On June 30th, 2016, the editorial board from The New York Times published an editorial titled "Transgender Troops Protected At Last". This editorial talks about how openly-gay individuals are allowed to serve in the military now. They have to show that they were stable in their gender identity before they can serve. The editorial board also supports this decision made by the nation, and I also agree with this decision because I believe that if an individual wants to support their country, then they have that right. I think it was a good idea that these gay individuals show their stability as a gay individual because it allows the other soldiers to know that they will not have confrontation regarding this issue.
A gay individual have every right to serve their country like other individuals. The country needs every help that they can get. We can't discriminate these people on their gender. We have to move forward as a country. If we continue to discriminate these gay individuals, we will have a conflict within our country. This was the right decision for the country.
1 comment:
On June 30, 2016, one of my fellow classmates, Jung Moon Yoon, put up an entry on his blog Jung Moon Yoon US Government. On the entry Yoon argued that Gay people have the right to serve the country just as well as other people. Yoon emphasizes the importance of being in a nation that protects and accepts all of its people. Using a NewYorkTimes article as a reference, Yoon successfully translates his thoughts over this topic to the readers. I agree with Yoon's stance, because even though not everyone may be stoked about accepting transgender or gay people as their equals, these transgender and gay people are actually just as much human as everyone else, and they deserve the rights and protection of the government equally. Some people may have a hard time relating to gay people or transgender people, but at the end of the day, you and the gay or transgender person next to you, or across from you, or behind you are all Americans who have the duty but also the privilege to serve the country. Although Yoon's argument was very convincing I must admit that it was difficult to distinguish whether this was an original editorial or a commentary of another article. As a reader, I think I was confused about this because it was concerning an article that talked "about how openly-gay individuals are allowed to serve in the military now.", meaning this had already happened. However, I wasn't too bothered because Yoon still gave his opinion and expressed and explained his support for both the article and the nation's decision allowing transgender individuals to serve the nation and seek the nation's protection in return. Overall I believe Yoon's argument was very concise yet strong and appealing to the readers.
Post a Comment