General Admits Trans Inclusion Hurts Army Recruiting
The Biden administration has pushed to make the military more diverse and inclusive by introducing measures to accommodate transgender individuals, but the move could be hindering recruitment efforts.
Congressman Matt Gaetz recently asked Army General James McConville if these policies would hurt recruitment of “men from the American South” and the general responded “probably not.” Gaetz argued that such inclusion policies would negatively impact the goal of building a “cohesive team” and that condoning “people with male genitalia showering with female soldiers” would hurt recruitment of women.
Despite Army Secretary Christine Wormuth pushing back against Gaetz’s critiques, the U.S. military has faced challenges to recruiting in recent years, including a growing epidemic of obesity and mental health problems in the American population that have caused 77 percent of young Americans to be deemed unfit for military service. The Air Force recently increased its body fat allowance for recruits in order to combat the dismal recruitment numbers.
The Biden administration’s inclusion measures, such as the Air Force’s gender-neutral written communications policy, may be well-intentioned, but they are likely to come at the expense of security and American defense. The Army missed its FY 2022 recruitment goal by 25 percent, or 15,000 soldiers, and expects continued decline in 2023.
It’s important to remember that the military is not a social experiment. It is a place of service where people are expected to make extreme sacrifices for their country and its security. The Biden administration should be focusing on improving recruitment and retention numbers, not introducing policies that will only hurt them.
The military should be open to everyone who is willing and able to serve, regardless of gender identity. However, its main focus should always be on achieving the highest levels of security and defense for the country, not on pushing the transgender movement.
https://libertyonenews.com/top-general-admits-trans-inclusion-hurts-army-recruiting/
************************************************I was a woke activist but fake feminists just canceled me for speaking this truth
Fifteen years ago, I was living in a queer commune and calling myself "Sebastian." I spent hours on message boards angrily defending the queer theory belief that "gender" is a "performance."
Funny how things change. On Wednesday, my book Feminism Against Progress was due to launch at a venue in New York City. But last week, the venue canceled the event booking at short notice, following anonymous social media pressure.
My thoughtcrime? Saying in public that humans can’t change sex, and that performing gender surgery on kids is "butchery."
No doubt the "me" of fifteen years ago—Sebastian—would have been cheering on this cancelation. So how did I end up doing such a 180?
The story begins at Oxford University, in Great Britain, in the late 1990s. There, as an undergrad majoring in English literature, I met "woke" theories for the first time—and jumped right in. I believed it all, and I set about realizing its ideas in my own life.
Within the worldview I’d adopted, every form of commitment, stability, and structure felt oppressive. I wanted a world completely without power and authority. I tried to create that world and live authentically in it.
I thought feminism meant being independent, constrained only by what I wanted to do. I should be free of expectations, limits, or obligations connected to being a woman—even the limits of my physical body. I should be free to have sex without consequences, like a man. To dress as I pleased. To do any job I liked. To be treated the same as a man, in all situations.
Above all I should not be expected to limit myself to being a mom. The feminists of the "having it all" era taught me that doing so would be evidence of my oppression—or maybe just my lack of ambition. To be "just a mom" was a kind of failure.
After my daughter was born, though, I realized it wasn’t that simple. First, I learned that "independence" and "freedom" don’t really compute when you’re pregnant. Suddenly what you eat or drink or do affects your baby as well as you. There’s no more pretending you can do what you like, whenever you like. When your baby is crying for milk at 3:00 a.m. you can’t just say "No, I don’t want to get up." Talking about "independence" in that context makes no sense.
This realization drove me to rethink everything I’d believed about feminism. Why was a movement supposedly for women selling me on a kind of freedom that’s worse than useless for moms? Are moms not women? Delving into the history of the women’s movement, I came to see that it used to make plenty of space for moms.
Feminism began as women’s response to the way family life changed after the Industrial Revolution, as work left the home. In its early days the movement included women who defended care, motherhood, and the reality of our sexed bodies. It also included women who sought freedom on the same terms as men. These two camps often disagreed, but between them they sought to defend women’s interests as the world modernized.
But in the mid-twentieth century, freedom kicked care off the field. It happened when abortion was legalized, in the name of the feminism of freedom. Figures such as jurist Ruth Bader Ginsburg framed abortion as a crucial precondition for women to participate in society.
And ever since, this has been the orthodox feminist view. That freedom is everything: that it must be defended at all costs, even if that cost includes killing an unborn baby whose life depends on a woman’s body. No wonder this "feminism" has a mom-shaped blind spot: pretty much by definition, being a mom means limiting your freedom in the name of love.
And this feminism of freedom at any cost has, in fact, many costs. It’s opened the door to a sexual free-for-all in the name of freedom that leaves young women lonely, injured, and unsatisfied. It’s legitimized the commercial exploitation of women’s bodies in pornography, prostitution, and commercial surrogacy.
And it’s the driving force behind gender ideology. For if freedom is everything, and we’re not free unless we can escape every limit of our sexed bodies, why should this only apply to women? Why not grant everyone the freedom to be whichever sex they like?
But the brutal truth is that we can’t have that freedom, any more than we can change the basic biological drives that underpin desire, reproduction, and motherhood. Every one of us is a union of mind and body. And every one of our bodies is sexed—male or female—from conception onward. Every cell in our body has a sex. And our sex still constrains who we can be, and even what we want, in ways that have nothing to do with culture, or power, or oppression.
I was canceled last week in New York City for speaking the truth about this. I get called all kinds of names by the fake feminists of "freedom at any price." But when I say out loud that humans can’t change sex, and that kids have needs, or that moms and dads aren’t interchangeable, this is not born of ignorance or bigotry. It’s the fruit of experience.
I learned the hard way that more tech and more freedom doesn’t mean more happiness. What brought me peace in the end was not "emancipation" but beneficial constraints. A committed partnership, a stable home, a child—and a willingness to accept that I’m not just "human" but also female.
Accepting these things limited what I could do. But within those limits, joy and love and meaning are infinitely more able to flourish. If there’s one thing I hope for with Feminism Against Progress, it’s that a few young women may read it and figure this out more quickly than I did. And that they’ll join me in taking the women’s movement back from the empty, toxic illusions of "freedom at any price."
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/woke-activist-fake-feminists-canceled-me-speaking-truth
***************************************************
Is the US losing global credibility? Here is the answer
You won’t read this on the front page or even hear it discussed; but, over the last few weeks, we have seen significant economic moves against the West.
This has, indirectly, and concerningly, security implications.
Brazil, Russia, India, China, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, the United Arab Emirates, countless African nations, and even France have turned against the United States and its allies, via the US dollar.
Let me explain.
Since 1973, all natural resources around the world, most importantly oil, have been traded in the US dollar.
The deal was simple.
The United States would be the world’s policeman.
It would work to crush communism, Islamic radicalism, and any other threat to global peace.
In return, resource-exporting nations like Saudi Arabia, and manufacturing nations like China and India, would sell their goods in the US and use their US dollar reserves to buy US debt.
As a result, the United States has been able to rack up huge debts and deficits and keep interest rates at a manageable level.
This is simple economics; but no longer does this status quo hold.
The gig is up. Over the last three months, the East has turned against the West, shooting the West in its Achilles heel.
Brazil and Argentina have announced that they will build a common currency to trade and transact.
Iraq will sell oil to China in Chinese yuan.
China and France have completed a liquified natural gas transaction in Chinese yuan.
China and Brazil are trading iron ore in yuan.
India and Malaysia are now settling transactions in the Indian rupee.
The Kenyan President told his people to dump their US dollars.
The Namibian President has told Germany to back off and stop lecturing them on how bad China is.
The Rwandan President has told the BBC that it will no longer be lectured by the West, and the list goes on.
Meanwhile, China has surrounded Taiwan with fighter jets and battleships; and in August, all these countries are meeting in South Africa to discuss how to collaborate and advance their geopolitical and economic power.
The point of all of this?
The United States is losing credibility at a rate we haven’t seen in decades.
Countries are fed up with the West lecturing them on gay marriage, climate change, and human rights.
They want to run their own show.
They are fed up with being forced to use the US dollar to trade and invest.
They want change. They want a multipolar world order instead of a unipolar world order. That means they want an end to the United States being the predominant world power, the world policeman, so to speak.
The consequences will be profound.
****************************************
Australia: Queensland to decriminalise sex work as review recommends new advertising rules
Queensland will decriminalise sex work after a long-awaited review recommended sweeping changes to the industry to combat violence, discrimination and exploitation.
A landmark review into sex work by the Queensland Law Reform Commission has made 47 recommendations, including scrapping the Prostitution Licensing Authority, repealing some police powers and allowing services to be advertised on radio and TV.
The QLRC also recommended that sex workers not be singled out for public soliciting or street-based sex work, and said planning rules should allow services to operate away from industrial zones.
While sex work is under a licensing framework in Queensland, about 90% of sex workers are in the “unlawful sector” privately or at unlicensed businesses.
Sex workers have long rallied against the laws that prohibit them from employing a receptionist, working with others or texting other sex workers before and after a booking to make sure they’re safe.
In Queensland, police can currently also pose as clients and entrap workers by pressuring them to offer blacklisted services.
The attorney-general, Shannon Fentiman, said the government was “broadly supportive” of recommendations and supported decriminalising sex work.
Fentiman said decriminalisation of sex work would “ensure that some of the most vulnerable people in our community have legal protections at work”.
She confirmed this would mean abolishing the Prostitution Licensing Authority, which regulates the state’s 20 brothels.
“The sex-work industry will be regulated by workplace health and safety laws, planning laws, advertising codes and standards, and public amenity and public nuisance laws,” she told reporters on Monday.
Fentiman said the government hoped to introduce legislation before the end of the year after consulting key stakeholders.
“We will need to work through each of the recommendations to work out how best to implement the intent of the law reform commission,” she said.
The report found the current framework undermined the health, safety and justice of sex workers. Those interviewed said they were reluctant to report crimes to police for fear of arrest or not being believed.
The QLRC said the law should respond to “reality, not myths”.
“Stereotypes about most sex workers being street workers, victims of exploitation or trafficking, or ‘vectors of disease’ are not supported by the evidence or reflected in the diversity of the sex-work industry,” the report said.
“The assumption that decriminalising sex work will increase the size of the industry is also unsupported.”
Sex worker and state coordinator of Respect Inc, Lulu Holiday, said decriminalisation will be a “life-changing policy shift”.
“Decriminalisation would mean I wouldn’t have to worry every time a client contacts me that it might be a police officer. I’d be able to work in a way that feels safe for me without being worried that I’m at risk of arrest,” Holiday told Guardian Australia.
“While it’s going to have a huge impact for us, it’s really not going to have any noticeable impact on the rest of the Queensland community.”
The chief executive of the Scarlet Alliance, Mish Pony, said the announcement “brings Queensland in line with domestic and international best practice”.
“Decriminalisation is a cost-effective, high compliance model for government and supports workplace health, safety and rights for sex workers,” Pony said.
The Queensland government confirmed last month it will also move to scrap an exemption of the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act which allows employers to discriminate against sex workers and gender-diverse and transgender people when working with children.
The exemption will be repealed, along with another clause that allows accommodation providers to lawfully discriminate against sex workers if there is a “reasonable belief” that they are engaging in sex work on the premises.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment