One-Sided Reporting on Transgender USAFA Cadets Article

Opposite to the previous post, USAFA 1960s Recruiting Film: “What Makes a Man”, if things hadn’t changed, it could have been at USAFA, “What Makes a Man Who Might Be a Woman and Vice Versa.”

It’s been some crazy, upside-down years, and while the Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of Defense have issued orders banning transgenders from serving in the military, it’s not over yet.

The Colorado Springs Gazette recently published an article by Mary Shinn, Transgender Air Force Academy cadets graduate but are not commissioned amid Trump’s ban, about a female cadet who thinks of herself as a male (male uniform rather big on her above) who was able to graduate from USAFA but will not be commissioned as an officer.

Also, according to the article, “Hunter Marquez said he heard from the headquarters of the Air Force on graduation day that he will not have to repay his tuition, if he is involuntarily separated.”

STARRS position paper, DOD Transgender Policies, is mentioned in the above article.

STARRS Chairman Lt. Gen Rod Bishop, USAF ret, USAFA ’74, commented on the article in an email “STARRS Mentioned in Yesterday’s Gazette/Another Example of Biased Reporting”:

~~~~

Thanks for sharing Ron–I thought the article was OK at first–but then, as I got further into it, I started to sense some serious bias.

For example–I seriously doubt Mary (or most probably Marty France) have anywhere near the contact with cadets that I/we have–and what is said here is so far removed from what cadets have told me (and you I believe?)–it is approaching being laughable.

Why does Mary continue to go to the “Honorary” Brig Gen France for comment? He is a board member of an extreme left-wing organization (Mikey Weinstein’s MRFF) that incorrectly interprets the Constitution as guaranteeing freedom FROM religion instead of freedom OF religion, and has argued FOR the vaccination of all military members, even when so doing was in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the laws of our land surrounding the use of EUA products–as at least 6 Federal Court Decisions now conclude?

His worrying about this action of discharging transgenders “impacting the service of gays or lesbians in the military” or “women in combat roles” seem both baseless and not supported by facts/SECDEF’s recent statements.

Baseless? Gays and lesbians have been welcomed and have served with distinction in our military for decades. If that were a concerted COA being advanced by the current administration, one might believe there would be a chorus of resistance from both sides of the isle. There has been absolutely NO talk about not allowing gays/lesbians to serve that I am aware of–how about you?

And as for women in combat roles, after some initial missteps in his way of expression, SECDEF Hegseth has repeatedly and very clearly said he supports women in combat–and why wouldn’t he? As you have heard me say a number of times–all 4 female pilots in my squadron of 76 pilots I would have put in the top ten of the 76.

SECDEF clearly was originally speaking from the perspective of what he experienced–ground combat–where anyone with common sense knows the tasks to be performed in that skill set can require physical strength that exceeds the capabilities of most women. To suggest otherwise is just left wing spin.

France’s statement is totally misleading and not addressed by anyone who has actually commanded troops–something it does not appear the “Honorary” General France has done? May have missed it in his bio? Without any opposing viewpoint printed, the reader is led to believe what Gen France says apparently must be “fact.”

Mary–originally I thought you were one of the few “fair and balanced and honest” reporters out there. Unfortunately, we seem to be trending in another direction. First, last month you painted a very one sided picture on the civilian instructor downsizing the USAFA was ordered to undergo, failing to get input from USAFA or any of us “in the know” about civilian overages and civpay shortfalls.

Now you now paint an extremely “one sided/slanted position” on transgenders serving in the military, especially at USAFA–seemingly to garner some sympathy for their cause??

While your comment about STARRS position paper is straight forward enough, had you contacted us we would have told you the “rest of the story.”

Two years prior to the publication of that position paper, STARRS was contacted by a large number of concerned parents and a number of organizations who strongly advised we take a strong stance against transgenders serving in the military.

In our response to all, we explained that this was a recent policy change and although many Christians in particular didn’t like the “in your face” aspect of how transgenderism was being pushed (“where is the inclusiveness of my values?” we were asked numerous times) we said: “we will wait to see if transgenders serving in the military is divisive in any way before we take any action/position one way or the other.”

You are not aware, Mary, that my wife and I retired to Colorado Springs, in part, to sponsor cadets. Over the years dating back to 1981, we have sponsored 25-30 cadets (many/most since 2009 when we moved back to CO)–both formally and informally. Additionally, I have taught some 23 cadets how to ski. Obviously many of those we have sponsored/taught to ski are now on active duty.

Since STARRS was asked to oppose transgenders serving, I asked most all of cadets we had sponsored/are sponsoring how they felt about serving with transgenders?

I have not gotten even one positive response. And I always follow up with another question–“how about the rest of your unit?” The answer is always the same–“most or all do not approve.”

The reasons they give are numerous–but a common theme is the “special treatment” transgenders receive, being excused from this duty or that deployment–and the burden they place on the rest of the unit to pick up the slack.

“Plus it is just weird seeing a male dressed in a woman’s clothes” (or similar statements) are other frequent comments. These views are missing in your article.

Even my very liberal ski buddies in Summit County answer the question I have asked them on chairlifts– “What do you think of transgenders serving in the military?” with some appropriate hesitation that is absent in your article. “Wow–that is a tough question as transgenders come with some serious baggage” is a representative response.

On a related note, a cadet called me within the last month to catch up–among the things he mentioned was that he had seen a transgender woman (he didn’t know which class) packing up and moving out that week. He went on to add, “the cadet was so overweight, I don’t see how “she” could have passed the physical fitness test for either gender.”

A much different physical fitness ability is painted in your article–and both may be true–but even though you cited an “anonymous” source, it leaves the reader with a much different impression than is actually the truth across the board. The source I cite here might be willing to go “on the record” if we had asked.

Also missing from your article is any mention that the transgender movement is seen by many to be just another element of the “Marxist march” through our institutions–with the intent of creating division.

See what Professor James Lindsay says here in his excellent presentation to the European Union Parliament. Woke: A Culture War Against Europe | James Lindsay at the European Parliament.

You don’t have to watch much of it (less than 3 minutes) to hear and see how the Professor calls “queer theory a ‘species’ of the Marxist ‘genus.’ ”

Certainly, anyone who has studied Marxism, knows of Karl Marx’s hatred of God and his thoughts about “the family”–the family, Marxists say “is a tool of capitalism and its main function is to maintain capitalism and reinforce social inequalities.”

I would hope all would agree that one of the goals of the transgender movement is to overturn “norms” in our society and disrupt the “western nuclear family.” They have told us this.

One would think the Gazette would not want to painted with that color brush of supporting this ideology–but that is what comes through–maybe not intended–but that is the result.

With no mention of any of these “facts” and only one-sided opinions in your article articulated, it comes across, unfortunately, as extremely biased. We, your readers, deserve better.

Finally, perhaps Brig Gen France is a good friend (since you seem to go to him for quotes that support the points you are apparently trying to advance?) I would ask and encourage you, unless you are writing in Wayne’s editorial pages, to please ask for input from the “other side of the political spectrum when writing about controversial issues. Give some balance to the issues.

STARRS has 20 retired Flag Officers/Civilian (SES) equivalents on our BOD and Board of Advisors. I am sure any one of those 20 retired flag officers/flag officer equivalents (or any one of the additional 19 Flag Officers copied above who are not on one of our Boards) would give you a much different take on transgenders serving in our military than Gen France did if you had only asked.

________________

Hi Ryan–hope all is well with you! As the CEO of Clarity media, I thought you might appreciate this story–during my last tour in the Pentagon, (about the time the Washington Examiner was founded) I took the bus into work from Woodbridge VA. The 25-30 minute bus ride gave me time to do some email (back in the Blackberry days) and read the paper. For the first 3 months, I had a subscription to the Washington Post. After those 3 months had passed, I could no longer stand reading what seemed to be “editorial pages” across the entire newspaper. Went to only doing emails on the bus ride. When I returned to DC years later, I switched my subscription to another one of the WA papers that is now under your purview–The Washington Examiner. Loved getting more balanced “news.”

If you didn’t know, the COS Gazette has a reputation among many in the Springs (especially USAFA grads who live in the area) as being critical of USAFA. Being critical, I believe most would agree, is OK, as long as the story is “balanced.” Lately, though, the Gazette is appearing more like the Washington Post instead of the Washington Examiner.

In the article that is the subject of this email, for example, it is it is not much of a stretch to think–“gee, I guess the Gazette is supporting this ideology that believes and pushes the idea that men can give birth and chest feed babies.”

I don’t understand why our media has to “push” the idea of people who want to think/believe they are of a different gender need to serve in our armed forces?

Love them, care for them, support them in the life path they have chosen–fine. But when that life path they have chosen involves serving in our military–an institution/and a profession that is built upon “unity” and “cohesiveness”–why can’t we all agree that the continued hormone treatments, the surgeries, time away from the unit, the much higher suicide rates of transgenders etc. do not bode well for fostering “the moral spirit of warfighting” Clausewitz and Napoleon wrote so brilliantly about.

If transgenders have a desire to serve our country–absolutely super! Why not encourage them do so in a business suit or a skirt and blouse as GSs/SESs?

This may not be the 80/20 issue that men playing in women’s sports is–but I bet it is at least 60/40–if your reporters would only take the time and effort to get a more comprehensive view of issues, rather than “spinning” and continually going to sources who do not have the credentials that I can see of actually commanding military members–and especially military members in combat.

I respectfully ask it you could “please help us make our “home town” newspaper more balanced?” VR, Rod

ROD BISHOP
Lt Gen USAF (Ret)
Chairman of the Board
Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services, Inc
STARRS.US