Pete Hegseth: Allowing Gays in military a part of Marxist agenda
Robert Tait of The Guardian took issue with Pete Hegseth’s beliefs regarding gays openly serving. Hegseth described this move as part of a Marxist agenda and to cater to social justice at the expense of combat effectiveness. Hegseth pointed to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as paving the way for transgenders to serve and for women to serve in combat roles.
From The Guardian:
He now says that inclusive and tolerant attitude was a mistake, suggesting it paved the way for admitting transgender people into the military and allowing women to serve in combat roles, from which they were barred until a 2013 reform.
“It started with Clinton under ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’,” Hegseth told the conservative broadcaster, Ben Shapiro, in an interview this year in which he cited a military recruitment advertisement of a soldier with two lesbian mothers as illustrative of a shift in military culture.
“At least when it was an ‘Army of One’, they were, you know, [a] tough-looking, go get ’em army,” he said.
“Now you just have the absurdity of ‘I have two mommies and I’m so proud to show them that I can wear the uniform too.’ So they, it’s just like everything else the Marxists and the leftists have done. At first it was camouflaged nicely and now they’re just open about it.”
Hegseth’s aversion to gay people in the military and women in combat was expressed before Trump nominated him for a cabinet position that would give him decision-making power over both policies.
Interviewed this week by CNN, Hegseth — a former army national guard soldier and Fox News host — declined to say whether he still believed it was a mistake to repeal don’t ask, don’t tell.
He also said he supported “all women serving in our military” — despite previously arguing that their presence led to an “erosion in standards”.
Hegseth repeatedly took issue with the concept of female combatants in a chapter of his latest book titled “The (deadly) obsession with women warriors”.
“I’m going to say something politically incorrect that is perfectly commonsensical observation,” he wrote. “Dads push us to take risks. Moms put the training wheels on our bike. We need moms, but not in the military, especially in combat units.”
Additional Reading:
Trait, R. (2024, December 12). Pete Hegseth decried out gay troops in US military as part of Marxist agenda. The Guardian. Link.
Category: Military issues, Politics, SJW Idiocy, Society
Humm. Pete Hegseth sounds like a good pick. Can the Republitards get his nomination through the Senate?
I have little faith in those weasels.
So he’s saying what most of us have been saying for years.
I remember when the military caved to Patsy Schroeder and others in Congress who never served but wanted to force gender-integration. We don’t have it in most college or pro sports or the Olympics, but now the army and even the Boy Scouts have it. For a history of why, read Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military: Mitchell, Brian: 9780895265555: Amazon.com: Books
Yes.
Don’t forget anti-semitic.
Maybe…..but do you really care about what a greasy tranny who takes crisco fists 🤜 up the 🌽 hole, thinks?
Of course they are unhinged and nuttier than squirrel shit.
Don’t kid yourself.. most of the old ones were gay too, they just stayed in the closet
Pete for SECDEF…
Make it happen.
.When I enlisted back yonder in ’71, there were several that tried to avoid being drafted by telling the Doc that they were “queer”. The doc said, “Prove it, kiss one another right here and now.” Nipped that sh*t right in the bud.
Again…I have no problem with what two (2) consenting adults do in private. Do your job and we’ll get along fine. And yes, the destruction of our military AND our Republic is the goal of the commies. Always has been…always will be.
Well I recall one private explaining to me that he was not, in point of fact gay, but the guy blowing him was…
Isn’t the Navy saying “it ain’t gay if your underway” or some shit like that.
Hahahaha, I’ll take your word for it good sir….
…..if it happens at the pier, you’re totally queer.
They have that stenciled over the hatch to the fan rooms now. Soon the Navy will be flying the Pride Flag.
I heard “It’s only queer when you’re at the pier”! 🤣😁
There’s a morale patch…
Well, he WASN’T the one with the phallus in his mouth. He was thinking about Dolly Parton or Jessica Rabbit or some crap.
🤣🤣
There was a movie, several years ago with Matthew Broderick as a private in basically training (I think during WWII). There was one scene where a Soldier was caught with another Soldier. IIRC, the Maps hauled him away.
It was “Biloxi Blues”.
That’s what Iraqis and Afghans claimed.
Manlove Thursday– they flip for it.
They say “It isn’t gay on Man-Love Thursday”!
As the man said, getting a blow job wasn’t gay. GIVING a blow job is gay.
$20 dollars is $20 dollars.
At the risk of offending many here, I’m afraid Hegseth just lost the appointment. This is the wrong argument, or at least, the wrong framing of the right argument.
Unless he comes out unequivocally saying,
“Your sexual orientation is of no matter in the military. A professional, serious military is concerned with competence, merit and lethality. The military shouldn’t and can’t be concerned with who you’re attracted to, it is about doing the job, to the same standard, regardless if you are male or female. This also answers the question of females in combat roles.
If a particular female can meet the same standard, with no accommodations or special considerations as every male must meet for that role, let her do it. The fact that a very small percentage of all men can meet the standard means it will be the rare exception of a female meeting that standard”.
It is a mistake supporting the “barring” of females from specific roles. This gives the loonies room to blather about everything but the specific point – there is a standard, for a reason, that every member of an infantry or combat unit must meet. Period. Full stop. If one can meet it, let them serve. No accommodations. No alternate testing or standards.
The standards are for the role, not the gender of the applicant, meaning there are many roles in the military that do not require the same physical abilities as do those in the combat arms.
This is the position of true equal rights for women. Support it, full throated. When they say “it’s not fair, almost no females can meet that standard”, they’ve also just lost the transgender argument. All we need do is remind people part of the standard is not having a condition that requires medical or pharmaceutical support. We disqualify asthmatics, diabetics, and a host of other conditions, and transgenderism is no different.
Now, the conversation is not about being anti-trans, anti-woman, etc. It is truly treating everyone the same.
I agree with most of what you said, except that when you do find these “one in ten thousand” exceptions, it is not cost effective to build up and maintain the separate facilities to accommodate them. Therefore, let DOGE make a purely dollars and cents assessment and then implement the natural conclusion: “Thank you for your willingness to serve. However, ….”
Agreed
“It is a mistake supporting the “barring” of females from specific roles.”
No, it is a mistake to think that the only relevant standard for doing a specific job in the military is the ability to do a certain number of situps or pushups. Wars are not fought by individuals, no matter how capable. Rambo is a fictional character. Audie Murphy looked nothing like Rambo or Arnold Schwarzenegger. Wars are fought by groups. It is difficult and stressful enough learning to live in a hole in the ground while people shoot at you, sometimes literally l cheek to cheek (both sets), with people you sometimes despise, without adding the complications of sex.
PS
Then there is the problem of (dare I say it?)—PMS.
“Courts have recognized PMS as a mitigating factor in crimes. However, its status as a defense is unresolved.”
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/criminal-law-premenstrual-syndrome-courts
You want to take your chances with a well armed, highly stressed, enraged female, you go right ahead. Not me.
Trannies is the military? Been a mistake since O’blow me made the decision to allow it. In addition to Gender Dysphoria, they often have other psych and mental disorders that go along with it. Also, I don’t even want to imagine the logistical hurdle it would be to keep tranny troop well supplied with blockers and hormone meds in the field (not to mention the side effects of those drugs). They’d be a constant issue for our Corpsmen and Medics to deal with. Lastly, they look unprofessional as hell. Bottom line: they are NOT deployable.
Now, I’m one of those guys who believes that, no matter who you are, that if you have the same fire to fight for and serve our country, you should be allowed to do so. But the other end of that spectrum is having the ability to serve and the willingness to do it (I kinda flip flop on women in combat roles because of these beliefs). So, Trannies in the military? No, it’s too much of a hassle and a burden to implement. Sorry, not sorry.
I have no problem with women as fighter pilots or non-combat roles. But they do not belong in infantry platoons, SF ODA’s, or SEAL teams. In addition to their physical limitations, they present unit cohesion problems. If there are a couple of females in your squad, someone is going to be screwing them. This leads to all sorts of problems and conflicts. Moreover, the males are going to want to protect them once the shit hits the fan.
Yes, some of these are reasons I’ve hit on in previous posts and I agree with you. Though part of me does believe exceptions exist, even though those are incredibly rare exceptions. Nowadays, I think the only way for women to be in the infantry effectively is if they disguise themselves as men (no screwing in the unit if everyone thinks their unit only contains men. Ex: Deborah Sampson). As I said, I flip flop on this a lot due to the continuing battle between my reason and my ideals.
Though, for me, Special Forces and Spec Ops are 100% no for women in them.
“if they disguise themselves as men”
I shall assume you have no familiarity with the toilet or bathing facilities available to the Infantry. And, despite having probably lower ASVB scores than other troops, we grunts are not entirely stupid or unobservant.
“(no screwing in the unit if everyone thinks their unit only contains men.”
And, again, I will assume you have no familiarity with Infantry units. Homosexuals in the military did not start with the Clinton or Obama administrations. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was unofficial policy long before it was official policy.
What? Someone actually thinks there were no homosexuals in the military before the Clinton (?) administration?
What about an absolute, iron-clad rule that fraternizing between troops, regardless of rank or gender, is an immediate BCD and time in Leavenworth?
I have no concerns about SF ODA’s or SEAL teams because, I highly doubt there are more than 3-5 biological females in the country that are capable of making the cut. If, by some off-chance, one did, she would be the most watched and scrutinized troop in the military. There is zero chance, with the above ruling about fraternization, that would be an issue. And I imagine respected for the accomplishment by whatever unit she qualified to join.
Maybe I’m naive. Maybe. But I do have more faith in the professionalism of our most elite troops than I do in any regular unit.
You are naive, if you think reason and the threat of a BCD overrules hormones between the horny. Look at the cases reported here where senior NCO’s and officers couldn’t keep it in their pants and out of some female’s panties.
“What about an absolute, iron-clad rule that fraternizing between troops, regardless of rank or gender, is an immediate BCD and time in Leavenworth?”
LOL
“Maybe I’m naive.”
No maybe involved. Has the death penalty prevented murder or homicide? Does the same penalty you mention prevent other crimes? It’s called “Locking the barn door after the horse is gone”.
How about “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”? Trite but true.
And that is assuming the females are models of deportment or fidelity. If they are as reliably nasty and difficult as men are, the problems increase exponentially.
Especially, when one considers all the female has to do is become pregnant and she becomes non-deployable.
And what about the father? Doesn’t he qualify for equal treatment? At the very least he has 12 weeks of parental leave to look forward to.
“The Military Parental Leave Program (MPLP) provides non-chargeable leave entitlements following the birth or adoption of a child.”
https://myarmybenefits.us.army.mil/Benefit-Library/Federal-Benefits/Military-Parental-Leave-Program-(MPLP)?serv=122
If diabetics need too much medical support to fight, so do transgenders:
I hope the recent report in the fake news that Hegseth now supports women in combat arms roles is just him being vague about his views on this in order to get confirmed. Cuz he knows women have no business in an infantry rifle company or a SEAL team. Ditto in spades for a trannie. Any of us that have been there and done that know this.
This would have helped
Also:
No elite organization requiring dominant physical traits has female members. It has nothing to do with “standards” or the “one woman who can”. It has to do with the ability to reach the pinnicle of performance and effectiveness. Anyone who says different is either lying or clueless. That’s why there are no female athletes in any top tier professional league. It’s about WINNING and MONEY, not politics. Currently no top tier pro team would sacrifice winning to “Make a social statement”. Why should the U. S. Military?
Excellent point. Most of us who have been there and done that love women, but we don’t want one next to us in a foxhole, humping a ruck and a machine gun, or laying down a field of fire. Moreover, we don’t want to rely on a 125 pound female to carry our 185 pound plus wounded bodies out of harms way in a firefight. Add in 35 lbs. of body armor to make this task more difficult for a woman. I carried 115 pounds of weapons, ammo, and gear in Vietnam with no body armor. Show me the woman who is not a female weight lifter who can carry a 250 lbs plus wounded person load.
“we don’t want one next to us in a foxhole”
Au contraire, mon frere. There is a large (in my opinion) part of me that would love to have a young female squeezed into a foxhole with me. So would most other healthy young men. That is the problem. Add in a little alcohol now and then, and the problem grows.