-
Born-Alive Infants Butchered to Death — No News Here
April 11, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Refuting the Libertarian Argument on Marriage
March 28, 2013 | 2 comments
-
New, Young Faces of the Pro-Life Movement
February 20, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Friedman: Liberals Are ‘Pro-Life’ For Banning Soda
October 31, 2012 | 5 comments
-
Will Charlotte Taxpayers Be on the Hook For Democrats’ Party?
October 29, 2012 | 6 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Following the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, soldiers who have had sex-change operations want a repeal of a similar ban barring them from serving openly. That “transgendered” designation also encompasses cross-dressers.
Arguing for a slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but it wasn’t hard to see this development following on the heels of the DADT repeal. The rapid politicizing of the armed forces under the Obama administration is astounding.
So far, the administration is playing coy, as reported in the Washington Times:
A White House spokesman declined to provide Mr. Obama’s position on transgenders in the military, referring a reporter to the Pentagon.
“Transgender and transsexual individuals are not permitted to join the military services,” said Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez. “The repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ will have no effect on these policies.”
The SLDN says “transgender” is commonly identified as an umbrella term for “transsexuals, cross-dressers, gender-queer people, intersex people, and other gender-variant individuals.”
Transgenders are not banned by law, but rather by a Defense Department instruction, “Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment or Induction in the Military Service.”
It lists scores of medical conditions that make one ineligible, including: “Current or history of psychosexual conditions, including but not limited to transsexualism, exhibitionism, transvestism, voyeurism, and other paraphilias.”
It’s getting to the point where cracking down on any type of sexual “acting out” will be deemed discriminatory at the least and a hate crime at the most.
View all comments (42) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by David N. Bass
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/04/after-dadt-repeal-cross-dressi
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
btims| 10.4.11 @ 9:54AM
It's gone beyond a joke........the armed forces are almostly completely feminized and homosexualized, thanks to liberal/progressives.
LiveFreeOrDie| 10.4.11 @ 10:58AM
This was the beginning. Soon you will see Miss. (formerly Mr.) Johnson escorting his male goat bride to the Navy Ball. (And just because the goat is male doesn't mean Miss. Johnson is gay as the goat is really a lesbian goat trapped in a male goats body) And they're legally "married" by the way.
Pelligrino| 10.4.11 @ 12:42PM
And they reside together on base housing. At taxpayer expense of course (rent, utilities). Home location is just one block from the base elementary school, as it turns out.
And did we mention the weekend blowout parties they throw about once a month? Base rules permit non military entrants for social events, so the guest list is quite, well, is eclectic the righ word?
9thID| 10.4.11 @ 11:11AM
The only hope now is to reinstate the original Total Ban that served our nation so well pre-Slick Willie Clinton. 2013 -- bring it on...
M. Klinger| 10.4.11 @ 11:30AM
Arguing for a slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but ...
but one comma and a "but" later ... you do it anyway!
Well played, sir. Well played.
Quartermaster| 10.4.11 @ 4:18PM
The problem with calling the "slippery slope" a logical fallacy is that the slippery slope actually exists. We are having this fact driven home in a very harsh way when it comes to queers in the military and society.
Cutlass| 10.5.11 @ 7:42PM
Agreed. I so sick of this nonsense.
The slippery slope is a logical fallacy only if one asserts that A will automatically lead to B without further supporting the argument.
This ridiculous idea that ANY claim of social cause and effect can be roundly dismissed as a "slippery slope" is itself a fallacy.
If you declare that feeding bears leads to attacks on humans I can dismiss it as a slippery slope, since you can't predict the future behavior of any particular bear with logical certainly. But this in no way invalidates your backing up the claim with observed patterns or statistical evidence that A generally leads to B.
It has been demonstrated time and again - from social spending to nanny state laws to "equal rights" policy - that leftist policies historically expand beyond their stated goals.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 10.4.11 @ 11:38AM
Boo-hoo-hoo! They're being discriminated! That's unjust! Boo-hoo-hoo!
Pete| 10.4.11 @ 11:56AM
I think the discrimination lawsuits will be what cripples the military. Did Mr. Homosexual not get the promotion because of his lifestyle? Was a complement paid to Mr. Homosexual really sexual harassment? The same rats that plague corporations with false accusations of such things will go nuts in the military...some will undoubtedly join just to take advantage of the new legal possibilities.
Pelligrino| 10.4.11 @ 12:52PM
How about the guy who will change his gender to female so he can get pregnant (or try) to avoid a year-long deployment?
Don't think it won't happen. Probably already has.
Lessee... if somewhere along the way "his" self-modificaton goes awry and "he" must soldier?-on (while receiving flak from his chain of command and fellow soldiers for a blatant attempt to shirk duty), how many ambulance chaser lawyer types will be ready to manufacture "his" victimization status? This is, after all, discrimination, you see.
Mav| 10.5.11 @ 5:06PM
If you think transgender male-to-female people can get pregnant, you REALLY need to Google before you talk.
Al Adab| 10.4.11 @ 12:07PM
The Left has used the military for social experimentation for many years. Already the issue is who can marry at the West Point chapel. Maybe they will simply design a unisex uniform but what if people want to wear each others' style? Maybe we should follow the example of ancient Thebes (the Greek one) and organize entire regiments along these lines. That would be segregation though wouldn't it?
Derek Leaberry| 10.4.11 @ 12:13PM
I know of two marines who are separating from the Corps due to the modernist shenanigans of Admiral Mullen, Barack Obama and company. But remember that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld support the homosexualization of the military as well. I know both men have their fans. In ah honorable world, Admiral Mullen would be spending the rest of his days in the brig down in Norfolk.
Mav| 10.5.11 @ 5:09PM
Any Marine who separates from the military based on their disagreement with a law supported by the American people that furthers the ideal of equality for all citizens under the law never deserved to wear the uniform in the first place.
You work for US. The minute you forget that, ring the bell, turn over your uniform, and don't let the door hit you in the rear on the way out.
NotALibertarian| 10.4.11 @ 12:19PM
Anyone who would like to "thank" prominent self-described conservative Republican Jeff Flake for the disaster he helped cause by voting to repeal DADT last December can contact his DC office at (202) 225-2635.
Unthinking people like Flake should be held to account for this folly.
Pelligrino| 10.4.11 @ 1:00PM
Please add Virginia U.S. Senator Jim Webb to the list of those to be detested, derided. He is a US Naval Academy graduate and short-time Secretary of the Navy. He also voted wrong on DADT in in the U.S. Sebate in December 2010.
A traitor still alive and walking.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.4.11 @ 12:28PM
iT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO ENGAGE IN COMBAT IN A PLEATED CHEERLEADER SKIRT.
Al Adab| 10.4.11 @ 1:09PM
That vision gives new meaning to G-suit.
MikeBee| 10.4.11 @ 1:03PM
I don't see a problem. The men in the military wear: military khakis. The women in the military wear: military khakis. So, TVs will have their choice: military khakis or military khakis. By the way, put them first on the front lines.
Tom F| 10.4.11 @ 1:10PM
I'm pretty sure the military has to wear UNIFORMS! How does cross-dressing come into play? The military has very strict rules and regulations with regard to dress, conduct, apperance, etc. I don't think we have to worry about any Corporal Klingers!
Trinacria| 10.4.11 @ 2:02PM
Tom-
Difference between transvestite and transexual - look it up. If you think "dressing up" is the issue, well, you've rather missed the whole point, sport...
Tom F| 10.5.11 @ 10:39AM
Trinacria,
I will excuse your condescending first sentence. A transexual would have to join as a male or female and wear the appropriate uniform! These arguments against gays in the military are just ignorant and homophobic. Why are you against someone willing to sacrifice their lives for this country simply because they are gay? Could you look at photos of our troops and pick out the "gay" ones? Does it matter if any of the soldiers who were killed or wounded defending this country were gay? Does it make a difference if any of the soldiers who receive medals for bravery, valor, heroics, etc. are "gay" or "straight"? Does it matter to you if there are some "gay" soldiers in a firefight with the enemy or protecting our embassies or military bases. Does it matter if the troops helping flood victims or hurricaine victims are "gay" or "straight". All I know is when I see our troops risking their lives for me and you and everyone else in this country, I don't care if they are gay, straight, trans-this or trans-that! I only know that they are the best trained, best equipped, best educated, most professional military in history! And I support 200% ANYONE willing to die so that people like us can continue to have the freedom to openly debate issues like this! And lastly, when I say the words "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS", there are no exceptions!
Mav| 10.5.11 @ 5:11PM
^ Agreed.
Anyone who says "Support the troops, just not the f*gs" is a HYPOCRITE.
LiveFreeOrDie| 10.4.11 @ 3:52PM
Yes but those old, archaic and bigoted rules will have to be changed in order to align with the new policy. Don't believe it? Just wait.
Trinacria| 10.4.11 @ 2:08PM
Mr. Bass,
Speaking of the slippery slope, I would argue it's even more slippery than you suggest. Do you really think they'll stop at arguing for eligibility of existing transexuals? C'mon, you know the next step will be to argue that the military cannot discriminate against those who wish to undergo gender reassignment surgery, so you and I will be required to foot the bill. And then what? Hell, what better way to get your pee pee surgery paid for than to sign up for a couple year stint in the military (a good portion of that time will be spent in convalescence and rehab anyway, right?)? Be all you can be (including any sex you wish), indeed...
Zman| 10.4.11 @ 3:19PM
"You look Fabulous in that dress!"
Al Adab| 10.4.11 @ 3:59PM
That's "you look fabulous in that dress, SIR soldier."
Wayne| 10.4.11 @ 6:11PM
I don't really worry about cross dressing. I am much more concerned about the straight males abandoning the military rather than have to deal with males sharing bunks in the barracks or having sex in the shower.
Trinacria| 10.4.11 @ 8:05PM
I agree, though it occurs to me that if the prospect of serving under an inept, ill prepared, unqualified, contemptuous, disgraceful, dishonorable, and deplorable commander in chief doesn't scare them away, I don't know that a couple poopsters in the shower will...
Pelligrino| 10.4.11 @ 10:30PM
As a troop, one is powerless to effect who sits in the Oval Office. Both as a 23 or 27 year old voter and certainly as one wearing the (military) uniform.
Plus the Commander in Chief, though certainly at that top post in the chain of command, is buffered by many layers.
And when off in far-flung training areas or deployments overseas, one rarely has much time to pay any attention to the inside the Beltway hijinks.
Which soldiers and sailors didn't want to cry UCMJ foul! when Willie Clinton was abusing an intern for office pleasures? All did. All thoughtful troops were thoroughly ashamed of him.
Typically you start your enlistment or cadet training (whatever is the lead-up to one's 4-5 year hitch) and there is one set of officials in Washington, D.C. Then it rotates every 2-4 years. The faces change so rapidly you cannot keep up.
Most military retirees will have served under 7 or 8 Secretaries of Defense, same for Sec. of the Army/Navy/Air Force. The top general or admiral in one's branch will have rotated 7 or 8 times.
The only constant in the military is that the personnel in your unit and the leadership above you constantly change.
One learns to just soldier as best one can through all of it.
Trinacria| 10.4.11 @ 11:20PM
Been there, sport; don't need the lecture.
Mav| 10.5.11 @ 4:57PM
Yes, because calling homosexuals "poopsters" isn't contemptuous behavior or anything.
Tom F| 10.5.11 @ 10:44AM
Wayne, so far I know of no police dept., fire dept. EMT depts., the NFL, MBL, NBA, NHL and every other profession where men live, eat, work, and shower together have not lost striaght males because of any gay colleagues.
Lance| 10.5.11 @ 2:47PM
Talk to soldiers in unguarded moments when they can speak with out fear of official retribution (harm to their career) and you will find, almost without exception, that they resent having to tolerate homosexuals in their midst.
The repeal of DAST will hurt recruiting and will hurt morale and will hurt unit cohesion.
It may come as a shock to you but many, if not most, young men of armed service recruitment age don’t want to sleep in close proximity to a gay man. It repulses them.
Mav| 10.5.11 @ 5:02PM
I HAVE talked to soldiers (and sailors) on this issue, and they overwhelmingly don't care. Most of them are of the younger generation anyway, and at least half of them are openly accepting of gays and lesbians because they've been raised with openly gay people and see that they're not the boogeymen the extremist right-wing makes them out to be.
The majority of the other half doesn't care one way or the other as long as they aren't sexually harassed, and since *gasp* the overwhelming majority of gays and lesbians are NOT rapists, the few straight soldiers that have profound prejudices against gays and lesbians will find that theirs is the minority opinion very quickly.
R Martin| 10.5.11 @ 7:56AM
"Transgenders are not banned by law, but rather by a Defense Department instruction, “Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment or Induction in the Military Service.”
So why shouldn't the military be left to decide who is eligible for enlistment, full stop, rather than be guided (impelled) by politicians promoting leftist dogma?
Fast Johnny| 10.5.11 @ 8:01AM
"What's next the 182nd Fighting Shemales?"
I think that was either from Mad Magazine or Cracked. Although Mad Magazine would seem more appropriate, I mean doesn't the Commander and Chief look like Alfred E Newman and I can also see him using the catchphrase: 'What me worry?'
This whole thing is almost surreal, please tell me this is all a bad dream.
Lance| 10.5.11 @ 2:08PM
Slippery Slope arguments are to be regarded as fallacious in the realm of debate but in the realm of reality are all-too-often accurate.
During the reign of Ed Sullivan as the standard in variety show hosting no one would have predicted the rise (or fall as-it-were), in a mere 4 decades, of Howard Stern who describes himself as “The King of all Media” and touts “the mainstreaming of lesbianism” as his greatest achievement.
How did we get from Ed Sullivan to Howard Stern? The answer: Johnny Carson.
Dawn| 10.7.11 @ 12:43PM
Isn't it amazing that as a person who served in the USAF for four years (pre-1980) and was honorably discharged upon completion of that service; that I served, and coincidentally am transs exual, I served with distinction and professionally. Yet, by the premise and ignorance of the author to this article, my service should have been characterized by having been some type of mental case that caused great angst and despair for service members around me.
No, no one knew about me, except me. I simply wanted to serve my Country, and did so, proudly. It wouldn't have ended any differently if I would have been able to be open (legally) about who I am. However, consider this. If I had been 'caught', I would have been drummed out on a less than honorable discharge and prematurely so. My Commanders and fellow Airmen would not have known how good a service member I could have been. Now they do.
Simply this. How does who I am make any difference to the dedication I am capable of delivering? Who I am is not a "behavior" any more than who you are, is. If you are raised with a good work ethic, you will typically perform with that virtue for your entire life. That is behavior based, not the fact that I am transs exual.
yisong| 10.25.11 @ 2:15AM
Roller bearing is composed of axial and radial two roller bearing assembly, bearings reduce
volume, simplifies the installation structure, thereby reducing the manufacturing cost.
http://www.1stbearing.com
yisong| 10.26.11 @ 2:42AM
Slewing bearings, is a comprehensive load to bear a large bearing, can bear large axial, radial load and overturning moment. http://www.1stbearing.com