[](http://blog.stanfordreview.org/content/images/2011/01/Stanford-Says-No-to-War-Logo.jpg)SSNW logo, from their website.The [loudest](http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_17141960?nclick_check=1) [remaining](http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=30260) [objection](http://www.baycitizen.org/education/story/standford-debates-return-rotc/) to ROTC at Stanford is concerned with [anti-transgender discrimination in the military](http://blog.stanfordreview.org/2011/01/09/objecting-to-rotc-on-anti-discrimination-grounds/). To be fair, many ROTC opponents state [other objections to ROTC](http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/01/06/letter-with-dadt-gone-plenty-of-objections-to-rotc-remain/).
But some who advance the transgender discrimination objection are being disingenuous. As Tristan Abbey ’08 (a former Review staffer) writes in today’s Daily, “Even if the transgender ban were removed, ROTC opponents would still find an objection. They might insist that ROTC stay banned until the first female is appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs, for example, or until nuclear weapons are eliminated.”
I wonder if there’s even one Stanford student out there who opposes ROTC now but who would support ROTC if, at some point in the future, institutional and cultural discrimination against transgender individuals in the military were eliminated. If this describes you, please post a comment (with your real name, ideally).