Why No Transgender in the Military?

My Buddy Jim Sent Me the Following. You know, Jim, James Krage:

Read more about what Jim Krage is doing at http://www.JamesKrage.com
To fight your Traffic Tickets, I’ve posted info and links at http://www.deepinfo.com/fighttickets/
To fight the Lender on your Mortgage, I’ve posted lots of free info at
http://www.wamufraud.com/ , http://www.beatforeclosurefast.com/ & http://www.americanloanaudits.com/

Why No Transgender in the Military?

Trey Gowdy just said a few things about the military in response to a stupid question from a CNN reporter about the ban of transgender.
He nails it!
Nobody has a “right” to serve in the Military. Nobody.
What makes people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer?
Very far from it.
The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short.
Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers.
Poor eyesight will disqualify you, as well as bad teeth.
Malnourished? Drug addiction? Bad back? Criminal history?
Low IQ? Anxiety? Phobias? Hearing damage? Six arms?
Hear voices in your head? Self-identify as a Unicorn?
Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair?
Can’t run the required course in the required time?
Can’t do the required number of pushups?
Not really a “morning person” and refuse to get out of bed before noon?
All can be reasons for denial.
The Military has one job. War. Anything else is a distraction and a liability.
Did someone just scream “That isn’t Fair”?
War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful.
YOU change yourself to meet Military standards.. Not the other way around.
I say again: You don’t change the Military… you must change yourself.
The Military doesn’t need to accommodate anyone with special issues.
The Military needs to Win Wars.
If any of your personal issues are a liability that detract from readiness or lethality…
Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors.
Who’s next in line?
(P.S. some debate if it was Trey Gowdy that said this – whoever said it was right on)

Paying for transition-related surgeries for military service members and their families is beyond comprehensible.
Perhaps they have forgotten that our military was forged to be the world’s strongest fighting force,
not a government-funded, politically correct, medical sex change clinic for people with gender dysphoria.
>>> Related: Transgender Americans Won’t Be Allowed to Serve in Military, Trump Announces
Gender dysphoria, the common diagnosis for one who feels at odds with his or her birth gender, develops from prolonged anxiety and depression. People are not born that way.
The “proof” for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is having strongly held feelings—but feelings can and often do change over time.
The military is expected to prepare its members in warfare: to kill, destroy, and break our enemies.
The most important factors in preparing a strong military are not hormone therapy, surgical sex changes, or politically correct education.

We need psychologically fit, emotionally sound, highly trained troops to protect our nation from its enemies.
While countless homeless vets are currently sleeping under cardboard boxes, or waiting for life-saving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs,
we learn that transgender military recruits now qualify for preferential coverage for sex change procedures that are scientifically unproven and extremely costly.
Costly, but Not Effective
Transitioning can be expensive—up to $130,000 per person for numerous body-mutilating and cosmetic procedures over many months (or years) to fashion the body to appear as the opposite sex.
Yet, no matter how skilled the surgeon, or how much money is spent, it is biologically impossible to change a man into a woman or a woman into a man.
The change is only cosmetic.
The medical community continues to recommend this radical “treatment” in the absence of scientific evidence that people are better off in the long run.
This population attempts suicide at a rate of 40 percent.
Even after the full surgical change, they attempt to end their lives, or tragically succeed.

Over 60 percent of this diverse population suffer from co-existing mental disorders.
Consider Bradley Manning (now Chelsea Manning), a former Army soldier who was so psychologically and emotionally unbalanced
that he stole confidential documents from the military and forwarded them to WikiLeaks.

The Military Is a Fighting Force, Not a Gender Clinic
The military should not provide sex change surgery.
Through my website, http://www.sexchangeregret.com ,
I hear from people who experienced firsthand how damaging and unnecessary reassignment surgeries were.
For them, the sex change failed to resolve the emotional and psychological disorders that drove the desire to change gender.
Many write after living the transgender life for years.
They write to ask for advice on how to reverse the original surgical change and restore their lives to the original birth gender like I did, a process called detransition.
Some service members will come to regret having undergone the surgery and will want to detransition.
Where will the military be then? Will the military pay for the sex change reversal procedure, too?
Failed “sex change surgeries” are not uncommon and will drive up the cost to care for the military transgender population above the projected $3-4 billion 10-year cost.
Beyond the financial cost, there’s the question of the service member’s military readiness during their transition or detransition,
as the process often comes with a great deal of anxiety and emotional instability.
Transgender Surgery: Regrets – More Suicides
one surgeon is reporting a trend of regret.

Urologist Miroslav Djordjevic, who specializes in gender reassignment surgery, has seen an increase in “reversal” surgeries among transgender women who want their male genitalia back. In the past five years, Djordjevic performed seven reversals in his clinic in Belgrade, Serbia. The urologist explains to The Telegraph that those who want the reversal display high levels of depression, and in some instances, suicidal thoughts. Other researchers also report hearing about such regrets.
A 2011 study found that after sex reassignment surgery, more than 300 Swedish transsexuals faced
a higher risk for mortality, suicide ideation, and psychiatric issues compared to the rest of the population.


Antonin Scalia’s Rightful Revolution by Stephen L. Carter

Antonin Scalia’s Rightful Revolution
April 21, 2016 2:11 PM EST
Stephen L. Carter
Annie Dookhan’s recent release from a Massachusetts prison has been an occasion for considerable comment, but little has been focused on how her case suggests why liberals might come to miss Justice Antonin Scalia. Not because Dookhan was innocent — she wasn’t — but because she was guilty.
Let me explain.
Dookhan, a former lab technician for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, pleaded guilty in 2013 to charges stemming from an investigation that found she had tampered with crime-scene evidence. She confessed to, among other things, adding cocaine to samples so that they would test positive and forging reports to make it seem that she had performed tests that she had not. Estimates of the number of cases that might be affected run as high as 40,000. (More accurate numbers should be available next month.) Struggling to clean up the mess caused by what it called Dookhan’s “egregious misconduct,” the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled last year that if defendants who have pleaded guilty seek to reopen their cases because of her actions, prosecutors cannot try them on more serious charges or, if a second conviction results, ask for stiffer sentences.
Okay, so Dookhan did a terrible thing, and because of it, a lot of people probably went to prison who shouldn’t have. What does any of this have to do with Justice Scalia?
As it turns out, a great deal. Over his final decade on the U.S. Supreme Court, Scalia led a movement to restore significance and force to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The revolution began in 2004 with Crawford v. Washington, and the battle is raging still. And for those who buy into the neat media image in which the justices vote in unshakable left-right blocs, it’s worth noting that Scalia’s chief ally in the fight has been Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and his principal antagonists have lately been Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor.
What’s the fight about? The Confrontation Clause guarantees a criminal defendant the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” If you’re charged with robbing a bank, the clause is the reason that you have the opportunity to cross-examine whoever is testifying against you. You have the chance to show the jury that the witness who claims to have seen you holding the gun was mistaken, or remembering wrong.
Much of the recent controversy over the Confrontation Clause is rather technical, but the dispute has largely involved the question of who counts as a witness. Everybody had always understood that the woman who swears you drove the getaway car has to tell her story in open court. So does the man who claims he sold you the gun. The prosecutor can’t simply put the lead detective on the stand and let him tell the jury what other people said you did.
But what about a laboratory technician who determined that the substance found in your trunk was cocaine? For a long time, it was generally assumed that a forensic chemist’s performance of a routine test did not implicate the Sixth Amendment. In 2008, the Scalia-Ginsburg faction astonished pretty much everybody by cobbling together a majority of the court for the proposition that, yes, the technician who did the test and signed the report has to show up and testify. Another analyst from the same laboratory who can explain how the test works isn’t good enough. In other words, there is no “forensic evidence” exception to the rule. Chemists are treated just like every other witness.
Prosecutors were aghast. Defense attorneys were elated.
Imagine: Every time a crime lab does a test and a technician certifies the result, the technician has to appear in court if the defendant so demands. Dissenters warned that chaos would result. To have the technicians sitting around for half a day waiting to testify would involve undue expense. Scalia replied that the assumptions underlying that worry are “wildly unrealistic.” Only rarely would defense lawyers actually call the forensic technicians to testify. But on those rare occasions, the technicians are no different from any other witness.
Why does this matter? Let’s get back to Dookhan. She began work some years before the Supreme Court decided that lab technicians who perform forensic tests must testify if called, but her arrest and conviction help show why the Scalia faction is right.
Had Dookhan been required to take the stand, defense attorneys might have asked how she was able to clear 500 samples a month when the average chemist analyzes between 50 and 150. They might have asked about discrepancies in her log book that would likely only have come to light had she been a witness.
The knowledge that one will have to testify about one’s actions creates a certain discipline. Either the problems in her work would have come to light much sooner, or, knowing that she would face possible cross-examination about every test she performed, Dookhan would have cleaned up her act. Either way, a lot fewer results would have been falsified.
The great majority of forensic chemists, like the great majority of people in every line of work, do their jobs with professionalism and integrity. Unfortunately, Dookhan is far from the only bad apple. And when technicians fudge their results, people can lose their liberty.
Most court-watchers, whether they admired Scalia or despised him, will remember his positions on same-sex marriage or abortion or some other hotly contested issue. But I will remember him best for the revolution he sparked in Sixth Amendment jurisprudence. I earnestly hope that it survives him.
I didn’t believe this when I began teaching the Crawford line of cases some years ago. But real-world events have changed my mind.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
To contact the author of this story:
Stephen L Carter at scarter01@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Brooke Sample at bsample1@bloomberg.net