Thursday, July 27, 2017

Transgenders in the military - some practical considerations


President Trump made headlines yesterday by announcing his opposition to allowing transgendered persons to serve in the US armed forces.

I don't propose to go into moral and/or ethical considerations regarding the ability of transgendered persons - about whom I've written before - to serve in the US armed forces.  I have opinions on the matter, but so has everyone else.  There's no point in debating feelings and emotions, when what's needed is a hard-headed, medical/scientific approach to the transgender issue in general, and a practical approach to their military service in particular.

As anyone who's served in any reputable military will confirm, the basic training through which all recruits must pass is designed to form individuals into members of a group.  The training frequently consists of team evolutions.  If a team fails because one or more individuals can't or won't make their required contribution, the whole team is punished.  The implied lesson is that either you work together, or you fail.  In the South African armed forces in the 1970's, it was not at all uncommon for recruits or trainees to physically assault the person or persons who caused the group to fail.  What's more, this was implicitly encouraged, and certainly tolerated, by those in command.  It was a grim, sometimes brutal lesson in "get with the program, or else!"  Sometimes suicides resulted.  Fortunately, today that sort of thing is much more rare . . . but I'm willing to bet it still happens.

That attitude of group rather than individual focus continues into military service proper.  A ship's crew must work together at all times to operate and safeguard their vessel.  If any one person fails to do his or her job, it places everyone else aboard at risk.  There's no room for 'special snowflakes' who want to do their own thing.  The same applies, more or less, to army units on patrol or in combat, or an air force squadron where everyone - air and ground personnel alike - has to pull together to accomplish the mission they're assigned.  It's a team approach.

This is why the introduction of women into physically demanding combat roles in the armed forces has created such controversy among military veterans.  We know, historically and experientially, the demands placed upon personnel in a war situation (and, let's face it, the fundamental reason that an armed force exists is to fight).  No matter how you slice it, there's no way on earth that any woman I've ever known can exert as much physical strength in combat as a man can.  You need to have timbers and plates manhandled into position to plug a leak aboard ship, and stop it sinking?  You need to drag or carry a combat casualty for dozens, perhaps hundreds of yards, to get them out of the danger zone to where their wounds can be treated - and then go back for the others?  You need to hurriedly refuel and rearm a combat aircraft, or load supplies into a transport, to get it back into the air and 'on task' as quickly as possible?  All those activities, and many more, require the maximum possible exertion and physical capability.  I don't care how fit and strong a woman is, she will never, repeat, never be capable of performing such activities at the same level as a fit and strong man, even if they're of comparable size and heft.  It's a physiological reality, not a matter of opinion.  This may become, literally, a life-threatening problem.

(Let me emphasize that I mean no disrespect to women by saying that.  My strength training coach is a woman, for whom I have great respect;  and I've had female superior officers during my military service, and supervisors or managers during my commercial career, whom I also respected.  They didn't have to be physically stronger than me to earn that respect, because physical strength wasn't an issue.  However, we're not talking about that sort of thing here.  I specifically referred to women in physically demanding combat roles.  In that instance, in almost every circumstance, sooner or later, physical capability is a factor.  I know.  BTDT.)

This immediately brings up the first issue with transgender persons in the military.  According to what standards of physical performance are they to be measured?  A male 'transitioning' to female is likely to be stronger and more physically capable than the women around him, because - with vanishingly few 'intersex' exceptions - his chromosomes, his physical makeup, are still male.  He/she will likely outperform the physical performance standards established for women.  However, a female 'transitioning' to male cannot and never will measure up to the physical performance standards established for men, because - with vanishingly few 'intersex' exceptions - her chromosomes, her physical makeup, are still female.  How can a self-proclaimed, formerly-female 'male' suffering under such a limitation be accepted by a unit relying on typically male strength to repair damage, rescue casualties, or perform any of the dozens of other tasks that require performance at the level of the physical standards established for men?  The units in which I served would have a short, very simple (and undoubtedly profane) answer to that question.  It can literally be a matter of life or death - so feelings and opinions simply don't count.  Reality bites.

There's also the issue of "keeping one's eye on the ball".  Armed forces exist to fight wars.  That's their primary purpose.  There are others, such as aid to the civil power in disaster situations, or 'showing the flag', or what have you;  but all of those go by the board when war comes.  Training, equipment, organization, and everything else must be focused on and serve that basic purpose, or that armed force will fail when asked to do its job.  Even if it doesn't completely fail, it will take unnecessary casualties, lose far more equipment than necessary, or handicap itself in other ways, before it can get its head out of its collective fundament, re-focus on essentials, and eventually succeed.

It's been my (admittedly limited) experience that most (but certainly not all) transgendered people exhibit greater or lesser psychological or psychiatric issues.  They demand attention;  they demand acceptance;  they demand tolerance.  They aren't willing to shut up and demonstrate, by the way they live, that they're valuable members of society who can be judged and accepted (or otherwise) on the basis of what they do.  Instead, they're vocal in demanding acceptance based on their own (in most cases, medically flawed) definition of what they consider themselves to be.  That can't and won't work in the case of a unit preparing to fight.  It has to keep its eye on the ball, and perform as a team.  There's no time and no place for special snowflakes demanding special consideration and/or treatment.  I'd say four out of five transgendered individuals in my experience (and I know, or have known, a couple of dozen of them) simply could not function like that.

Allied to that group focus is the basic reaction of normal human beings to what's out of the ordinary.  It's all very well to say that people must change their ideas, and accept as normal what they have culturally been raised to regard as abnormal, even disgusting.  That doesn't happen very easily even in civil society, where there's time to make one's case, and the opportunity for leisurely discussion and a slow evolution of cultural and social norms.  (It sometimes results in tragedy - for example, as was reported this week in both Maryland and Mississippi.)  It's far less easy to make it happen in the stress of the military environment.  I've heard many complaints from military friends of mine that so-called 'sensitivity training', and other officially-mandated forms of political correctness and cultural relativity, are consuming so much time out of the training schedule that their units' military preparedness and readiness is suffering.  When you have to take so much time, and make so much effort, in an attempt to change human nature, you have to accept that your warfighting ability will suffer accordingly.  That's reality.  You can't expect your armed forces to be as strong as you want them to be when you're wasting their time on non-military activities like this!  What's more, you can't expect average troops to shed their instinctive cultural and social reactions under the stress of combat, when reactions are automatic and instinctive - because if they're not, you die!

Finally, there are financial issues.  I've been informed (but have no way of confirming) that after the Obama administration relaxed military recruitment standards to encourage transgendered persons to enlist, there was a wave of applicants who expected the military to pay for their transition (including surgery, hormone treatments, ongoing counseling, etc.).  This would have entailed costs of at least several hundred thousand dollars per individual during their service;  some said the overall costs of establishing and maintaining such programs, in armed forces that had never needed them before, might amount to millions of dollars per individual.  I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy whatsoever for such recruits.  If they want to transition, let them do so in their own time, on their own dime.  As a taxpayer, I see no reason whatsoever why they should do so on mine!  The military claims to have insufficient funds to do all it wants and needs to do.  Why should more of its limited resources be diverted from its primary task to pay for their personal needs?

For all those reasons, I think President Trump is correct in his decision to prevent transgendered people from serving in the armed forces.  I doubt there's any personal animus involved, or distaste, or any sort of sexual or gender discrimination.  Furthermore, I don't think it has anything to do with their being 'worthy' or not (as one former SEAL has alleged).  I think it's purely and simply a matter of practicality.

I also think that the arguments advanced by some, that transgendered persons can serve perfectly well in non-combat roles, are dubious at best.  Sooner or later, in any typical armed service, many non-combatants end up in a combat zone, and all too often in combat as well.  Examples are legion.  When that happens, all my reservations outlined above come into play;  so I don't think an exception should be made for non-combat positions.  I don't see this as discrimination.  I see it as understanding and accepting reality.

If some of my readers disagree, let's discuss the issue in comments below this post.  Let me say, however, that if dissenters have not experienced combat, I don't believe they can fully understand the realities of military life.  It adds a dynamic all its own.  It's like the difference between sex education and sex training.  The first is academic.  The second . . . not so much;  and, once experienced, one's understanding changes radically and completely.  That's just the way it is.

Peter

18 comments:

Alphonse said...

The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things, specifically, to kill people as efficiently as possible and destroy their equipment as rapidly as possible.

That is the mission. There is no other mission.

Anything which interferes with rapid, efficient and competent completion of the mission reduces the effectiveness of the military, from force-wide down to the individual warfighter level.

People who either do not understand what a military is for, or who seek to deliberately render it ineffective, have for some time expended effort to undermine and corrupt preparation for, and completion of, the mission.

Unfortunately, our worthless, four-letter-word politicans have been more than willing to cheerfully perform political fellatio and cunnilingus upon those people to remain in political power, resulting in a military that has become an organization for social experimentation.

As has been attributed to George Orwell, "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." If one wishes to rid oneself of "rough men" or violence, or both, one may, but subjugation usually follows quickly.

It seems a malignancy of our time that, increasingly, people are unable to differentiate between predatory violence and protective violence, although recently there does seem to be, in some more enlightened circles, preference for firearms over rape whistles.

Rev. Paul said...

Well said, Peter. I wouldn't change a word, even if I could.

Brad said...

thanks for an unemotional, clear-eyed assessment.

Jon said...

The only thing I would add is that the US military has similar unofficial encouragements to team work. I believe the term my uncle used for his time in the navy was "blanket party".

These things need to be said.

Anonymous said...

Well, yeah.

It's one thing to ask if it would be useful to have transgender people in any armed forces anywhere, and quite another thing to fit that to the US military of today.


I could see the mass-conscription type militaries that also allow women to serve not having a problem with people who do self-identify as transgender but aren't being actively treated for/against it. Any other situation though...

Bill said...

You failed to mention a couple of things. First is using the bathroom. Which is quicker, pulling a penis out of your fly to urinate or pulling down your pants while out on a patrol? If you have to pull down your pants you may have to take off a chemical mask carrier, holster if carrying a sidearm, load bearing equipment and ruck. Males can urinate without having to remove any of that equipment. Some may try to argue that when defecating men have to pull down their pants also but that is something a male only has to do once or twice a day and only while defecating where women have to do it both while urinating and defecating and most people urinate more often than defecate. Another issue is what happens when you get a group of young men and women together. Sooner or later a woman ends up pregnant and how effective is that woman in a military unit then. Now not all women will get pregnant. Some will take steps to not become pregnant through abstinence or some sort of birth control but there will be some who won't. Also when I was going through NBC training we were exposed to tear gas. As part of our safety briefing they told the women that if they were pregnant or thought they may be pregnant that would not participate. (I was in a MP unit that had women) That tells me there is at least some safety concerns regarding pregnant women exposed to chemical agents. Then there is the additional issues of menstrual periods that requires additional supplies like sanitary napkins and tampons. Having served in both units with and without women an all male unit is more efficient for military operations.

dangerdog said...

What about non-deployable positions?

Peter said...

@dangerdog: It's been my experience, and the experience of many other veterans of my acquaintance, that "non-deployable" positions aren't. Besides, what happens if terrorism strikes your US installation? It's happened several times already this century. You may well find yourself fighting for your life, trying to evacuate casualties or fight fires, etc.

If you're military, you've got to be able to drop everything and react to anything. It goes with the territory - any territory.

Anonymous said...

I agree and I think most women would also agree if they read the above. The military forces prime objective is to kill the enemy and break their stuff. Any person who hinders that effort puts themselves and their fellow soldiers at risk as well.

Why would those women agree - well, a Mother or Wife would certainly want their children or spouse to come back. Faced with the possibility of a death in the family, I think only the most militant would argue that point.

Tirno said...

I have a straightforward solution to all of this:

Straight, gay, male, female, transgender, atheist, any religion, any ethnicity, any race, any national origin: all are welcome to loyally serve.

There will be one PT test standard.

There will be one uniform standard, and you will wear one that fits.

If you require medical support that impacts military readiness or causes logistics disruptions, you will be discharged for medical reasons. Sorry, but we do not have time in the field to deal with your asthma, diabetes, ruptured disks or hormone replacement therapy. We might have a civilian position you can fill, possibly at the same desk you current warm.

Persistent Failure To Keep Your Fucking Drama Out Of The Barracks/Ship/Aircraft/Office will be a dischargable offense.

Anonymous said...

As a woman, I have never liked the idea of women in combat roles. Though I do think that 'non combat' roles do exist, and in today's weird world that merges AI/drones in Kansas hitting targets in the Middle East, defining that is difficult. I disagree strongly with the comment Peter, that you made at 11:27, follow that to the logical conclusion and I should be locked up for my own good and certainly shouldn't be working...after all terrorism might strike my office building (which actually is a top 10 on the possible targets list for this state)
But, I never liked the idea of women in boots on the ground roles. I work, in the field with a number of guys, they are all bigger than me, some are in fact twice my weight without being especially overweight. They break a leg...I ain't carrying them or even helping them. It works, because I can call 911; and we aren't too likely to get shot at. Not so much in the combat zone.

Peter said...

@Anonymous at 4:37 PM: I don't think my comment at 11:27 would apply to you. After all, you'd have none of the 'special snowflake' issues, or integration concerns, or specifically transgender-related problems that I mentioned. The only issue might be physical strength; and I agree, that should not be a concern in the work environment you mentioned. If the proverbial brown substance hits the rotary air impeller, yes, it might become a concern; but that's something one accepts as an unavoidable risk. Physical strength alone is not a sufficient disqualification for service, IMHO.

Able said...

You have to look at the totality of a role.

Here in The UK female Paramedics (as well as Police and Fire-fighters) are the norm now. Some of the absolute best at pre-hospital care around, but … they get a shout to a scene deliver the basic stabilising care then … almost always have to call for a backup crew to assist because … they can't lift the patient. So? They're good, brilliant even … but can't do the basic majority of 'the job'. (So you end up with either twice as many crews required, or more usually the male crews get to do twice as much work for the same pay – and that's not considering, you know, the important bit, the patient care aspect).

(N.B. I respect female medics, one saved my life after I staggered back from a CTR with a couple of holes, four cracked ribs and a pneumothorax courtesy of an oblique hit on my SAPI from a … .50, Thank you Lord, eight cat-lives gone in one microsecond! But … she then had to wait for someone else to get me moved. And yes the plate is a centre-piece on my mantle-shelf as ... a reminder).

I've worked with a few female officers (lumpy-jumpers as they are 'affectionately' known) skilled and able at 'parts' of the role, but not one can function, in any 'trade' at the same level as the men under her command (remember even a base clerk is a soldier first and foremost and 'will' be required at some point to perform 'all' the aspects of that role – if they aren't/don't then it should be a civilian support role, not military by definition).

What percentage of the population is trans (the highest I've seen quoted anywhere is 0.3%, which I find dubious because regular self-identification pols here indicate the 'total' for all LGTBQWERTY is … 1.7%). Remember not even all men can perform at sufficient level for a combat, or even basic support, role in the military (Failure at basic 'boot-camp' BFT here, even after multiple medicals and interview filters, runs at about 12%. Within my … er 'speciality' failure of motivated, experienced and trained soldiers runs at close to 90%).

So? Just how many are we talking about? Because if it's more than a couple (total throughout your entire military) they're only getting in at all by 'preferential' (SJW) treatment/selection. (Male-to-female? There must by definition be substantial psychological 'issues' that should preclude service. Ditto female-to-male with the addition of a simple physical incapability to do the job. Both have 'pre-existing' 'medical' conditions that anyone with common sense can see precludes them from serving. So who TF is recruiting these people?!?).

Do like Timo says and have one standard, and there simply wont 'be' a problem.

(Me? I’m so old-fashioned that I still have 'trouble' with women in most posts. Dedicated, skilled and able as they may be, they 'always' require additional support, require the males in their unit to do 'more than their fair share' and … still can't do the entirety of 'the job'. So you have a choice, no-one can fund an unlimited military, you have a specific number of posts to fill, why in the world (other than diversity/equality/sjw-bullshit) would you 'ever' give a role to someone deliberately 'less' capable? And sorry to say it, in all military posts, women 'are' less capable (disagree? OK, let's compare the ultra-elite, best in the world, one in a billion women athletes … beaten by the average 'club' fourteen year old boys shall we? Any role with such a large physical component, even if that is not primary, as a requirement by definition will 'always' be better done by males).

Climbing carefully off my soap-box)

Trans in the military is a manufactured, and falsely magnified, non-issue purely as a sop to 'certain' political leanings and should be ignored.

takirks said...

The whole concept of having "transgendered" military members is just nuts, to begin with. First and most serious problem? These people are simply not deployable, in any way, shape, or form. The male-to-female transition process requires continual hormone treatments that aren't going to be available in the middle of a combat zone, and cannot be guaranteed to be provided by any POW authority should the transgendered service member be captured. As well, the physical things that have to be done in order to maintain the surgically produced and completely unnatural imitation female sexual organs are simply not compatible with field service, due to hygiene issues. Female-to-male transitions have similar issues with the hormones, although they do (or, so I've been told...) require less continual intervention. I have heard of issues with the urinary tract, however, that make the continual need to exercise the fake vagina look like a walk in the park.

Medically, admitting transgendered personnel to the military makes about as much sense as allowing insulin-dependent diabetics to join and fill out slots that will then become non-deployable, because the nature of the transgendered individual medically requires things that are incompatible with field service. This is a complete non-starter, in any role in the military, simply for that practical reason alone.

The other issue is this: You have "gender dysphoria"? Sorry; you're mentally unfit for service. Period. Chelsea nee Bradley Manning is a perfect example of what happens with these people--The accompanying mental health issues that are almost always present with those people who are crazy enough to go through with surgical modification to their bodies to match their fantasized "gender image" quite clearly contraindicate any real potential for military service. Gays? Not so much, although there again, the fundamental clue to the usual accompanying mental health issues can generally tell you that the individual in question probably should not be placed into what they traditionally call a "position of trust", where they are granted security clearances. And, since the COMSEC these days basically requires everyone to have a clearance...? It's just like the transgendered and the diabetic: Unfit for military service. Period.

There are no shortages of healthy, well-adjusted adult males who could fill the ranks these days. The insane desire to "normalize" the deviant elements of the population by fitting their square little pegs into the round holes of military service is completely unnecessary on a pure perspective of manning the force. Likewise, with women in combat arms. We are not being overrun by the Nazis, and have no need to resort to these measures. With the nature of modern war being what it is, putting women into the combat arms makes about as much damn sense as mandating they make up 50% of the NFL, and will have similar effects.

takirks said...

Second half of comment...


Every one of these stupid wannabe female infantry officers needs to be demoted to private, and made to participate in the kind of military career they're forcing on enlisted women. I guarantee you that about the time they experience their first set of overuse injuries brought on by being forced to keep up with their 18 year-old male counterparts, they're gonna develop a sudden aversion to the idea of being in combat arms. This whole thing is being driven by highly selfish and unprofessional female officers who have placed their "career interests" above selfless service, in order to get their tickets punched as "combat arms officers" because they think that will "help their careers". The reality is? These selfish bitches are ensuring that a whole lot of young enlisted men and women die for their ambition, trying to do things for which they are entirely unsuited. Any honest professional military officer should tell the truth, which is that there are only perhaps 10% of the entire female population who are physically suited for the stringencies of front-line combat, and that 10% ain't gonna be walking into the recruiting offices and volunteering to go infantry or any of the other combat arms. Those women are going to be taking their elite physical status, and probably doing something else like compete in the Olympics. The actual women who get suckered into signing up for the combat arms? LOL... Trust me; I was there when they integrated women from the support occupational specialties into our Combat Engineer headquarters companies. The average product that actually shows up in the units? They aren't elite female athletes--They're just average young ladies who got screwed by the system, and put into positions where they're going to be broken. Overuse injuries, long-term debilitating health problems resulting from continual physical stress (assuming they actually tried to do their jobs like the guys did, and didn't flake out on everything...), and a whole host of other major issues was what I experienced. The availability rate for the women I had working for me was a fraction of the male one, due to "breakage issues". Even with the reduced effort required on the female PT scale, they have trouble maintaining readiness.

The whole thing is a complete cluster-fuck, and drastically needs to be re-thought. The honest truth is this: The exigencies of military service militate against women in combat arms, and even in a lot of the support branches. Long-term health problems are almost guaranteed when you try to make the female body meet the standards that you can easily get even the most couch-potatoish 18 year-old male to in relatively short order. Don't even get me started on this transgender bullshit, either--The health effects of doing what they do to their bodies during their "transition", when coupled with military service? LOL... Even if there weren't the problems with the surgeries I outline above, I think it's a guarantee that the likely effect of all that stress on their bodies is going to result in drastically shorter lifespans, and some really poor quality of life. You simply cannot go screwing around with the body's hormonal systems like that, then pile stressor after stressor on top, and expect any kind of net positive result.

Tirno said...

Since someone referenced my "one PT test" standard, I'd like to add:

I'm OK with there being a "combat arms" mark on the PT test, and a "supporting military" mark.

For "supporting military", you'd have to be 'fit enough', and also have some militarily useful skill. The more valuable that skill and the higher skill you exhibit (without any regard for rank, not assuming that higher rank implies higher skill. Metrics, baby.), the lower we'd permit you to score on the PT test, but not so much that you look like a Jello in BDUS that regards cookbooks instead of conventional pornography.

The reason I think this is my own experience as a young LT. One of my sergeants was a bit on the round side. Always on weight profile, and it didn't really matter how many hours he spent in the gym, under orders, that roundness wasn't diminishing. He was, however, quite skilled in his AFSC's skills, scored very highly on his tests, and in addition to all that, was self-taught on computers, so in a squadron with no dedicated Comm/IT support (refused support by the Comm squadron), he was the squadron commander's go-to for all things ethernet-y. Even though he was a fat-boy, he deserved to stay in the military out of service necessity. Frankly, if he was allowed to use the women's PT standard, it wouldn't have ever been an issue.

That being said, I think to qualify as 'military', you still need to be deployable, and you still need to be dangerous. If combat arms has to practice with rifles and mortars and rocket launchers and grenade launchers, I think the minimum supporting military people should do is be absolutely deadly with pistols.

Plenty of room of women in the military under that kind of standard, but it's next to the mil-geeks that can fix jet engines or speak five languages or can operate and interpret an imaging radar system while only being able to do forty push-ups and run a mile in 12 minutes.

wheels said...

It's a bigger problem than just transgendered individuals. The Navy, perhaps more so than the other services, has problems caused by having women serving, even when they're not in combat billets. When the DoD decided to allow women to serve on submarines, I wrote about it.

It used to be, back when I was in the Navy, that sailors would alternate (more or less) tours of duty between ship and shore. It wasn't one-for-one, but you'd be able to get shore assignments. That's become less likely for men because of women - men are doing more sea tours and fewer shore tours because of accommodations made for pregnant women in the service. Pregnant women in 2009 were filling a third of shore billets, because they can't be assigned to shipboard billets. Not to mention that in 2005, about 1/7th of all women in the Navy were single mothers, and 2/3 of the pregnancies were unplanned. I shudder to contemplate pregnant "men." I don't think they'll be very popular with their shipmates.

The whole thing reeks of "flavor of the month" political correctness. Stop making accommodations to allow people who are either can't do the work or are too much of a resource drain. Get back to the lean, mean, fighting machine and stop trying to use the military as a progressive societal experiment.

Joseph Bridges said...

Nicely detailed, pretty comprehensive coverage of the problems, and the reasons why "No 'Transgendered' Allowed, Nor Should Any Even Apply...Much Less Be Permitted To Remain, If By Some Chance They've Already Joined-Up" should be the hard-and-fast rule.

Personally, though, I see it as a much-simpler - though, perhaps for some, much "harsher" - matter.

There should be no Transgender individuals permitted in ANY CAPACITY in the U.S. military for what I see as ONE simple reason: "Transgender/Transgenderism" is a deeply-destructive, untenable psychological aberration, a form of deep-seated mental disease - and there's simply NO WAY WHATSOEVER that such a critically-damaging, overly-expensive and corrosive-of-good-order-and-discipline mental derangement can be tolerated in military service.

It's.just.this.simple: You want to serve, in ANY CAPACITY WHATEVER, in the U.S. Armed Services? Then you need to make a decision - with NO ROOM WHATEVER ALLOWED for equivocation or quibbling or "I might need to change my mind later" - just WHAT and WHO you are - mentally as well as physically.

IF you join-up - and THEN, later on, you decide you've gotta change your mind, and declare that NOW you've "just gotta Be Me", and "switch sides"...that should be an "instant-out" - and you will now do the remainder of your enlistment term in "alternate service" of some sort - MINUS, of course, any sort of compensation or medical services coverage to pursue your newly-found "need" for following the Path To Transgenderism.

We've already got more than enough legitimate problems to deal with in our military - there's simply no reason why we as a Nation should feel any need to tolerate any of the nuttiness that will inevitably arise from trying to tolerate the excessive, destructive mental derangement that is called "Transgenderism" for more than about the ten seconds that is required to deliver the message: No."Transgender".Need.Apply.Nor.Can.They.Be.Tolerated...PERIOD!!

Simple as that -