A few days ago, I put a posting on Facebook somewhat in reaction to the latest SCOTUS decision. Transgender in the military is a major part of the story in “Soaring with Eagles”, the seventh novel in A California Saga, a series of nine novels that were originally posted on BCTS. I had to remove them when I published the books on Amazon KDP. I felt “Soaring with Eagles” was a good story. It required quite a bit of research.

I got quite a reaction from a fellow who used to work for me in the Air Force more than 35 years ago. In fact, the discussion has been so long, I thought I would post it here

My FB post: So, SCOTUS allowed the temporary halt of transgender to go into the military to continue. This has been going on for decades. I remember back in the early 1980s when anyone found to be transgender was boarded out of the military with a general discharge. Hell, I remember when female officer candidates were trained in separate classes from the male officer candidates. The biased treatment of females was very evident throughout my early career.

Women were not allowed to be pilots for many, many years. It turns out they are equal or better than male pilots in many areas. Really, some people are just better pilots regardless of sex or gender.

Several years ago I wrote the eighth novel in my California Saga series, "Soaring with Eagles." Angelo, aka Angela Bellini gets the chance to return to the Air force to fulfill her dream of being an Air Force fighter pilot. She exceeds even her expectations. As a pioneer in her career field, pilot, she leaves no doubt to the fact that gender and sex have nothing to do with the ability to be an outstanding officer.

The book is available on Amazon KDP in both eBook and paperback editions

The conversation, if that’s what it could be called.

JB: We both had eyesight that kept us out of any DOD pilot seat. We could not be pilots even with corrective surgery. If we were hard of hearing, dyslexic, had flat feet or periodontal disease, we could not enter the military. You and I could not expect the military to pay for our eye surgeries or even buy us contacts. How is this decision, besides being temporary, different?

Me: If you would read the book you will see I offer some very realistic ways to address the 'problem'. My main character is postoperative. The military has no medical responsibility other than some rather inexpensive medication. The solution she eventually helps put into law significantly addresses those who choose to 'come out' while on active duty. There is no free ride. Like tuition assistance, there is a service obligation. The same can be said for pilots. If you want to fly for the Air Force you are going to have to pay it back. I resent the inference that transgender are not fit for duty. If you read the book, I think you might get a better understanding of the problems the transgender face, especially the misogyny and bigotry. Many transgender never come out until after their career is over. Did the fact they were transgender affect their worthiness as a soldier? Certainly not. I think you are making an unwarranted assumption. Being transgender pre- or postoperative has nothing to do with a person's capability to serve
.
JB: Understand, but your book is fiction and not relevant at this point. My points are about meeting standards for entering the military. I have provided healthcare for a transgender person in transition in prison. It is not easy and certainly can be an issue for deployment. Same would be true for my artillery officer daughter on the DMZ in Korea if she were pregnant or women on Titan II crew when we served when they became pregnant. Tim, you take an inference where none was offered or stated. You and I were unfit for pilot training. That much is factual then and now. If that causes your resentment, it is self-generated. I entered a dialogue with you posing a question you have not answered. How is this decision, besides being temporary, different?

Me: The book may be fiction, but it is relevant. Certainly, not all transgender are fit for military service. But that is not to say many are. You seem to be taking a worst case scenario. I really don't see any valid statement in your argument. Everyone is not fit for duty. They never were; however, there is absolutely no reason that a postoperative MtF individual is no more or no less capable of performing in the military. There are active duty FtM on duty right now who have had breast reduction surgery and are serving in combat. They take testosterone injections and are totally buff and, in some cases, balding. Looking at them, one would never know.

Neither of us should cherry pick. What does being unfit for pilot training have to do with it? Nothing can be done about that. Besides, in spite of my very high pilot and navigator test scores, they never would have put me in a cockpit. What I see is an attempt to put all transgender in one basket. Canada, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and others don't seem to have any problems with the situation. Obviously, being transgender is not an easy thing to deal with. Some handle it better than others. However, there is obviously a negative bias toward anyone with gender dysphoria. Each case must be handle on an individual basis. Bigotry is an unfair bias toward certain groups of humanity whether it is race, sexual preference, sexual identity, or religion. There is a concerted effort by certain groups in this country to denigrate anyone who does not fit their idea of a white Christian true American. It is disgusting, and pathetic. I may not have gone as far as you have in education, and I am proud to see what you have accomplished. Don't be so negative. Don't use the worst examples to justify your argument.

Did you read the book?

I don't write without doing research. I have many transgender contacts. I have watched a penectomy and vaginoplasty being performed. I know the standards of care. I know what facial feminization involves and what the recovery looks like. I know in detail what the post operation care is after a vaginoplasty. I know what the effects of HRT are. In a subject as sensitive as this, the last thing I would want to do is to paint a rosy picture of what is involved. Give me some credit for knowing what I am talking about.

When people enter the military, it is a case by case situation. Regardless of sexual orientation or gender, many people are not qualified for service. The reasons may be mental and or physical. The same thing applies to the transgender. Do not dump them into one basket. There are many transgender out there who are probably far more qualified to serve than I. There might even be a few more qualified than you.

JB: No, I haven't read the book. The book is a work of fiction that is not relevant to the original question posed. You certainly have an opinion on this issue, but have not addressed the core question. By introducing speculation and questioning motives of ill-defined groups to whom you refer as having a specific agenda clearly does not advance this discussion, but it can advance your perception of these groups. Neither of us can prove or disprove motives so no need to ascribe them and we can table that as irrelevant to a SCOTUS decision. You say I have cherry-picked, but instead I have used normal and relevant scenarios - entry into the military and standards in effect when you and I served such as suitability for dangerous work and deployment. I'll introduce PRP as another relevant example for why existing or acute mental health issues get clearances pulled for those under PRP. We both accepted and worked under that system apparently without disagreement then so there shouldn't be a disagreement now. We entered into this dialogue based on your position and apparent disagreement with the SCOTUS decision. You disagree obviously based on what you believe and your beliefs generate strong feelings. Yet, SCOTUS deals in facts, precedents and interpretations of the Constitution, not feelings or motives of surreptitious groups. The initial question remains unanswered. How is this decision, besides being temporary, different from our USAF experience of being ineligible for certain USAF jobs, e.g. pilot training and having to meet the more rigorous male physical fitness standards?

Me: How can you say the book is not relevant when you haven't read it? I'm not sure what ill-defined groups you are talking about. Being transgender has nothing to do with PRP. You have made a very arbitrary conclusion about being transgender. I get the feeling you feel it is a mental illness. Being transgender has nothing to do with mental illness and to attribute that to a transgender person is a terrible insult and is an insult of the deepest kind to many fine and dedicated people. There is absolutely no validity to your argument. I think you are trying to justify misogyny and bigotry.

JB: We were discussing a temporary SCOTUS decision. You appear bent on discussing your book. SCOTUS likely hasn't read or used your book in determining their decision so your book is not relevant. I continue to present real situations and experiences we shared in our time in the USAF as a means to determine a difference in the standards under SCOTUS review from military standards when we were in. For us, that included PRP, eyesight, flat feet, etc. As you know, mental health has everything to do with PRP. The obvious point is that neither of us could participate on crew if we were not rated as a 1 in our mental and emotional health profile. That USAF set a standard which definitely discriminated where discriminate is defined as "to recognize a distinction; differentiate". The USAF differentiated and instituted its standards for safety and not to capriciously discriminate against its members who developed mental illness. Recall, if one had an existing mental illness and other illnesses such as seizures or diabetes or even periodontal disease when they wished to enter the military, those were disqualifying conditions to enter the service. You say there is no validity to my argument. I challenge you to identify where I have advanced an argument other than to ask the question about your specific dissatisfaction with the temporary SCOTUS decision based on a common set of facts based upon when we served. By stating that you think I am "...trying to justify misogyny and bigotry", you weaken your position by your resorting to invective and projecting your biases. As we learned in Squadron Officer School, this ad hominem attack is known as "poisoning the well" which is "...a type of informal logical fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say". As noted in my original request, I respectfully asked you to share with me the legal and logical basis of your specific dissatisfaction with the specific SCOTUS decision. If you care to share your legal and logical reasons, I will be willing to read them and if compelling, I will likely adopt portions if not all of your position.

Me: I have never been talking about a temporary SCOTUS decision. I was talking about how it should never have had to go to that place in the first place. I am not biased against science, and until people recognize science instead of superstition, lack of education, misogyny, bigotry, etc. this country is going to get deeper and deeper into trouble. Don't spout SOS at me. Once again you deflect my basic issue. My book has nothing to do with the SCOTUS decision. It never did. .It was written years before the current administration's bias appeared. My book is about the tremendous bias transgender face. President Obama's decision was the right one. Like so many things currently going on, this administration's actions are just taking us further and further back.

I made the posting to reacquaint my followers about my books. The SCOTUS lead-in was just that. You know, an Attention Step. My book deals with the obstacles transgender face in general. In that particular universe, President Obama never existed, or at least, transgender were never allowed in the US military. With the current makeup of SCOTUS, I would never have expected any other decision from them.

Your analogy about eyesight escapes me. What on earth does that have to do with the argument? If you are worried that the transgender are going to get a free ride, that is thoroughly addressed in the book. There is a solution.

Finally, I hope you are not a literary critic. I am certainly not a great writer, or even close.