Some in Congress want to stop a defense bill that pays our troops.
Photo source: U.S. Army (Public Domain)

I wanted to follow-up on the news piece that I wrote about President Donald Trump’s decision to reverse the Obama administration policy of allowing transgender individuals to serve in our armed forces.

The typical response from the left that I’ve seen comes with this hashtag:


No one has a right to serve in our armed forces.

Another liberal friend of mine (who served in the Army and should know better) said that it is good that the military is becoming more inclusive.

I don’t want the military to become inclusive. It is effective because it is exclusive.

When I enlisted in the Army (I served in the Army National Guard from 1989 to 1997), I had to go down to the MEPS (Military Entrance Processing Station) facility that was then in West Des Moines where you would undergo a physical (among other things I don’t quite remember because it was long enough ago). I also had to pass an ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) test.

Today the basic requirements are:

  • You have to be a U.S. citizen or green card holder.
  • Be in good health.
  • Be between 17-40 years old (varies with each branch of the service).
  • Have a High School Diploma or GED.
  • Pass the ASVAB test.

If you want to be an officer you also have to be a college graduate.

There are things that can disqualify you as well: a criminal background, certain moral transgressions, mental health issues, and medical conditions.

When I enlisted, I wanted to be an MP (military police) and was told that I couldn’t because I wasn’t tall enough (that may have changed but at the time the requirement was 5’8″, I was 5’7″). Did I have a right to be an MP? Of course not, I became a combat medic instead.

My maternal grandfather was rejected for service during World War II because he had flat feet. They tried to draft my paternal grandfather for service in World War II, but let that go when he finally convinced the powers that be he was deaf.

My son wanted for years to join the Army and specifically be a part of a special operations unit. He later changed his mind, but when he was diagnosed with cancer shortly before his 14th birthday and then later suffered a skull fracture he would have been disqualified.

If I wanted to reenlist I wouldn’t be able to because of my age (I possibly could get a waiver for prior service, but that isn’t guaranteed), and, I hate to say, at the moment wouldn’t pass the BMI requirements.

After all of that you still have to make through Basic Training, Advanced Individual Training/Tech School, and meet all of the annual requirements to stay in (weapons qualifications, health requirements, physical training tests, etc.).

“Transgender” is a political term that is used for individuals who believe their gender identity does not match their biological sex. Gender Dysphoria is the clinical term for those in this position. It is a psychological disorder. It is not normal. It is something that comes with a lot of stress.

Lady Gaga tweeted out a stat that, unbeknownst to her, makes the point.

Her argument essentially is because almost half of transgender individuals between the ages of 18-24 try to kill themselves we should let them in.

Being in the military, especially being called into combat, is a highly stressful environment. It is not a place for people who are struggling with their identity to go figure it out.

Frankly, the military doesn’t care about your identity, another thing that seems to be lost on liberals. You don’t join the armed services to express yourself. Quite the opposite.

Secondly, there is already a high suicide rate among combat veterans, and so Lady Gaga and others think it is a good idea to throw a group known to be unstable in the mix? And give them weapons to boot?

Yeah, a fantastic idea.

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
  1. First. Transgender people served during the civil war and admirably so. Second, the arguments against Transgender men and women serving in the military are similar to the arguments that African Americans shouldn’t be allowed to serve along side whites, because it would disrupt the unit. These arguments were propagated some 40 or so years ago. And apparently the arguments were correct and desegregation did disrupt the unit. But the key is that the unit got over it and here we are today with a desegregated military a d yet trying to make the same claims against Transgender men and women serving. Yeah there may be disruption but the unit is not populated with wussies. They’ll get over it. Also the privilege argument that is thrown about and which is bigotry disguised in honorable terms could be applied to the whole desegregation process way back when. Also, the decision to desegregate the military in the past necessarily implies that serving in the military is quite different than a privledge. The act of desegregation was based upon civil rights considerations as well as military considerations. Furthermore, to say that a voluntary action (joining the military) is a privledge makes no real sense. Every person has a right to serve in the military if they are physically and mentally capable. There are reasons that some will not be accepted into the military such as say having asthma or bone spurs. But to reject someone based on irrationalities and bigoted myths who is otherwise qualified is just bad policy.

    1. Transgendered people did not serve during the Civil War. There may have been women who dressed as men so they could fight, but that doesn’t mean they had gender dysphoria.

      I can’t even take the rest of your comment seriously. I’m sorry when you have a population that 45 percent of its 18-24-year-olds try to commit suicide then the military is not a good fit. If you can enlist without bringing all this crap into the service fine, but the military is about expressing yourself it is about breaking you down and molding you into a cohesive fighting unit.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Terry Branstad Is An Excellent Choice for Ambassador to China

Shane Vander Hart gives seven reasons why President-elect Donald Trump made a good choice appointing Iowa Governor Terry Branstad to be Ambassador to China.

ESEA Reauthorization Clears U.S. House

The U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) on a 359 to 64 vote.

The Clueless Republican Establishment

The defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor exposes far greater problems…