Trump, Trannies, and the Military

From the BBC:

The White House has not yet decided how it will implement the president’s ban on transgender people serving in the US military.

What’s to decide? Here’s the background, buried way down in the article:

The decision to allow transgender people to serve openly in the military was made by the Obama administration last year, with a one-year review period allowed for its implementation.

The policy included a provision for the military to provide medical help for service members wanting to change gender.

As with so much else, Obama signed off on a highly controversial policy very late in his tenure, ensuring his disciples continued their Messiah-like worship but leaving the trouble of implementation to his successor. Of course, this was likely the whole point: if Trump won, which he did, it would sit there like a landmine – which has now gone off. Presumably White House will implement its latest policy by winding things back to, ooh, mid-2016.

As is expected, the media is presenting this as if transgender folk have been happily serving in the US military for decades and Trump came along and banned them for political reasons:

Why now? With the Trump administration being buffeted by the Jeff Sessions political death watch, the ongoing multi-prong investigation into the Trump campaign, the healthcare drama in the Senate and the impending Russian sanctions bill, perhaps the administration decided this was a good time to change the subject and rally conservative forces to his side.

Really? Or perhaps Trump is telling the truth when he says:

Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.

It is a sign of how out of touch the media has become that they believe most Americans think transgenders serving in the military is a not only a good thing, but a fundamental right. It’s quite amazing how rescinding a provisional law brought in 9 months ago can be presented as an attack on American values, but this is what happens when people live in bubbles.

One figure being widely circulated is that there are 15,000 transgenders currently serving in the military. Given transgenders make up less than 1% of the population and the law allowing them to serve came in less than a year ago, this is impressive recruiting. Or maybe there was an entire division of transgenders just waiting for the law to change so they could sign up? Or perhaps the figure is utter bollocks.

Mr Trump said his decision was based on consultation with his generals, but there has been a mixed reaction.

Former Defence Secretary Ash Carter, who lifted the ban last year under President Obama, said: “To choose service members on other grounds than military qualifications is social policy and has no place in our military.”

Quite right.

Several British military generals also condemned Mr Trump’s decision, including the commander of the UK Maritime Forces, Rear Admiral Alex Burton, who said “I am so glad we are not going this way.”

British? In other words, the BBC couldn’t find any American “generals” to support their claim that the reaction was “mixed”, so they had to find some Brits. I’m sorry, but a British Rear Admiral criticising US military policy is a bit like the assistant coach of Pennar Robins football club saying he doesn’t like the tactics of Jose Mourinho. Nevertheless, the BBC devotes an entire article to their witterings:

Commanders from British armed forces have opposed any ban on transgender people serving in the military.

Rear Admiral Burton of the Royal Navy tweeted: “As a Royal Navy LGBT champion and senior warfighter I am so glad we are not going this way.”

With the possibly exception of the Royal Marines and Trident, the Royal Navy has been an utter irrelevance since the Iranians demonstrated its impotence by capturing and humiliating its sailors in 2007. From what I can tell, It exists in its current form mainly as a social welfare program, as is the case with most European militaries. Naval commanders tweeting like a teenage girl doesn’t do much to change my mind on this. And what is an LGBT champion?

[I]n June, Defence Secretary James Mattis agreed to a six-month delay in the recruitment of transgender people.

So who is the better placed to make a judgement on this? James Mattis or some arse-licking British Rear Admiral?

Second Sea Lord Vice Admiral Jonathan Woodcock tweeted: “So proud of our transgender personnel. They bring diversity to our Royal Navy and I will always support their desire to serve their country.

Ooh, somebody’s got with the program, hasn’t he? Embracing the notion that “diversity” is a noble end in itself, to which all else must be sacrificed, is but one requirement of arse-licking your way to the senior ranks of the Royal Navy.

“I suspect many who doubt the abilities of our diverse service personnel might be more reluctant to serve than they are to comment.”

Never mind the trannies , I’m more doubtful of the abilities of the senior command!

In February, the Army’s LGBT champion, Lieutenant General Patrick Sanders said: “Only if individuals are free to be themselves can we release the genie of their potential.”

Another LGBT champion? Soon we’ll have more of these than we will main battle tanks! And don’t militaries rely on conformity and unit cohesion, not free individuals “being themselves”? Obviously not the modern military, which is – as I said – basically a social welfare program.

The Ministry of Defence told the BBC that President Trump’s tweets were “an American issue”.

Yet senior commanders are free to criticise his military policies via Twitter in their professional capacity? You need to get a grip of your people, mate.

A spokesman added: “We are clear that all LGBT members of our armed forces play a vital role in keeping our nation safe. We will continue to welcome people from a diverse range of backgrounds, including transgender personnel.”

Which is only possible because the Americans you pompously condemn have ensured you will never have to actually fight.

I’m not normally a fan of defence cuts, but I must say, I’m warming to them rapidly.

Share

34 thoughts on “Trump, Trannies, and the Military

  1. The rum was kiboshed in 1970, but evidently sodomy and the lash are still permissible, ho ho ho.

    The Australian military is much the same, in fact one of the senior officers is/was a transginger. Aide-de-camp to the general, something like that.

    I want my military leaders firmly capable of arranging for the horrible deaths of millions of people. Otherwise they can fuck off back to HR.

    Of course it’s always the way with the British military, it seems: they relax in peacetime; they get a nasty shock when war comes; and then they sort themselves out. I had no idea, for instance, that they were on course to retake Singapore themselves towards the end of the war. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Army_%28United_Kingdom%29) I thought the Yanks were doing all the fighting in that theater.

  2. Of course it’s always the way with the British military, it seems: they relax in peacetime; they get a nasty shock when war comes; and then they sort themselves out.

    That’s most militaries. Look at how long it took the Union army to get rid of George McClellan. I’m confident if we ever really needed to, all this BS would be swept away once we’d suffered one or two serious setbacks. What I’m not confident of is that we’d ever be in a position to fight such an engagement in the first place. I think we’d surrender first, or disappear under a mushroom cloud.

  3. Slim was one of the greatest leaders the army ever had but doesn’t have the name recognition of Monty due to fighting (brilliantly) in a far-flung corner of the Empire which many would probably rather forget about and due to Monty’s flair for publicity.

  4. As a Royal Navy LGBT champion and senior warfighter

    A WHAT? If only Nelson had one at his side.

    Are there junior warfighters? Is it some sort of grade? What do you have to do to progress, apart from fighting a war, and the Navy hasn’t been in one of those for a while.

  5. “I want my military leaders firmly capable of arranging for the horrible deaths of millions of people. Otherwise they can fuck off back to HR.”

    Yep and that goes for all of them, kill or be killed is their only purpose, if they are not a killing machine, they will get you killed.

  6. Mental illness is a perfectly valid reason to not allow someone to serve in the military. Trans are all suffering from a mental illness, so I can’t see any problem not permitting them to operate heavy weapons. From the look of it most of the UK senior ranks are also suffering a more severe mental illness…..

  7. “As a Royal Navy LGBT champion and senior warfighter”: and odious, oily, grovelling, arse-licking cunt.

    P.S. “Burton joined the Royal Navy in 1986” – he missed the Falklands jollifications. So he isn’t really a warfighter, is he? Maybe an assistant whippersnapper in the Iraq unpleasantnesses, but neither of those was a naval tussle, was it?

  8. There seem to be more admirals than ships in the Royal Navy. Another of Parkinson’s laws

  9. The Beeb follow up piece, recounting the travails of those who (for a reason I cannot fathom) wish to fight in the army and change gender simultaneously is astonishing.

    I genuinely cannot get my head around it. One lady (formerly man) ‘wants to fight for her country, and the rights of those who disagree with her’. She looks barely able to lift a pencil, much less a gun. I’m not certain anyone has explained to her that an army is an instrument of policy, not a platform for taking their view of social norms forward, but in tracked vehicles, rather than tract literature.

    She ‘came out’ as trans whilst at West Point, btw.
    I am wondering if someone has told these guys that, when the shit hits the fan, they’ll have to fight and die, irrespective of their personal views on the policy at hand.

    From the sentiments shared by the Beeb, I do wonder if they really grasp what the army is there for.

  10. I’m not certain anyone has explained to her that an army is an instrument of policy, not a platform for taking their view of social norms forward

    Frankly, if the comments of our own chiefs are any guide, I can see why she’d think this.

  11. From the sentiments shared by the Beeb, I do wonder if they really grasp what the army is there for.

    The Army, like all other Western institutions, is there to be infiltrated, undermined and eventually destroyed.

  12. Frankly, if the comments of our own chiefs are any guide, I can see why she’d think this.

    As another said above, arselicking politics from those chasing promotion. You don’t get promoted in the armed forces to the most senior levels by ability, but by making the right noises, and those right noises are whatever pleases the political establishment of the day.

    I doubt if one of those senior officers quoted truly believes a single word they uttered.

  13. I wonder, Rob. No one, I hope, required these idiots to comment on a US decision.

    I am left wondering what precisely is going on in our armed forces, especially the Navy.

  14. Trans are all suffering from a mental illness

    The doublethink really is quite stunning. They’re all suffering from a terrible mental illness, the poor lambs, which is why they all deserve free surgery and hormones; but not a mental illness that actually prevents them from doing anything or which might affect their behaviour negatively in any way such that we might have questions about their suitability for a job which requires stability in the face of stress or sound judgment.

    I’ve reduced a couple of virtue signalling progs to stammers by hammering that particular contradiction; if a tranny isn’t in any way materially affected by their tranny-ness, then it’s not an illness that requires medical care, it’s cosmetic surgery. And if their mental issues are completely resolved by transitioning, then they’re free to join up once they’ve completely transitioned.

  15. One thing I have always wondered about is how the trans issue suddenly became mainstream after gay marriage. After that trans people are the new gay rights. Is there like a laundry list of issues and if so what next

  16. Is there like a laundry list of issues and if so what next

    Next is all the poly shit. Then it’s paedos, then it’s animals.

  17. Will it ever be white, educated men’s turn?

    It must be at some point. Esp as we are often the ones paying for this

  18. How stupid of me not to have noticed, It’s what the regimental goat was for back in the day.

  19. …the Royal Navy…exists in its current form mainly as a social welfare program, as is the case with most European militaries. Naval commanders tweeting like a teenage girl doesn’t do much to change my mind on this. And what is an LGBT champion?

    Beautifully expressed, Tim. You write well. And this made me chuckle!

  20. @Rob

    “The Army, like all other Western institutions, is there to be infiltrated, undermined and eventually destroyed.”

    Without a single shot being fired.

  21. “I am left wondering what precisely is going on in our armed forces, especially the Navy.”

    The same thing that has happened to the Police and just about every other institution from the boy scouts to the universities, they all have a parasitic infection that has disabled their brains and turned them into CM zombies.

  22. Rob

    “I doubt if one of those senior officers quoted truly believes a single word they uttered.”

    A military staffed with senior ranks who are almost all moral cowards. What could go wrong?

  23. I’d rather have a platoon of paras on my side than a platoon of septics of any cap badge, trannies or no

  24. Is there like a laundry list of issues

    Absolutely yes. And it will never end.

    and if so what next

    My guess is for quasi-legal recognition of polyamorous relationships: companies urged to allow for more than 1 partner in promotions, employers required to accommodate employee’s multiple partners (e.g. in insurance coverage, Xmas party invitations, paternity leave, etc.), hotels expected to accommodate 3 adults in a room as “standard” instead of the usual 2, etc. The endless series of puff-pieces on poly relationships is softening the beaches for something.

  25. Beautifully expressed, Tim. You write well. And this made me chuckle!

    Thanks, Theo!

  26. The Army, like all other Western institutions, is there to be infiltrated, undermined and eventually destroyed.

    This.

    As another said above, arselicking politics from those chasing promotion. You don’t get promoted in the armed forces to the most senior levels by ability, but by making the right noises, and those right noises are whatever pleases the political establishment of the day.

    And this.

  27. “After that trans people are the new gay rights. Is there like a laundry list of issues and if so what next”

    I reckon the next one (or the one after that) will be incestuous marriage or just recognition that incest ain’t so bad after all. We’ve already got New Britons from Pakistan over-indulging in cousin marriage. But, according to the BBC, in an upbeat ending to an article on the effects of consanguinous marriage “on the positive side, affected families who work with the genetic services in Bradford are helping to advance doctors knowledge of such conditions [premature life-ending genetic disorders] which leads to new genetic tests and potential treatments”. So that’s alright then: marry your sister, you know it makes sense!

  28. A spokesman from the States on the wireless this morning, commenting on why the ban is being introduced: forty per cent of transgender folk are a suicide risk. Do you really want to give them a loaded gun and put them in a pressure situation?

Comments are closed.