Feeding our appetite for outrage

To absolutely no one’s surprise, the news that President Trump had reinstituted a ban on transgender military personnel became the big story of the week. It was the tweet heard round the world, and its impact was tantamount to a tsunami.

The fact is, pretty much everything Trump does these days is greeted with shock and “awe no he didn’t!”

He meets with Boy Scouts, pompously starts making inappropriate political references and all of a sudden we have a newly incorporated Hitler Youth (the kind with gay scout leaders and rainbow badges).

He hires a new communications director who looks like and acts a little too smooth and smarmy and we’re now dealing with “Trumpfellas, a Martin Scorsese Production.”

And he can’t shut up about how disappointed he is in the one, true, conservative in his cabinet, the wonderful Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, and we’re expecting another Saturday Night Massacre.

That’s doubtful, because Congress and the right wing love Sessions a heck of a lot more than they love His Orangeness.

But the public lives for these emotional tasers, these moments that shock the system and the conscience because a world in which Wolf Blitzer calms down and Joy Reid actually finds some non-racist white people would be far too boring.

And that is why we react with predictable, Pavlovian passion to things that really don’t make a great deal of difference in the grand scheme of things but which feed our appetite for outrage.

Moments after the transban announcement, you could Google “trans in the military” and you’d get almost 60 million entries.

Many of them were violently critical of the president’s reinstatement of the ban. Yes, this was a biggie, as expected. I mean, anytime you put Trump together with the LGBT community, throw in a few epaulettes and some tanks and wrap it all up in time for the evening broadcast you will have breaking news.

By this point you might be asking yourself, “What is the exact point of this column?” Let me help you out: Banning transgender men and women from the military has much more to do with safety and economics than it does with some innate animus toward sexual minorities.

Sure, it’s quite possible that many of the generals who advised the president to reinstate the ban are morally opposed to having transgender Marines, soldiers and sailors filling up their ranks, but it’s safe to say that the primary concerns are dollars and defense.

Regardless of how big or little a chunk of taxpayer change it might take, men and women who are confused about their gender identities before they enlist should not be using the military and its benefits to “find themselves.”

They should get that straightened out before they sign up. The military is not a consciousness-raising group.

And if they do get that straightened out, then I don’t see a reason to keep them from serving.

You see, it’s not about bigotry. It’s about not wanting to have people on the front lines of our national defense who are struggling with major issues that will likely distract them from their official duties.

Just as we don’t want people suffering from addictions to be making executive decisions that might get their comrades killed because of flawed judgment, we do not want people who are trying to figure out their essential identities to be doing the heavy lifting on the front line.

By this point you might be thinking, what bigoted hogwash. Trans men and women are no more likely to have impaired judgments than the average person.

But remember Bradley Manning, the fellow who eventually became Chelsea? It is clear that one motivation for her treasonous activities was her gender dysphoria and a resentment toward a military complex that couldn’t accommodate it.

According to the generals, they still can’t accommodate it either financially or psychologically. And pushing the envelope because of social engineering isn’t fair to anyone.

So we’ll ride out this wave of instantaneous outrage. And then move on to the next big thing. Which, 10 to one, will have something to do with Ivanka.