5
5
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
Major difference between characteristics a person cannot control, such as race, and those caused by choices, such as transgenderism. The Services must continue to NOT discriminate based on race, color, religious belief, or national origin. It's entirely logical based on the necessity to provide a combat ready force to discriminate (tell the difference) based on physical characteristics, psychological illness, physical illness, legal citizenship status, drug use, and other choice-based characteristics. Gender (original gender on birth certificate) is difficult because of the inherent differences between male and female. I still believe if a service member can meet all of the requirements for a job, then he or she should be allowed to do that job. If not, do something else. I watched potential pilot students be eliminated (discriminated against) because they were too tall, too short, too heavy for height, too tall sitting height, vision less than 20/20, puked when turned up-side-down, failed drug test, etc. Never saw a potential student eliminated for race, religion, color, national origin, or gender. I think the Services can get a handle on this easily. Transgender individuals currently serving honorably on active or reserve duty should be offered a General Discharge under Honorable Conditions and allowed 90 days to be gone.
(2)
(0)
MCPO William Cavitt
Right on Col. But no one is listening. My son, a retired Lt.Col. And son-in-law a retired Navy Capt. told me some horror stories about how these new sex social issues are decreasing combat readiness. I puke!
(0)
(0)
If one views transgender as having been an illegal human experiment his ban means nothing.
I believe I can easily show professional level unethical and criminal behavior in the promotion and adoption of the word transgender at the professional level.
By federal law since 1992 no transsexual or transvestite has been considered handicapped unless for other cause.
When you "include" someone in a group without their individual consent you are in effect experimenting on them without their consent. Note that lgbt activist have a fairly long history of stating they are trying to be "inclusive" to justify swallowing hole populations of people based on a singular characteristic.
But if all people defined as being transsexual or being a transvestite are not considered disabled unless for other cause, there is no ethical or legal right to make social or political decisions for them.
I believe I can easily show professional level unethical and criminal behavior in the promotion and adoption of the word transgender at the professional level.
By federal law since 1992 no transsexual or transvestite has been considered handicapped unless for other cause.
When you "include" someone in a group without their individual consent you are in effect experimenting on them without their consent. Note that lgbt activist have a fairly long history of stating they are trying to be "inclusive" to justify swallowing hole populations of people based on a singular characteristic.
But if all people defined as being transsexual or being a transvestite are not considered disabled unless for other cause, there is no ethical or legal right to make social or political decisions for them.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Are you implying as long as people go by a different "term", or no "term" at all, they will be fine?
(2)
(0)
PFC Lisa McDonald
I am saying specifically the word transgender has never been constitutional for state or federal use.
If a person meets the definion of being a trannssexual or transvestite they are deemed not handicapped unless for other cause.
Its mutes any arguments that either recognized condition is such a severe mental illness as to disable someone. If someone is not disabled then at the professional level one cannot make decisions for someone the way transgender and the lgbt has.
Its simply illegal human experimentation and lgbt activist aided in the commission of it.
If a person meets the definion of being a trannssexual or transvestite they are deemed not handicapped unless for other cause.
Its mutes any arguments that either recognized condition is such a severe mental illness as to disable someone. If someone is not disabled then at the professional level one cannot make decisions for someone the way transgender and the lgbt has.
Its simply illegal human experimentation and lgbt activist aided in the commission of it.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
PFC Lisa McDonald - Ok, so you're saying Transgender and LGBT are not actual "words", therefore any conditions described as such don't exist, therefore banning someone for being Transgender or LGBT is irrelevant, because those terms don't mean anything anyway?
(2)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
Well hes left the majority of the decisions with Secretary Mattis we will see how he plays it. His judgement i can trust.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next