Transgender Ban

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

If you have seen the headlines claiming that President Biden reversed President Trump's "transgender Military ban", then you have been duped by FakeNews and leftist propaganda. This lie has already permeated the left's alternate reality where we'll be arguing it for years, and the facts will only irritate them.

  • From the 1960s until about 2012: People with “current or history of psychosexual conditions, including but not limited to transsexualism, exhibitionism, transvestism, voyeurism, and other paraphilias” were barred from enlisting in the military.
  • In 2008 Obama stuffed the pork-laden Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act [1] with a diversity and inclusion "Studies", and in 2012 President Obama’s secretary of defense (Ash Carter), under the cover of their FakeScience recommendations, announced that while while other paraphilias would be banned from military service those transgenders currently serving would be allowed to continue serving. New enlistment remained prohibited.
  • One year into the Trump administration (2018), a policy was enacted briefly allowing transgender enlistments (adding not removing liberties), but Secretary of Defense Mattis quickly qualified that policy with a restriction that “transgender persons with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria — individuals who the policies state may require substantial medical treatment, including medications and surgery — are disqualified from military service except under certain limited circumstances." They continued to allow people who are already serving openly to remain, as well as any who would serve “in accordance with their birth gender.”
  • The media misreported it as a ban. That's not a ban. That was an INCREASE in diversity, and even trans diversity, but putting a cap on how serious a disorder could still effectively serve, as that wouldn't do anything to help military effectiveness, and would stick taxpayers with large bills (≈$132,000 per surgery). Without this, anyone that wanted could enlist, get the surgery at taxpayers expense, then drop out once recovered.
  • In 2019, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the policy is not a “ban” because “not all transgender persons seek to transition to their preferred gender or have gender dysphoria.”[2]

What really happened is, “Biden orders military to pay for gender reassignment surgeries, and take on the severely mentally ill". Remember the facts that post-op transexuals have extremely high suicide rates, depression and other emotional issues, require extensive therapy, and many regret the surgery and would take it back if they could. I think these people deserve compassion, but we probably shouldn't be recruiting them to give them weapons (to the point some might have their fingers on the triggers of our Nuclear arsenal), all in the name of wokeness. You can be excluded from the military for a variety of physical or mental variations (weight, height, substance abuse, education, bad finances, earrings (ear gauges), tattoos, criminal record, and so on)... but if you want to stick Uncle Sam with your gender reassignment surgery and make the military liable for any hysterical outbursts that hurt others, Biden is all for it.

🗒️ NOTE:
Some of this was on a friend's Facebook page, I went and did research, summarized some, expanded others, validated the key points, added references.


📚 References

Joe Biden
(D) Vice President and Presidential Candidate - claimed, "Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door". Someone's been watching too many cowboy westerns: it isn't going through a modern solid door, and you'd be breaking the law by doing it, especially if you hit someone (like the child on the other side). He went on to repeat variants of this stupidity (showing he's slow to learn). It's not all Democrat gun opinions that are wrong, it's just the 95% that give the rest a bad name.
While the term goes back 100 years, the history is summed up well in a Sharyl Attkisson TedTalk on FakeNews. While our media has always had false narratives and bad stories that are Fake News (exampled include: Edward R. Murrow's "See it now" McCarthy'ing Joe McCarthy (1954), Richard Jewel story (1996), story about a plane crashing into Camp David after 9/11 (2001), Duke LeCross Rape Case (2014), Michael Brown and 'hands up, don't shoot' narrative (2014), and so on). We didn't use the term "Fake News", just liberal media bias or incompetence, but it's been around since the first liberal got sloppy or partisan at a newspaper, somewhere back in Roman times.

Then on September 13, 2016 Hillary Clinton supporters Google and Eric Schmidt, used a shell charity (a non-profit called "First Draft,") to start seeding the term to attack right wing websites ("to tackle malicious hoaxes and fake news reports"). Hillary Clinton and her surrogate David Brock of Media Matters admitted in a campaign letter that they pressured Facebook to join the effort. Google warned Conservative websites to remove stories that Google didn't like, or they'd take away their ad revenue. And Barack Obama and the liberal media followed along, regurgitating what they were told: none were going to let this opportunity (to curate what information we could see) go to waste, all in the name of protecting free speech. All coincidentally done at the same time, in what could only be a coordinated campaign attack.

Unfortunately for them, it backfired when people noticed that the mainstream liberal media made more errors and was less honest, and started throwing it back in their face. Fake News applied more to the News, Google, Facebook, Obama and other curators and finger pointers than their victims. Donald Trump used that to hijack the term and use it back against them. The left tried to change the narrative and pretend that Trump had created the term, and they wanted to stop using it and claimed it was a hateful term and an attack on free press to point out the Presses bias or errors. And that's where we are today.

A list of articles on Trump, his scandals (real and imagined). My goal isn't to cheerlead or slam, but I am anti-establishment and have the most interest in the parts of the story that the media/left has omitted, and giggle at cry-bullies getting their comeuppance. That's probably too much nuance for many, as anything but rabid attacks make many think I'm a Trump lover. While I wish he was a better behaved champion and didn't get in the mud with the pigs, but if he didn't, he'd be Mitt Romney and he'd likely lose. So they despise him for doing what they do back to them. I don't like either of them, but I like the one fighting for individuals more than the ones fighting to oppress them.