Transsexuals. Always the bridesmaid, never the bride.
With the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy becoming a thing of the past, transsexuals are wondering when it’s going to be their turn. I’m wondering the same thing.
CNS reports:
Before handcuffing herself to the White House fence, former Petty Officer First Class Autumn Sandeen carefully pinned three rows of Navy ribbons to her chest. Her regulation dress blue skirt, fitted jacket, hat and black pumps were new — fitting for a woman who spent two decades serving her country as a man.
Sandeen was the only transgender person among the six veterans arrested in April while protesting the military’s ban on openly gay troops. But when she watched President Barack Obama last month sign the hard-fought bill allowing for the ban’s repeal, melancholy tinged her satisfaction.
I’m honestly not sure how you’d say no to them. If you can’t say no to homosexuals what criterion would be used to keep out transsexuals?
There would be advantages though to having a transsexual unit. Think of the terror that would be inspired by a horde of Cher-like transsexuals charging a hill in their black pumps and lycro camo bras while screaming like Xena the Warrior Princess. 
I’d run from that.
January 11, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Having worn the Navy's skirt uniform, I can testify that anyone willing to fight for that is flatly insane. I don't care how much some folks hate the cracker jacks, the Stewardess outfit is worse.
January 11, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Maybe they could be called Manazons?
January 11, 2011 at 4:05 pm
"If you can't say no to homosexuals what criterion would be used to keep out transsexuals?"
Actually, the military has/had distinct arguments for the two groups. Homosexuals couldn't serve because their presence would hurt the morale of the units, so once they showed (via a big survey of those currently serving) that most people didn't care, that argument was useless.
Transsexuals, on the other hand, lack the psychological stability to sustain discipline in combat. If they're post-op transsexuals, they'd also probably be medically disqualified for not having the gonads and needing constant hormone treatment. (If they're pre-op, then they could probably get in by acting like the gender their anatomy says and not telling anyone about their "true gender".)
January 11, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Edmund-
you are misrepresenting what the survey actually showed, and NOBODY was actually dumb enough to think they meant it when they said that what you said wouldn't be used against you, especially not when you have to enter individually identifiable codes that were mailed to your home to complete the survey.
January 11, 2011 at 4:18 pm
This is more disturbing: The ballerina priest of Linz…at http://traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A399rBallerinaPriest.tml.html
January 11, 2011 at 4:22 pm
I wore the Navy uniform for nearly eleven years, was raised in a dual-military (Navy) family (that means mom and pops were both active duty) and am now MARRIED to an active duty submariner.
This is purely anecdotal, of course, but NO ONE I know – active duty, retired or veteran – thinks having homosexuals serve openly is a good idea. (Same for women on submarines.)
I've been roped into plenty of surveys – as an active member and now a dependent – and the atmosphere is always the same… you give them the answer they want.
I was always chosen to participate in "women in the military" surveys and round table meetings and the agenda was quite obvious – the questions were designed to lead you into finding discrimination or some modicum of evidence that those awful men were perpetrating horrendous crimes against poor Navy women. Bah. Spare me.
January 11, 2011 at 6:42 pm
It makes secular sense, of course, that 'transexuals' must also be admitted to the military. Matter of time.
Right now the ones I have known have had their sex changes and ongoing treatments fully subsibized by taxpayers. Many hundreds of thousands of dollars for each one.
When gender becomes androgenous and you only have parent one, two, or three, or ten to fit the current idea of 'family', you have nothing true or stable to depend upon.
January 11, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Looking at the picture I'm reminded of the old adage "Nothing that looks that good could be real".
January 11, 2011 at 11:07 pm
that looks good???? yikes!
January 12, 2011 at 12:02 am
The American Psychiatric Association defined homosexuality as "arrested development" and disordered but changed it's diagnosis to "normal" under pressure from the North American Man Boy Love Association. If homosexuals have not reached maturity, can transgendered, bisexual, or other physically disordered be sexually and psychologically mature enough to serve in the military? Without endangering themselves and other?
January 13, 2011 at 3:08 pm
The Spartan meets the leader of the new transsexual brigade
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2007/03/27/300_460.jpg
January 14, 2011 at 12:22 am
Ahem… on the question of 'morale' and the assertion that 'folks did not care'? I took the survey which was sent DoD-wide. It asked every variation of the question–I think with an eye to mitigate or divide all of the potential complaints–but as I recall, it never directly asked, up-or-down, about whether open homosexuals should be admitted in the military.