

      Turns out that for some reason this cunt was paying them almost three times the going rate of what every other IT staffer in Congress makes too. I believe this woman represents a clear and present danger to America.

    4. They same reason they’ve never discussed all of Trumps ties to Russia mafia money laundering.

      Because even though it’s a significant story that someone ought to be Reporting on, there’s no relationship to libertarian issues, so there’s no reason that someone should be Reason.

    5. They are too busy writing about these fucking freaks of nature that represent an exceedingly small percentage of the population. Hey, I have Tourette syndrome and I demand to be a cashier…FUCK….SHIT

    6. The IT guy was with Seth Rich the night he was murdered.

    7. Debbie’s IT guys’ crimes pale in comparison to her hairdresser’s.

    8. Instead we get four articles so far where Nick, Chap-Man, and the gang go full progtard for soldiers in a tu-tu. Because they’re not strange, they just want o live their life that way.

  7. When are we going to go after the US Military for curbing the free speech of its members? UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    1. Sarcasm?

      1. Just pointing out that military service comes with extraordinary strings. This is not new.

        1. I’m pretty sure that I’ve mentioned that the 14th Am. doesn’t supersede or necessarily have anything to do with the UCMJ.

          But, you know, we can just print the money to buy the trannies plastic penises and to refuse is mean. It’s only a small amount and our kids can cover it…

  8. The Marine corps motto is ‘Semper Fidalis’ not ‘sever my phallus’!

    1. “Once part of a Marine, ….”

    2. This is my rifle, this is my gun.

      1. Right here in this jar…

  9. I don’t think the main argument will be so much about transgendered people being in the military as it is what barracks they are in.

    1. Meh. Gender is irrelevant. Randomly assign the barracks.

      1. No doubt that’s coming soon. Then comes the Clockwork Orange treatments for the men to “cure” them of their male gaze. Just the white men though, don’t want to be racist about it.

  10. People who want to change their sex (not “gender”, a bullshit word in this context that I refuse to use) are mentally ill. And keeping mentally ill people out of the armed services is just a good idea for many reasons.

    1. “(1) Gender dysphoria is a mental illness. (2) All mental illness must be preclude military service. (3) Therefore, gender dysphoria precludes military service.”

      Nice try, but assumption (2) is wrong. Shoddy reasoning like yours is why conservatives keep losing arguments. For your reference, here is the correct reasoning:

      “(1) Gender dysphoria is a chronic condition requiring major surgery and on-going drug treatment. (2) Preexisting conditions requiring major surgery and/or on-going drug treatment preclude joining the military. (3) Therefore, gender dysphoria precludes joining the military.”

      1. If you have ever went through MEPS, you would know that there are basic mental fitness questions. ASVAB test also has basic mental fitness questions.

        The military is mostly fine with sociopaths, psychopaths and other mental defectives as long as it fits killing the enemy on the battlefield.

        The military is not in the business of taking medical and mental misfits BEFORE they even serve. Trans people are confused about whether they want a dick or not and want surgery to “fix” it. Of course, then there’s the lifetime of medication for medical and mental issues. The military would be crazy to accept tranz people.

        1. The military is mostly fine with sociopaths, psychopaths and other mental defectives as long as it fits killing the enemy on the battlefield.

          Hence you agree with me: mental illness per se isn’t a bar to military service, it depends on the specific mental illness involved.

          The military would be crazy to accept tranz people.

          And if you bothered to read what I wrote, you’ll see that I agree. The problem is that people like you make a fucking poor argument for that point.

          1. The “poor argument” is trans people have mental problems and medical problems BEFORE they enter service.

            Sociopaths and psychopaths will be probably disqualified if they have medical problems but are okay will killing people and feel no remorse about it.

            Sociopaths and psychopaths will be probably be accepted for military service if they have no disqualifying medical problems.

            1. The “poor argument” is trans people have mental problems and medical problems BEFORE they enter service.

              “Trans people” in the sense of “people with gender dysphoria”, by definition, have mental and medical problems before they enter the service.

              If you’re using the term in any other sense, please define what you mean.

  11. Frankly, banning the transgender from the military *is* being more ‘friendly – if you don’t have your head screwed on right you’re not going to do well there and no matter how you slice it, no matter where you stand on accommodation in civilian life, gender-dysphoria is a mental problem with waaay more baggage than can easily be dealt with in that environment.

    1. True. Even in garrison, active duty military life is more demanding than civilian life. Bradley Manning fond that out. he adapted poorly, largely due to his affliction. And Transgenders are only one in a large number of groups that are incompatible with military service.

      I’m emphatically against them serving not because I hate them, or I want to win an argument. It’s about making the right decision for our military personnel for their well being, and the defense of the country.

  12. I will not be satisfied until we have an all-transgender Special (post)-Operations unit that is trained in cutting-edge intersectional warfare tactics.

    There are many problematic enemies that need calling out ASAP.

    1. the 32nd Hormone brigade

    2. You’re problematic and you’re problematic and you’re problematic..

      https://youtu.be/sg0D1PpgCXs

      1. Fucking epic. +10,000,000

      2. Good times!

  13. This article is one of the problems with this debate, looking at it as a “culture war”. Unlike blacks, gays, or women, transgenders require extensive medical treatment.

    People under transition require hormones for life. The military already bans people who are taking insulin, because it requires refrigeration and the military can’t guarantee availability in an austere (deployed) environment. Hormones are the same. We shouldn’t treat this issue differently just because its the current fad.

    1. The military already bans people who are taking insulin, because it requires refrigeration and the military can’t guarantee availability in an austere (deployed) environment.

      Except it doesn’t because there are people with diabetes serving in the military:

      Stripes spotlight: Type 1 diabetes can’t stop this NCO, even during deployment

      I’d try to act surprised to discover a socon just making shit up to justify their bigotry, but really, bearing false witness is pretty much their thing, isn’t it?

      1. That was somebody who was already in the military when they were diagnosed, had already had training invested in him. And he can’t operate away from a refrigerator, so we’re stretching the idea of “deployment” quite a bit.

        They would probably not make that exception for someone trying to join who’s already diagnosed with diabetes.

      2. Except it doesn’t because there are people with diabetes serving in the military:

        Diabetes is a bar to joining the military. If it occurs while you are serving, they may try to recoup the cost of training by finding some position for you, or they may discharge you.

        I’d try to act surprised to discover a socon just making shit up to justify their bigotry, but really, bearing false witness is pretty much their thing, isn’t it?

        The problem here is your ignorance and stupidity.

        The problem is also your distortion of facts, because the very article you point to explains that his continued service was a judgment call by a panel, and that he is quite limited in what he can do.

      3. Stormy, if you’re looking for bigotry, you need only reach for a mirror………

      4. I know this process intimately because I worked disability cases for two years. He had a medical board, which can approve exceptions on a case by case basis. They take into account how long that person has served, how much time they have left until retirement, and what their actual duties entail.

        An A1C level of 7 or higher is the cutoff by regulation. Any higher than that, and it’s assumed the person needs insulin regularly. This article was from 2004. I know that in 2014, the Army was far more strict about this, and this guy would not have been given this exemption at that time.

      5. You are incorrect, Stormy. You can develop diabetes in the military and they will allow you to stay in. However, you cannot join the military when you already have diabetes.

        Please, know what you are talking about before you spew your ignorant bigotry next time. Kay? Thanks!

      6. Not wanting to finance other people’s voluntary genital mutilation = bigotry. You guys just keep lowering the bar for that word do t you. Soon it’ll be bigotry for me not to hire a tranny hooker to polish my knob every weekend. Tranny hookers need jobs too!

        1. The left is conflicted because then that would be trans sex trafficking.

  14. Steve Chapman says, “In a free and modern society, the nature of inclusion is to expand, not contract.”

    Well if that means the freedom to be left alone, fine and dandy… What about the freedom to not be pushed and shoved around?

    Specifically here, I am worried that “gender re-assignment surgery” is going to, more and more, be MANDATED on insurance coverage, as it being “medically necessary”, just because “I feel like I am of the opposite sex.” Then I have to pay for insurance coverage that I do NOT, no way in HELL, want!

    Dammit, I feel like I am a tiger! (Channeling Charlie Sheen here, I am). Can I get species-change operation, and make all you bastards pay for it, via mandated insurance coverage?!?!?!

    1. To see the results of “species change surgery” on people who are nominally human, but feel like cats, google “Dennis Avner” “Stalking Cat” ? Search on images especially?

  15. Time is the substance I am made of. Time is a river which sweeps me along, but I am the river; it is a tiger which destroys me, but I am the tiger; it is a fire which consumes me, but I am the fire.

    1. Que sera, sera
      Whatever will be, will be
      The future’s not ours to see
      Que sera, sera
      What will be, will be

    2. I am the stuff & stuff, but I am very, very stuffy!

      … -Stuffed Shirt

  16. Awesome, the fake libertarian cunt Elizabeth Nolan Brown is involved in another stupid war on Twitter (the preeminent platform for liberal morons in the JournoList).

    She’s pissed because some dude made a dumb, sexist joke about making sandwiches or something, and now she’s making it her mission to try to destroy the guy’s life and keep him from ever getting a job.

    Note that this is the same cunt who got really bent out of shape because some people complained to Welch after she slandered Eli Lake. I wasn’t one of those guys who directly complained to him, but I can absolutely understand why some would. I guess what’s good for others isn’t good for her!

    1. She’s fucking trash, and this happens to her frequently, where she gets high and mighty about the stupidest shit, then when people tell her it’s not really the apocalypse she pretends it is, she goes supercunt.

      The losers here who want to fuck her are even worse.

      1. She really is, and she’s also a pathological liar. It’s sad that the standards around here have gone so low they’d feature someone of her low character.

    2. the fake libertarian cunt Elizabeth Nolan Brown is involved in another stupid war on Twitter (

      if it gets up your ass, why exactly are you following her twitter-scapades in the first place?

      your moaning sounds as stupid as Marie Claire’s whining about how Dunkirk is ‘too masculine’. Simple solution= if something is aggravating to you, stop consuming it.

      Instead you sound like the joke about the 2 old jewish ladies in the catskills =

      Old Lady#1 = “Have you had the food here? Its terrible!”
      Old Lady#2 = “I know! And such small portions”.

      1. I like monitoring all of Reason’s professional liars in the place where they think they’re only talking to each other and nobody else is paying attention. They’ll often say what they really think there.

        1. Your stupidity is really something to behold. Apparently she thinks “nobody else is paying attention” while posting publicly, on Twitter, in hey own name, specifically trying to garner more attention to the post she made, which you are also criticizing her for.

          You really ought to stick to the things you’re good at, like huffing glue and eating your own snot, you’re out of your element.

      2. Simple solution= if something is aggravating to you, stop consuming it.

        Does that apply to investigative reporters, radio spies, undercover cops investigating Mafia violence, etc? Sometimes you have to pay attention to things you’d rather not in order to make sure your people are informed and crimes do not go unpunished.

      3. Instead you sound like the joke about the 2 old jewish ladies in the catskills

        That joke never made sense to me. Being hungry due to small portions and being put off by the taste of what little food you have are separate problems, and hardly mutually exclusive.

        1. watch Annie Hall, it is a 90 explanation of the joke

      4. “if it gets up your ass, why exactly are you following her twitter-scapades in the first place?”

        If it gets up your ass, why are you following his posts inn the first place?

        Oh wait, your bitchy criticism is different, right?

    3. Oh yeah, I totally saw where ENB hacked into his linked profile to destroy all his job contacts and then she peppered the entire internet with his face and name and a list of why no one should hire him.

      No, she made fun of a guy making a dumb joke around professionals in a business he may have wanted to enter. She made one post naming him other than the screen cap, which wouldn’t have added much to the incident’s google-ability except people got up in arms about her calling him out. By calling her out.

      HEY LOOK, a reason commentator is trying to get a reason writer fired by complaining about her by name over something she said!

      IT’S THE SAME GODDAMN THING. Argue on merits, not some imaginary hypocrisy.

    4. Mikey takes internet anonymity very seriously, afraid of the repercussions of potential employers finding out what a glue-sniffing retard he is. Unfortunately for him, they don’t need to Google his name to find that out, two minutes of conversation with him is sufficient.

    5. I saw that Twitter conversation. Here’s my 2 points in response.

      Point #1: You have a right to say what you want, but you do not have a right to dictate the response of others. So because the speaker is not the only individual with rights and liberty and agency – all the listeners do too – it behooves the speaker to offer speech that engenders a desired response from the audience. Meaning, that if you have no idea how individuals are going to respond to your public comments on Twitter, maybe it’s a good idea not to use that speech with that venue.

      Point #2: There are always going to be some set of standards on what constitutes appropriate behavior in public. So the questions are, who should set the standards, and who should enforce the standards? We ABSOLUTELY do not want the coercive state to have this role. That leaves the job up to us as private citizens working cooperatively and informally with each other. In almost every other sphere, we libertarians will advocate self-regulation as being far preferable to coercive regulation by the state, and speech is no different. This isn’t because we love regulating ourselves, but because self-regulation forestalls an even worse result in coercive regulation by the state.

  17. Meanwhile in socialist Venezuela

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-…..a-40769737

    1. This is why we carefully restrict arguments about the greatness of progressiveness to social issue categories like “the culture war”. Even when those directly involve the trampling of property rights, such as by making people pay for others’ elective surgery.

      1. But OLD MEN GET VIAGRA!

        WHY DON’T YOU FUCKING GET IT!

    2. “Socialist”?

      Don’t be absurd. Socialism has a 100% success rate, and Venezuela is no exception.

      I mean, do you think it’s a coincidence that when the Western Left stopped referring to VZ as socialist 4 or 5 years ago, things immediately started to unravel? Clearly the intelligencia had perceived what the lumpenproletariat had not: that Venezuela had been infiltrated by CIA saboteurs. The Revolution… BETRAYED!

      Socialism: the only ideology with a 100% success rate… Because all failures are immediately decategorized as being “socialist”.

      1. If it didn’t succeed, it wasn’t socialism.

    3. Socialism inevitably leads to totalitarianism.

  18. Should a patriotic, however emaciated anorexic be accepted into the military?
    Should the taxpayers be compelled to pay for their gastric bypass surgery, so that their delusion is affirmed?

    If they ‘identify’ as obese, despite the reality that they are in fact, malnourished, does it serve a military purpose to accept them?
    If they ‘identify’ as female, despite the reality that they in fact, have a Y chromosome, does it serve a military purpose to accept them?

    Should the rest of the Military forgo combat training, in lieu of ‘sensitivity’ training, to force others to perpetuate the delusions of the few?
    Should the Military force everyone to accept and confirm a factually erroneous fantasy, held by the few whom are afflicted with a psychiatric disorder?

    Why are the flat footed, blind, asthmatic, senior citizen, too short, too tall, paraplegic, diabetics, etc; not allowed to serve?

    1. “I’m only eighteen,
      got a ruptured spleen,
      and I always carry a purse.
      Got eyes like a bat,
      my feet are flat,
      and my asthma’s getting worse.”

    2. Ideally the military would come up with a clearly defined set of entry requirements that are plausibly related to fulfilling military service, and insist that new recruits must fulfill those requirements, whether male, female, transsexual, circumsexual, asexual, gay, straight, felinophile, white, black, purple with pink polkadots, whatever.

      If a particular category of people invariably fails to fulfill those requirements, then oh well, that’s the way it is. No “disparate effects” bullshit, but at the same time no arbitrarily banning categories of people that has nothing to do with fitness for military service.

      1. That would result in a drastic reduction of the number of women in the services. Actual women, I mean.

      2. Here you go: http://www.military.com/join-a…..tions.html

        The medical consequences of gender dysphoria qualify on several counts: missing both testicles, surgical alterations to the genitals, lifetime dependence on hormonal treatments, and high risk for depression.

  19. Would an enemy, such as ISIS, expend limited resources on a goat fuc……
    Wait, um, let me find a better a analogy.

  20. Transgender people shouldn’t serve in the military as they are mentally ill. Very seriously mentally ill. The current fashion of prescribing surgery and artificial hormones as treatment will largely be looked at with horror as a form of barbarism about fifty years from now. Not unlike eugenics, icepick lobotomies, reading the bumps upon someone’s head, alcohol prohibition and the like.

    These people need Prozac not artificial hormones.

    Anyone who has ever spent ten minutes around someone from the transgender community is very familiar with just how mentally unstable people with this condition are. The high suicide rates, endemic drug use and multiple mental health conditions associated with this community do not improve with surgery or hormone administration either.

    Under no circumstances should they be a part of the military. The mentally ill shouldn’t be carrying and employing weaponry.

    Their serving would only weaken the units they are a part of and endanger those they serve with. This functions as a force divider, not a force multiplier.

    1. “treatment will largely be looked at with horror as a form of barbarism”

      The county with the highest rate of male to female transsexual surgery is Iran. That shouldn’t surprise anyone?emasculating sissies is an old tradition in much of the world. What’s surprising is that the practice has resurfaced in our culture today.

      1. Shouldn’t be surprising: eugenics, segregation, and racism are traditional progressive issues, and they have resurfaced as well.

      2. The county with the highest rate of male to female transsexual surgery is Iran.

        That’s mainly because of traditional Islam’s attitude towards homosexuality. A lot of gay men there transition so they aren’t hung by the regime.

        1. Some gay men here transition because they are self-hating homophobes. The traditional attitude in our culture towards gay men is the same as in Islamic countries; we’ve just backed off on the hangings in recent decades. And until recently, on the castrations.

          1. Yes, all Americans use government force to hurt gays people because we ALL hate them!

            If only we could castrate and hang them!!!!!! /S [emphasis sarcasm for lefty nutbag]

            1. But we ARE castrating them. We’re just calling it ”reassignment surgery” or whatever. Then, in many cases, they hang themselves.

  21. May we dispense with the term “LGBT”? The concept behind “transgenderism” is antithetical to the aspirations of gay liberation and equality. The “T’s” are not on the same team as the LGBs.

    1. That would seem to be up to the L’s, G’s, B’s and T’s, wouldn’t it? None of them seem eager to kick the others out.

      1. “None of them seem eager to kick the others out.”

        Wrong.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..82764.html

      2. Are you fucking kidding me? As a “G”, I have little in common with “L” and absolutely no use for “B” and “T”. In fact, because I am “white” (whatever that means) and male, many of the “Ls” and “Ts” hate my guts anyway. LGBT is a construct of left wing activists, not a reflection of shared political goals.

        It’s the same kind of b.s. as throwing together legal immigrants and illegal migrants.

        1. The L’s are also G, which koind of makes that whole dynamic even more dumb.

          1. OK, if you need more clarity, then “as a gay male, I have little politically in common with lesbian females”.

            Frankly, all I really ever wanted from politics was for the state to stop judging my morality and stop threatening me over what I do with consenting adults in my home. As such, I also have little in common with current “LGBT activists”.

            Private discrimination is perfectly OK with me, however. If conservative Christian businesses don’t want me to work for them, I’m happy if they tell me. That way, I don’t waste my time working for people who hate me.

        2. Don;t you ‘G’s like to occasionally indulge guys who are a little ‘B’-curious? I’m just asking for a friend.

          1. Don;t you ‘G’s like to occasionally indulge guys who are a little ‘B’-curious? I’m just asking for a friend.

            I’m talking political objectives and associations here, not private associations like sex or dating.

      3. LGBT… is a leftist construct in the same vein as POC.

        It is intended to lump people who appear to have a unifying negative characteristic–‘not straight’, in the case of LGBT… and ‘not white’ in the case of POC under a more positive name for the purpose of furthering the goals of white leftists.

      4. Tell it to the Bs. Gay men hate bi men more than straight men hate bi men.

  22. There’s very little downside for Trump on this issue–from a reelection standpoint.

    I bet Bannon is hoping the MSM picks up on this issue–and never stops talking about it. If the Democrats win the White House in 2020, it won’t be because the media makes a big deal about transgender issues in the military. The Democrats lost the White House in 2016 because the MSM made a big deal out of transgender bathroom issues when Trump was talking about jobs, healthcare, and immigration.

    The MSM thinks they can dictate terms to the voter market. They’re just being trolled.

    1. Trump is not getting reelected for all sorts of reasons. He’s betrayed his most die hard supporters on campaign promises, and this wasn’t even one of the issues he campaigned on. He’s sure as hell not gaining any new supporters.

      1. As someone who didn’t vote for him, he’s growing on me every day. His ability to piss the fuck out of statist worshipers is amazing. And his Supreme Court pick(s), appointments, net neutrality, etc, are all far superior then what we would have otherwise.

        I used to say to my prog friends, why are you giving all this power to the government? What if we had a president Rick Santorum, or Ann Coulter… and they would just brush it off. Well now you got Trump, so they get what they deserve. And for years bitching about how the GOP obstructed Obama, they are perfectly fine with LARPing as “the resistance”. What a joke.

        The GOP isn’t really popular on a national level, but locally they are much stronger than the dems, and that’s what matters. If the dems don’t get their act together, they are screwed. Don’t they realize the GOP is really close to being able to unilaterally amend the god damned constitution because of their dominance in state legislatures???

        1. Yesterday he threatened to veto any attempt to bail out the insurance companies unless Congress repealed ObamaCare.

          In the same tweet, he threatened to screw with Congress and their staff’s health insurance if they don’t repeal ObamaCare. They may end up on the exchanges themselves if they don’t repeal ObamaCare.

          He’s broadening his support every day.

          Anybody who thinks Trump is going to lose the next election because the media beats him up about transgender issues in the military is out to lunch. These kinds of stories just reemphasize the perception of average Americans that the Democrats are contemptuous of them and that the media is out of touch with them.

          1. Anybody who thinks Trump is going to lose the next election because the media beats him up about transgender issues in the military is out to lunch.

            That’s a nice strawman you’ve got there. It would be a shame if you set fire to it.

            1. There aren’t people who think that?

              Oh, there are. So, it isn’t a straw man at all, you’re just an idiot who thought he was talking to you.

          2. He’s broadening his support every day.

            Absolutely. That fat butt is resembling Christie’s. Lot of support when he sits on a chair

            1. Is this what passes for intelligent discourse around here these days?

        2. As someone who didn’t vote for him, he’s growing on me every day. His ability to piss the fuck out of statist worshipers is amazing.

          Same here. I don’t know whether he does it on purpose or not, but ultimately, it doesn’t really matter, does it?

        3. Don’t they realize the GOP is really close to being able to unilaterally amend the god damned constitution because of their dominance in state legislatures???

          The Democrats were playing the culture war game and they thought they were winning because gay marriage became legal. What they don’t realize is that the GOP needs 33 state Legislatures to forward an Article V Constitutional Amendment process that Congress could do nothing about. Currently the GOP is at 32 state legislatures.

          The GOP will then make gay marriage illegal under the Constitution along with other Democrat causes. It would also be a great time to make social programs mostly illegal but Republicans are now firmly okay with some big government welfare.

          1. It would also be a great time to make social programs mostly illegal but Republicans anyone to the left of Nazis are now firmly okay with some big government welfare.

            FIFY

            Republican is too vague and shifty, even Libertarian. Somehow, we all just know that only Nazis would be evil enough to, to a man, deny trannies their duly-owed, publicly-funded surgeries (and right to kill on our behalf).

          2. The GOP will then make gay marriage illegal under the Constitution along with other Democrat causes.

            Why would they do that? It’s not going to get them a lot of votes.

      2. If ANY republicans want to get re-elected, they better fucking get rid of Obamacare, and get tax reform done pronto. The market, and any real confidence in the economy has mostly priced that in already. If that shit doesn’t get done, things will go tits up in time for the mid terms and won’t get better by 2020.

        Instead of doing articles about tranny’s and other inconsequential bullshit, Nick should be publishing articles about how John McCain just betrayed America again.

        1. Since when is it Nick’s job to get Republicans re-elected?

      3. Trump is not getting reelected for all sorts of reasons. He’s betrayed his most die hard supporters on campaign promises, and this wasn’t even one of the issues he campaigned on. He’s sure as hell not gaining any new supporters

        Oh, you REALLY need to get out of the bubble.

        Betrayed his supporters? They’re cheering him on. Because he’s met a whole bunch of campaign promises already and he’s been president for less than 7 months–we’ve got 7 years and five months to go.

        And he’s gaining new support left and right–what’s that? It’s not showing in the polls? Hahahahaahaha…..according to the polls, Queen Hillary should be setting up the temples to her worship right about now.

        EVERYTHING in the MSM is a lie of one kind or another. If you can’t verify something through non-media sources, it probably isn’t actually happening.

    2. What “libertarians” actually think: only the rights of reliable Republican voting blocks should be protected.

      1. The piece is arguing that Trump is going to lose out on someone’s political support because of transsexuals in the military.

        Pointing out, in response to that, that the SJWs weren’t going to support him anyway isn’t saying anything about whose rights should or shouldn’t be protected.

        And honest, rational people don’t generally need obvious things like that pointed out to them.

        1. “Stormy Dragon” is neither honest nor rational.

      2. Since when do people have a right to serve in the military? Are color blind people oppressed because they aren’t allowed to be fighter pilots too?

  23. You mean the SJW’s are all gonna vote against Trump–next time?!

    Now what’s he gonna do?

    LOL

    Seriously, if you want to see a Democrat win the White House again, you better hope they forget what it was like when we had an SJW in Chief.

    You think swing voters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio want to see the rest of America turned into a Title IX cesspool a la college campuses everywhere–starting with the armed services?

    If a majority of Americans think Maduro is a rotten guy, does that mean they want to invade Venezuela?

    I bet there are solid majorities of Americans who want a balanced budget and also oppose both spending cuts and tax hikes.

    A majority of Americans want to have their cake and eat it too.

    Trump isn’t about to lose reelection over transgender issues in the military–no matter whether a majority of Americans told pollsters they were tolerant as hell.

    1. “You think swing voters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio want to see the rest of America turned into a Title IX cesspool a la college campuses everywhere–starting with the armed services?”

      Why not? Didn’t these swing voters vote Obama into office, twice?

      1. No. Unusually large turnout by Black voters did that.

        1. thank you. Trump won in large part because the Obama turnout didn’t happen for the corrupt career politician. A lot of blue dogs switched too, but that wasn’t as important.

        2. Those goddamn black voters. If there’s a worse color voter, I just don’t know what it is.

          1. I’m sure Hillary uttered that exact line after she lost last November

            1. I am sure Hillary used the “N” word as she is only concerned about black folks in public.

      2. I’m pretty sure those swing voters bought Obama’s bullshit about hope and change. Not obsessed with him turning the military into a job’s fair for trannys,

        1. I really don’t think they care too much. It’s only the military after all, Last resort to many a misfit for centuries. For all they’re faults they are proud Americans, and Live and Let Live are their watchwords.

      3. No, swing voters didn’t want Obama to turn the rest of America into a Title IX cesspool twice.

        In 2008, Obama ran on the campaign slogan, “Marriage is between a man and a woman”.

        They didn’t come out in favor of gay marriage until Biden shot his mouth off in 2012, and all reports suggest that wasn’t a trial balloon–as in a premeditated act to gauge the reaction.

        P.S. The Obama administration raided state legal medical marijuana dispensaries in California hundreds of times before 2012, as well.

        1. “No, swing voters didn’t want Obama to turn the rest of America into a Title IX cesspool twice.”

          They weren’t ‘swing’ voters until they swung to Trump. Until then they were Obama voters.

          1. They weren’t ‘swing’ voters until they swung to Trump. Until then they were Obama voters.

            “Watch me make this obtuse redundant comment!”

            1. I just don’t think these Obama voters give a shit about tranpeople in the military.

        2. Obama presided over marriage quality becoming real, endorsing it, and becoming the most important pro-gay public figure in the world. So he’s forgiven.

          You, who for some reason have chosen to become a partisan hack at the precise moment that a demented orangutan has taken over your party, want credit given to said creature for being a pandering hypocrite in the wrong direction. Are you even okay?

          1. You know, lying so transparently really doesn’t help your pathetic cred, shitbag:

            “Barack Obama’s real record on LGBT rights
            Nancy Goldstein”
            https://www.theguardian.com/ commentisfree/cifamerica/ 2011/jun/23/gay-rights-barack-obama

            Note, it’s from that alt-right font of information, The Guardian.
            Tony, you are truly hateful. How in hell does a pathetic excuse for humanity keep from slitting their throat rather than shaving when they look in the mirror in the morning?

            1. What’s your record on gay rights, again?

              1. What’s your record on non sequiturs, again?

                1. Tony’s batting at least 900 on that front.

          2. Since when was marriage quality real?

    2. The swing voters in those rust belt states probably don’t even care about this issue one way or the other. They voted for Trump because of his promises of bringing industrial jobs back using protectionist tactics.

      Either he betrays them and doesn’t implement protectionism, in which case they switch back to voting for Dems, or he does implement some Smoot-Hawley redux and sets off trade wars. Hello global depression, in which case he’s not winning anyway.

      1. Either he betrays them and doesn’t implement protectionism, in which case they switch back to voting for Dems, or he does implement some Smoot-Hawley redux and sets off trade wars. Hello global depression, in which case he’s not winning anyway.

        While free trade is undoubtedly good for “the economy”, it causes social and political problems in the short term. Leaders like Merkel know that, which is why they adopt a mix of free trade and protectionist policies for their countries, and it keeps them in power. If Trump implements protectionist policies similar to Merkel’s, he’ll do well: the economy won’t be hurt too much, his constituents will be satisfied, and there won’t be any trade war. Or he can simply give blue collar workers something of equal value, such as scaling back regulations.

        It’s also not like Democrats are going to be offering a credible alternative: Warren, Booker, Sanders, Warner, Franken, etc. are losers.

        1. Warren, Booker, Sanders, Warner, Franken, etc. are losers.
          — This. Add Kamala Harris to that too. They realize the above are losers, but then they go to someone equally on the left (Harris) to put their eggs in.

          Dems are screwed because they think their future is to Prog harder, to keep moving farther left. Trump is pretty centrist compared to them or some of the guys the GOP can come up with, so where do they think they are going to get the votes from?

          1. If the does had a fucking brain among them, they would run a family friendly non-whackjob like Jim Webb. Who actually could have beaten Trump. Instead it will be all marxist social justice bullshit with a nutcase Maxine Waters type. Maybe Maxine could really enhance the brain trust on that ticket and pick Patty Murray for her running mate.

            ‘Dumb & Dumber: The Democrat Edition’

        2. Agreed. These Democrats are not a credible alternative.

          But the social conservatism will be dented more and more. It is worth just that.

          1. Red Twilight|7.30.17 @ 6:00PM|#
            “But the social conservatism will be dented more and more. It is worth just that.”

            I’ll bet you thought that means something outside your adolescent fantasies.
            It doesn’t. Fuck off.

      2. BS. They love the fact that Drumpf is restoring the white culture that existed in the 50s. The jobs, they expect to come back after the culture wins.

        1. Jobs can’t come back in a big way until we make major progress on reducing and demilitarizing the Regulatory State and take the big banks off life support. No sign of those happening, or even being seriously discussed, so far.

          1. Jobs in the future will require more and more skills and knowledge. That has been the trend historically. People who can’t increase their own skills/knowledge for whatever reason will be out of luck.

            1. They may be “out of luck”, but they will still be with us, and will still be consuming resources in order to live. Unless we start exterminating the chronically unemployed (and I realize some “libertarians” would be cool with that) we’ll have to find ways to either support those who are no longer productive, or to allow them to be productive. Right now, plenty of unproductive people have skills and knowledge they could use to make a living, but they are prevented from doing so by hyperregulation, protectionism, and a financial system that keeps them away from capital. Trying to retrain displaced workers with new skills and knowledge to make them employable again in the current system has failed dismally?no one hires middle-aged beginners in trades in which they have no experience and no personal connections. Going forward, we need to deregulate radically so that people who are willing and able to be productive are not prohibited from doing so, we need sound money, and we need new ways to support those whose services are simply no longer needed. The alternatives to that are horrible?a Final Solution for the unemployed; or life behind armed guards and walls hiding from the hoards of starving desperadoes outside.

        2. Red Twilight|7.30.17 @ 5:59PM|#
          “…Drumpf…”

          Aw, isn’t that cute, folks? Our imbecilic lefty has learned to type the wrong name!
          Fuck off.

        3. Drumpf!!! ROTFLMFAO!!!!!! Oh man you really got him with that one!!!!

      3. “The swing voters in those rust belt states probably don’t even care about this issue one way or the other. ”

        I agree, But as long as there’s an ID politics angle to exploit, we at Reason will do our best to ignore more substantive issues.

  24. OT. 755 diplomats just in Russia?? Putin is doing more to cut our deficit spending than Trump and Congress combined!

    “Putin Says He’s Ordering 755 American Diplomats Out of Russia”

    http://www.nbcwashington.com/n…..wt_DCBrand

    1. Obviously, Putin is colluding with Trump to push through Trump’s cost cutting agenda! Foreign interference!

  25. But during the campaign, he claimed to be a better friend to the LGBT community than Hillary Clinton.

    He also said he’ll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it, and that he would repeal and replace Obamacare on Day 1…sooon…just let it implode….

    This is what his base wanted, so he is doing that. Seals up the evangelical base for the next 7 years.

    reason.com libertarians should be celebrating with a dumpster fire or something.

  26. Hey, old H&R pals, how ya do….

    …oh.

    1. Tumbleweed blows by

  27. OT: Huffpost piece on Venezuela is amazingly neutral:

    V?ctor ?lvarez, an award-winning economist and former member of Hugo Ch?vez’s cabinet, echoes that view and says protests in these areas respond to a systemic failure in Maduro’s economic policies. “The fact that these sectors are currently spaces for sustained conflict is a consequence of an exhausted socialist model based on government spending of the national income from oil,” he explained.

    1. I mean … for any Huffpost article to come that close to admitting a socialist regime ran out of other people’s money is amazing.

      1. It’s close, but notice it still claims the lack of oil income is the, or a, problem.
        No, it isn’t.

        1. The quote you cite does blame socialism:

          is a consequence of an exhausted socialist model based on government spending of the national income from oil.

          1. That’s a lot of qualifiers. For example, an “exhausted socialist model based on government spending of the national income from unicorn farts” might still function perfectly!

    2. OT: Huffpost piece on Venezuela is amazingly neutral:

      In their defense, only like 10 people died during the election. That doesn’t even rise to the level of a holiday weekend in Chicagoland… not that they want to talk about the crippling fiscal situation and rampant corruption in Chicago either.

  28. For the fact if I am in a haze of hell
    I cannot imagine for a second
    that the human being next to my
    alive and his or her collapsing explosives
    shredding hopes and dreams
    that sex however fucking complicated
    by goddamn Harvard slippery maneuverings
    and Columbian elbow skeets
    will ever address the horror of surviving
    or dying as beating hearts under
    the human meat slicing of bullet lasers
    of gone lives where screams and
    silent eyebrows turned under tight
    dusty alleyways screech a last exhausted
    lost soul….

    1. AC!
      How’s it hangin’?

      1. Sevo is the cliff
        where clouds
        on lost planets
        cry for rainbows

        1. And AC delvers them rainbows!
          Wonderful!

  29. never a bullet or bomb
    has been created that
    will divine your fucking sex
    or infinite sex labels…
    also, shitty dictators don’t
    give a fuck about your
    goddamn million level
    he/this/thou/she/ahd/
    um/dum/doo/yuu/yom/
    and onto infinity unto the
    cells of all sorts of shitty
    slicers of flesh who don’t
    give a single SHIT about
    goddamn laws, sweet
    Harvard and Columbian
    worthless bullshit… because
    deep jungles where dull knives
    ponder the freaky dreams
    of political castabouts
    seeking odd escapes

    1. Dull knives?

      Count me in. I don’t actually understand what I’m volunteering to be counted in for, but I’m in.

  30. Trump has been assassinated one thousand times this years
    and he deserves at least half of his assassinations because
    the motherfucker loves the most corrupt union in the union
    the fucking Fraternal Order of Police which has many
    svelte lords and queens going about the business but
    the rest are horrid shitty uncontrolled demonic pieces
    roaming like nuclear holocausts about the freedom p[lace
    … I don’t expect Trump to understand this…. but he should
    because goddamn motherfucking cops have an Ayn Rand
    Place about the fucking place but NOT going to accept the
    Police Chiefs who can’t CUT losers and abusers.
    Wake Up Trump!!!! Your fucking wholesale acceptance
    of Cops is wrong. Shape them up like Washington dirty deep
    nasty shitty swamps.
    thanks, pres

  31. Deep Country might not have the
    databases of Deep State but
    never underestimate the world
    under the oaks, maples, and hickory
    where miles and miles of dreams
    and dreads form the places and futures
    of quiet movements that turn
    into explosive earthquakes
    evidently nothing about the
    common political world understood
    what put president in….
    rest assured the deep ocean
    of human lives underneath
    it all don’t give a single shit
    about your goddamn
    politik, boi

  32. Rich wide complex bowls
    where millions of lives are
    turned like fucking clay
    on a politik hardon
    prod with no discreet
    tag
    Rich wide complex
    bowls where
    hills, dales, towns, and
    cities will turn for
    stiff cock democrats
    and stiff cock republicans
    all jousting about the
    pussy palaces
    but rest assured the
    nation has far less
    patience with these
    fucking dogs…..

    there will come a point
    when America will fall
    …under the bleat and wail
    of systems of fail..
    where normality fell
    into catastrophe.

  33. Just because Trump is on the losing side of the trans-gender insanity does not mean he is on the wrong side.

    You are born with a penis, you are a man.
    You have an XY chromosome you are a man.

    You are born with a vagina you are a woman.
    You have an XX chromosome you are a woman.

    Gods or natures law (as you prefer)

    http://www.gender-baby.com/met…..etermined/

    1. The lefties FEELZ differently and that is all that matters.

      It matters not that people will join the military to get them to pay for the trans-testical surgery.

      As you say, various medical disqualifications prevent military service.

      If you are trans, you get a medical discharge and do what you want after being discharged from the military.

  34. The military won’t accept Diabetics, or Pregnant women either.
    These are medical conditions, “Trans” is a medical condition. Perhaps its a mental issue – the military doesn’t take them either. I see no discrimination in their standing recruiting standards.
    They accept healthy, able bodied, men and women. If your Trans, your are not, until AFTER your transformation.

    1. After “transformation”, they still have a chronic condition requiring extensive physical and mental health care, and it’s still debatable whether they are of sound mind.

  35. It’s also just not an issue anybody really cares about.

  36. I’ve tried to stay off this article’s comments, but I just can’t.

    Let’s face it squarely; there are not enough Transgendered people in the population to have a ‘side’ in the Culture War. What there are is a whole bunch of Progressive Left people who, for Gods alone know what reasons, think they can USE the Transgendered to ram something down the rest of our throats.

    The ‘accepted wisdom’ about transgenderism is palpable bullshit. It simply stinks. In spite of the oft made assertion to the contrary, I keep running into studies that show that post ‘treatment’ Trans people have higher suicide rates than per-treatment ones. And that makes sense to me; no matter what your psychological problems, dumping hormones into your system is probably going to make matters worse, and mutilation is unlikely to help at all. A tiny, tiny, number of people are hermaphrodites by birth, and maybe nothing effective can be done for them either. I sympathize with people who wish their bodies were something other than what they are; I wanted to be athletic and coordinated, and it just isn’t happening. But the whole ‘gender reassignment surgery’ thing strikes me as ghoulish fraud. And the people making political hay about it strike me as vile opportunists.

    1. I’m not a doctor so I won’t even attempt to pronounce judgement on the condition – but I have no doubt about the left using this as a political football. And Chapman’s gloating about it is repellant.

      The culture war has been going on a long time, and it won’t end any time soon. But the outcome is not in doubt.

      Notice he doesn’t even specify what the issue in question is. Just that “the outcome is not in doubt”. Very telling, that.

    2. I actually feel transgenderism is more of a mental issue than physical issue. Psychiatrists have been badly wrong in the past and I won’t axcept their findings as the final conclusion now. Having said that, I have more respect for these guys willing to sacrifice their lives and if they can meet the physical requirements for what they are recruited for, so be it. Let them serve. The culture wars being pushed down our throats are the ones who find excuses to exclude people from outfits. Remember the gay exclusion. I did not see many conservatives cheering oBAMA when he got rid of the dont ask dont tell. I would love to see the medical expense argument for that one.

  37. *bursts through door, out of breath*

    Did you guys hear the big news? MTV is giving its iconic ‘Moonman’ award a new gender neutral name.

    1. “Access to this site is blocked”, thank God.

      1. I see your network administrator doesn’t like Rolling Stone either.

    2. “It could be a man, it could be a woman, it could be transgender, it could be nonconformist,” MTV president Chris McCarthy says of “Moon Person”

      Why bother with any of the grammatical conventions or any resemblance to history? I would think the obvious choice would be to name it “invader of uranus” and if anybody gets uppity, just make sure they understand it’s a common noun.

      1. It get even more stupider at MTV.

        1. so if they are genderless now is there still a wage gap? I don’t think you can have both

    3. It does not bother me. It’s not like MTV awards shows get any buzz anymore. They are pretty much dead. They dont even try. It;s like a glorified talk show level production values for some of the recent ones.

  38. no matter how much surgery or hormone therapy a person has they will never transform into something else unlike people with deformities that can be availed a tran can never convert and that is the crux of a problem that should not be a burden of the military. let alone the supply line difficulties of dealing with a tran

  39. I am creating $100 to $130 systematically by carrying down facebook. i used to be unemployed a pair of years earlier , but currently I actually have a very extraordinary occupation with that i build my very own specific pay .I am very appreciative to God and my director .If you wish to induce a good quantity of wage per month like ME , you’ll check my details by clicking the link below..HERE

    ???? http://www.netnews80.com

  40. Funny thing about many conservatives worried about transgender medical expenses(again I am not for the govt paying for such surgeries but I am for transgendered serving in the military):
    Many of them dont seem concerned with the record travel expenses borne by Trump and his family not to mention the profiteering by his properties off of his visits. Maybe Trump should take his full regular salary and cut down on the damn leisure travel for his family so the taxpayer can get a break.

  41. People get denied from service based on whether they had cosmetic surgery in the past so why should there be different rules based on sexual identity? People should get equal protections not special protections and I don’t think the military should be paying for sex change operations or hormone treatments.

  42. WTF?!?! This is the single stupidest comment thread that I have ever read on a Reason article. Coincidentally, I don’t recognize a lot of the handles making those comments.

    Did this article get linked to a bunch of other sites/facebook-pages/twitter-feeds?

  43. The issue has nothing to do with culture.
    Most people don’t realize that transgendered have 20x the suicide rate,
    and that the operation amounts to genital mutilation costing $140,000.
    Sarah Huckabee didn’t have the skills to point this out.

  44. So far, Trump’s character has not been made clear
    http://egames-android.com

  45. The cost argument is a red herring. As is the civil rights argument.
    Barring transgender individuals from the military is not primarily about cost. It is about readiness and ability to be deployed. The same reason insulin dependent diabetics, or individuals with seizure disorders, or someone with cerebral palsy are barred from enlisting. Their medical condition requires constant care with constant and completely reliable access to meds and specialists. This precludes that individual from being capable of deploying to the often spartan conditions required. This is NOT a freakin’ human rights issue. It is about having a military capable of going where they need to go, when they need to go. Someone who is dependent upon constant hormone therapy and years worth of reconstructive surgeries are not capable of that readiness.

  46. I served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam (31May 1968 – 31 May 1968). Some officers and enlisted personnel at the base hospital were gays and lesbians. We all just wanted to do our tour of duty and get back to the world. But to be honest, I smoked dope in Vietnam which was also considered by the lifers as “deviant behavior.” Trump wants to trump (excuse the gauche pun) human nature. Which just shows that despite all his wealth and power how clueless he really is about the human condition. And I’ve read several articles that the funds the military now willingly provides with no questions asked to straight soldiers for erectile dysfunction far exceed the few million dollars which would be allocated for the medication for transgendered personnel, and that includes elective surgery for them. So this has really nothing to do with “social engineering.” Of course, the real issue is that the Global War on Terror unfortunately now rivals the Vietnam War as a major foreign policy debacle. But as the late Gore Vidal astutely once observed, what is more important are issues no one will talk about rather the issues they should be willing to discuss and debate.

    1. One day in Vietnam and you seem to have spent it smoking dope and cavorting with perverts.

    2. I am glad you are so experienced after 1 day in Vietnam.

      You are clearly a baby boomer and evidently revere Gore Vidal, so probably not much help for you.

      Its not really about the money the DoD would spend but military readiness. You were part of a draft generation, so many soldiers just wanted to do their time and go home. There are actually people who want to be as good as they can be in the military. You cannot be the best soldier you can be if you need constant medical attention.

  47. The Culture War is a farce.
    You don’t upend society, nor endanger the National Security through the disruption of readiness and unit cohesion, for 0.3% of the population.
    There is no Right to Military Service, never was, never will be.

  48. The Culture War is a farce.
    You don’t upend society, nor endanger the National Security through the disruption of readiness and unit cohesion, for 0.3% of the population.
    There is no Right to Military Service, never was, never will be.

  49. The bulk of sex is between the ears, so why change the body? Look at the security standpoint: somebody tries to enter the military after erasing their former identity, visually speaking. Is it a coverup? Likely not – they are using the military to get free post op care and some hormones [as Obama allowed]. So what of mental health? There is a huge suicide rate amongst the trans crowd, and we should worry. How’s that? They have used surgery for psychotherapy in way too many cases. One concrete question: are these people even fit to receive orders? Think… troop movements are usually classified.
    We must have reliable people for the most advanced arsenal the world has ever seen, and… that is not negotiable. We don’t put children in the military, and we should not put people in that are in the middle of sorting out gender dysphoria and whatever underlying causes are driving it. There are a number of APA members that should be utterly ashamed of not opposing self mutilation as a remedy in too many instances, but…some states have erected road blocks to therapists asking the right questions on account of political correctness and the patient trots off… into hell with a [short term] smile on their face. That’s dangerous, and may pose a threat to national security where the unstable arrive to military service with cloaked and major unresolved issues.

  50. Dream on Steve. Electing LGBT representatives is a lot different than joining the military. There is no constitutional right to join the Military. The Military already refuses enlistment to people with drunk driving or drug use convictions. They refuse enlistment to people who are overweight. They refuse enlistment to people who have colorblindness. They refuse enlistment to people with hearing loss. They refuse enlistment for dyslexia. They refuse enlistment for all sorts of psychological disorders such as mood disorders, bipolar disorder, self mutilation, and more. There still is no clearly accepted science (except among Progressives) that being transgender is NOT a psychological disorder. The Military even discriminates based on age. They break all the rules of political correctness that the private sector must follow. The Military has NEVER given EVERYONE a chance to serve! The base is solidly behind Trump on this.

    1. Even people who are not Trump’s base, like myself, support standards for military service to exclude medical and mental care dependent persons.

  51. Mikey takes internet anonymity very seriously, afraid of the repercussions of potential employers finding out what a glue-sniffing retard he is. Unfortunately for him, they don’t need to Google his name to find that out, two minutes of conversation with him is sufficient.
    My recent post: Commission Bullseye Review
    My recent post: 6 Minute Profits Review

  52. If I identify as a Dolphin can I join the Navy?

    1. Now that would be some expensive surgery.

  53. very nice post. I like it. Thanks for sharing this information.
    Tinder is the best online chatting application. Try it.
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder for pc
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder download

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.