US Military Not Sophisticated Enough for Transgenders in Combat – Ex-Marine

Sputnik News

US transgender troops have testified before Congress against President Donald Trump’s ban on their inclusion in the military. In January the US Supreme Court allowed Trump’s transgender military ban to go into effect.

Sputnik has discussed the issue with James Fetzer, a former Mraine Corps officer and Professor Emeritus at University of Minnesota.

Sputnik: In your view how would President Trump’s ban on transgender people in the army affect the US military?

James Fetzer: As a former Marine Corps commissioned officer, I believe that the consequences would be relatively modest, that this is a political issue.

Virtually all military officers would agree that women or transgenders in combat is a bad idea but that women or transgenders in supporting roles such as logistics or administrative can work, but it turns out to be basically a political issue as to whether or not transgenders or women ought to be serving in the American military forces.

 

Sputnik: Why was the decision to provide medical and psychological treatment to transgender individuals in the army taken in the US in the first place?

James Fetzer: Well the Obama administration was very deeply involved in the transgender and gay movement and community. It’s a complex issues about which the American people themselves do not have a clear understanding, but they themselves were deeply involved.

Joan Rivers, for example, the American comedian, observed that Obama was the first gay president and that Michelle was herself a transgender, which was in fact, I think, the reason why they moved aggressively to promote the idea of transgenders or gays serving in the military and opposed the policy heretofore, ‘don’t talk about it, don’t say,’ which worked well enough, but where they wanted to go further.

The Democratic Party has now become very much the party of transgender and gay rights along with identity politics where they emphasise issues of gender, issues of race, and to a lesser degree issues of religion, but where that has become central to democratic politics today.

 

Sputnik: How did the army benefit from this policy exactly?

James Fetzer: The American Armed Forces have received only relatively minimal benefit from having transgenders or gays openly serving in the military, and that’s because they have plenty of conscripts, there are plenty of members that serve; this was adding therefore only modestly to their numbers. It is because of political issues that the Democrats have move forward with it.

In fact, given the collapse of the Russian hacking allegations, where it turns out that there was in fact no collusion between Donald Trump and Russia, the benefits have been purely political and now the Democrats are out to make Trump out to be some kind of mobster and a racist which I think is going to be very difficult to sell to the American people.

He’s had a long history of good race relations in New York City and, in fact, it turns out that he had even received a humanitarian award, he got the Ellis Island Medal of Honour in 1986 for his patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity along with Muhammad Ali and Rosa Parks. So it’s going to be a tough case to make but that’s the case the Democrats want to make.

Sputnik: So is it likely to make the army service less attractive for many in the US?

James Fetzer: Well obviously if there is a ban on transgenders that will lessen the opportunity for transgenders to serve in the military, that’s the obvious consequence. It gives an issue to the Democrats to campaign against the present President as though he was anti-transgender and somehow homophobic, which I do not believe to be the case.

 

And indeed the Democrats have gone so far as to actually fabricate incidents that are going to give them or they thought were going to give them political ammunition against Trump. For example, the Jussie Smollett case in Chicago recently, where this actor for the television show ‘Empire’ claimed to have been attacked by two men that about 2 am in the morning in freezing weather turns out it to have been completely contrived.The two men who attacked him were not white, they were black, one was an extra on the set and the other was a former personal trainer for Jussie Smollett. He had orchestrated the whole event with a script, where they were carrying a bottle of bleach they allegedly threw on him, but it would have been frozen solid in that temperature, besides who is going to be out at 2am in the morning carrying a bottle of bleach looking for a gay black actor to attack. The whole story was absurd, but the Democrats thought they had something that was going to give emphasis to their campaign that portrays Trump as a racist and now, of course, with Michael Cohen’s testimony, a mobster.

Sputnik: Why in your opinion did the Supreme Court rule to uphold the modified ban on gender dysphoria policy?

James Fetzer: Well the Supreme Court, I think, would recognize the role of the commander-in-chief of the military to determine what would be best for the military. Frankly, my own experience as a Marine Corps officer would reinforce the idea that, for example, having women who are transgenders in combat is a very bad idea. The military is not a group of very sophisticated individuals.

Transgender issues are not something they easily understand, that’s much more appropriate for sophisticates in New York and ultra-liberal groups than it is for members of the American military, particularly in combat situations it’s a bad idea to have the genders mixed because in the military, the soldier’s mind is likely to be on sex instead of on combat.

So I believe myself that women in combat roles or transgenders for that matter is a bad idea, that it would be acceptable for them to be involved in logistics or administrative support but, with the Supreme Court I believe its deferred here, and appropriately so, to the views of the military in this matter and the President’s role as commander-in-chief.

 

Sputnik: Financially has the US military benefited from the ban of transgender service personnel?

James Fetzer: Well of course it’s expensive to have transgender operations. I’ve noticed calculations recently that it would run between $1 and $2 million for having the service personnel undergo sex-change operations, and that’s a drop in the bucket in relation to the American military budget.

On the other hand, I think it’s a perfectly reasonable question whether the military ought to be performing the surgeries of this kind on behalf of soldiers. I think that’s a very difficult issue to sort out, and I believe the American taxpayers would be very divided on this issue. Once again, the decisions in this particular case are really basically political rather than military.

I don’t believe it is a significant issue overall in relation to the military budget, but I respect the court’s recognition that the military has the right to decide these issues and particularly the crucial role of the commander-in-chief.

Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of James Fetzer and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.

Please follow and like us:

14 thoughts on “US Military Not Sophisticated Enough for Transgenders in Combat – Ex-Marine”

  1. I’m surprised by your position, Prof. Fetzer. Whether transgenders can serve in the military is not just an issue of what the military wants–particularly since what it wants is primarily rooted in bias, although order in the ranks is proffered as the reason–but of the civil rights of the individual.

    As for Trump’s mob ties, the threat to Stormy Daniels in the parking garage is exactly the kind of thing the mob does. While I agree that the “Russia stole our election” meme is a tempest in a teapot, Trump has substantial ties to Russian mobsters, including top-level associates of Putin (who is himself former KGB, or Russian mafia). See Craig Unger’s book “House of Trump, House of Putin.”

    Finally, Clorox says its freezing (= melting) point is about 18 deg. F, well below the freezing point of water.

    1. Alison…How far do these “civil rights” go? If someone identifies as a dog and deems it a right to bark and walk on all fours, shall we allow that person in the military? I find that no more ridiculous than a genetic man or woman identifying as the opposite sex. Call me old fashioned.

      1. I would really like to know WHY this comment is under moderation:

        ((Alison…How far do these “civil rights” go? If someone identifies as a dog and deems it a right to bark and walk on all fours, shall we allow that person in the military? I find that no more ridiculous than a genetic man or woman identifying as the opposite sex. Call me old fashioned.))

      2. “Order in the military” is an obvious pretext.

        If someone “identifies as a dog,” then they probably can’t pass all the written and physical tests which are given.

        We are talking about people who DO pass those tests.

        1. Obviously, I cannot prove this, but I would doubt a woman identifying as a man in any of the service branches could live up to any physical test for men without some modification. So, taking my extreme example further for the sake of debate, this “dog/person” would have to be given certain considerations to allow it to function.

          So, my point is there must be some limit placed on this type of policy…a policy that goes against all natural law…

          My question is where does it stop.

          And in truth, WHY did it begin? This was not a natural occurrence. It has been injected into our society to weaken our very essence. Allowing young children to choose their gender…children who are simply too young to make life changing decisions of this type…..is out and out parental/state abuse.

    2. The military rejects individuals for all sorts of reasons, from bone spurs to depression. The jury is still out whether transgenderism is a pathological form of “somatic symptoms disorder”. given that the majority of transgenders suffer from psychological dysfunction that may be incapacitating or costly. The military does not, never has, and never will adhere to the same rules as regular businesses, because their mission is much more critical and lethal.

      As for Trump being a mobster, this is all malarky. If he is aligned with Putin–in my opinion, the greatest leader of the 21st century and one of the greatest in history–all the more to his credit. Putin took a nation that was flat on its back, demoralized, and bankrupt–all because of Western cabal design–and in less than a decade gave it back its pride and honor. With more political verve and suave than military force, he has decisively tilted the balance of power towards the Eurasian axis and sent the West in decline. Putin, Xi and Trump may soon bring the framework of a permanent global peace to fruition–one that the Western bankers tremble in their bones. That’s why the mainstream media they control is so viciously anti-MAGA.

      1. You are very selective in your critique of Trump. I can recommend that you look into the many articles about Trump in Veterans Today. Trump has at times fallen into financial troubles and the Zionist Russian mafia has bailed him out many times.
        Trump, I strongly believe, is very highly compromised thanks to his previous relationships with both business and social contacts.These have not helped Trump and they have certainly not helped Americans who put their faith in this Zionist saturated schlub. Trump is poison and he will only disappoint us. He will be dodging prosecutions from now to the end of his life. Look at his regime change fetishes. Proud of them? Is he an honest, just man? No way. Trump is not his own man and he will remain under the Zionist bootheel. People can make all the excuses they wish, but I firmly believe this man is nothing but a deceiver.If he had power, he’d have long done something about the horrible border mess Obongo started. But, Trump is powerless and cannot put his foot down and do something about the border/immigration problems. Yecccch!

  2. I served 4 years in the military….so I do qualify as knowing something about military service.
    The military people get very spooked by anyone who is not “uniform”. Anyone who is deemed non-uniform is a thorn in the side of the other soldiers. If there was anyone who was assigned to our office that didn’t quite function or fit in, the management got rid of them pronto.
    Allowing the transgenders to serve is an incremental step for allowing anyone to serve in the military. That means people of any size, shape or even handicap. I am sure you understand and can imagine where this is going.
    Yes, I agree with Jim, the entire issue here is political. Its not what’s good for morale, cohesiveness or military effectiveness.
    Yes again, the military should not be an experiment in social psychiatry or a test bench for human tolerance.

    Either the military is a deadly serious part of a nation’s life or its just an expensive place to exhibit your bizarre, non-uniform and eccentric self.

  3. Allowing Sikhs to wear long hair and a turban in the US military is the WRONG path to travel.

    The outward appearance of ALL military should remain always UNIFORM. What your inner and private faith is must be just that…private.
    Please, let’s keep it there and not on public display.

    If Sikhs want to appear Sikh let them join the Army of India where its allowed and even admired in certain regiments.

  4. The circumstances of combat are mostly opaque to civilians, and policy is best left to those with military experience. It should definitely NOT be subject to the social imaginings of Critical Theorists who lately appear to critique anything but war. Whatever happened to our anti-war impulse?

    In the wake of the War Between the States, First Wave feminism was decidedly pacifist. It was an integral insight that for women to be liberated meant that men must be freed from government coercion, especially conscription, which tore fathers and sons from their families and forced them to fight the wars of the State.

    Now in its crazy, extremist Third Wave, feminism seems dedicated to the dubious and inverted ideal that if their sons are to be drafted, then their daughters shall be as well.

    Oblivious to history, Women’s Marchers go parading down all the wrong avenues.

    1. ((Whatever happened to our anti-war impulse?))

      NOW, that is the real question! The MSM and even alternate media has diverted the conversation to the false nuance of who should be fighting instead of “WHY THE HELL ARE WE FIGHTING TO BEGIN WITH”!

      We all fall for this tactic so easily.

      Take me back to the sixties and some semblance of morality and sanity.

      1. Anti war impulse?
        The MIC learned their lessons from Veitnam War . Do not SHOW the public the horrors of war and they will not have a impulse!

  5. Unless you’ve served in the military, as I have, people in the mil. serve under the UCMJ. That’s a very different world than being a carefree civilian. The UCMJ has total control over your life. The higher ups TELL you exactly what you will and will not do. The punishments for acting outside of the UCMJ can be severe and even seem trivial. Once I was placed on Report and issued a severe and tedious weeklong punishment for wearing jeans on Base.

    The things the UCMJ demands plus additional tacked on Rules are endless.

    The Libs and Democrats work 24/7 to annihilate those well established Regulations.

    1. Agreed…how else could you get those who would rather be compassionate human beings to fight bankers wars and kill each other, eh?

      I was in the USMC ’65-’67…..and not by choice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *