How Transgender Soldiers Destroy Unit Cohesion

Donald Trump plans to ban transgender soldiers from the military. The reason he gives for this move is twofold. First, he claims paying for transitions is too expensive. But the military doesn’t cover them. He also thinks troops will be distracted from their duties by the mere presence of transgender soldiers.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on RedditDigg thisShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

11 thoughts on “How Transgender Soldiers Destroy Unit Cohesion

  1. «He [i e, Mr Trump] also thinks troops will be distracted from their duties by the mere presence of transgender soldiers.» If US troops are that easily distracted (aren’t porn videos and booze and drugs good enough any longer ?), I expect we shall soon see adversaries posting adds for «pretty boys» to join them at high wages as a welcome diversion for those troops. In fact, they might have parties for both sides in no-mans land, as on the Western Front on Christmas in 1914….

    Henri

  2. But of course, sexists, racists, homophobes, transphobics, rapists, and homicidal schizophrenics are perfectly welcome. What could go wrong?

  3. Out of curiousity, I come back to Ted’s blog and find it pretty well empty and deserted. I guess I was one of the last ‘hangers-on”. I have always like Ted and his stuff, but it seems that when the going gets tough or there’s simply too much of going on at the same time, that Ted kinds gets side-tracked – Especially with the Times breathing down his neck. It may be time for Ted to re-invent himself or try to stop doing the same thing over and over, hoping for different results. That has worked well for many, many others, including myself. I was the highest level of an avionics electronics specialist on aircraft, and I became an English services provider in the little country of Lithuania, which is nothing to brag about, but does bring in a small pittance of an income for my wife’s company.

    • I used to love going to academic conferences and listening to people during the Q & A ask so-called “questions” that were merely excuses to trot out their own hobby-horses in order to make pronouncements having nothing to do with the topic of the presentations.

    • There is a fitting cartoon (NSFW), for once not drawn by Ted, on the phenomenon of people who keep coming back to places they explicitly dislike – merely out of curiosity and to ascertain that the place in question has indeed gone to the dogs in the meanwhile, of course.

      Still, welcome back 😉

      • @ andreas5 –

        Thanks for the analogous cartoon. It saved me from having to draw a comparison to The Mooch’s description of Steve Bannon (also apropos).

        😀

        [But really — “welcome back”?]

      • Oh, Mooch, we hardly knew thee…

        certainly, rikster was actually right that the board is comparatively calm now in the absence of colorful characters who at least are fun to argue with.

        The more the merrier 😉 -> where has “Jack” gone and who is going to spam the board with links to Breitbart in its absence?

      • It’s not I drive away those characters. Everyone is welcome here as long as they avoid name-calling. Passionate disagreement is the stuff of life.

      • > “avoid name calling?”

        I must have missed that part. >;->

        But I do appreciate Ted’s stand on free speech. I’ve been banned-for-life on a couple of freeper type boards, seems like the more liberal sites are more likely to allow posters with different opinions. (no surprise)

        Jack & DanD both disappeared soon after the election. Jack was asking about VPNs when he got back from the inaugural, suspect he met up with a group more to his liking. Same with Dan – bigots* have come out in the open in droves since Duh Donald made unreasoning hatred mainstream again. He probably found a group where they reinforce each others “values.”

        Good riddance to both, although it would be nice to have a (polite, logical, well informed) conservative voice around for a change.

        *’bigot’ is not a “name” in this case, it’s a factual description

      • @ CrazyH

        ok, there has been name calling 😉

        I fear that a polite, logical, well informed conservative voice would be a lot to ask for these days, as conservatives, even old-school cultural ones, do not seem to excel at either conservation nor conversation, pity…

        So such a voice would stand out as downright radical and revolutionary simply by virtue of actually adhering to these lofty ideals professed by old school cultural conservatives…

        Would they then even be a conservative? Then again, perhaps radical change is necessary to preserve the legacy and wisdom of old?

Leave a Reply