So, this might be a mistake, but I am going to wade into the swamp of this transgender ban that President Donald Trump has re-instated on the military as of July 26, 2017. After all, I can’t let BK hog all of the spotlight on this one.
In explanation, the President announced via Twitter today that “the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military.”
The President went on to tweet that the military must be focused on “decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgenders in the military would entail.” Let’s break it down, shall we.
According to the Department of Defense’s “Fact Sheet” on the implementation of the Obama administration’s 2016 policy to allow transgenders to serve in the military — applicable prior to President Trump’s announcement — the Defense Department’s finding that “open service by transgender Service members, while being subject to the same standards and procedures as other members with regard to their medical fitness for duty, physical fitness, uniform and grooming, deployability, and retention, is consistent with military readiness.”
In addition, “the Military Health System will be required to provide transgender Service members with all medically necessary care related to gender transition, based on the guidance that is issued.”
Finally, the “initial accession policy will require an individual to have completed any medical treatment that their doctor has determined is necessary in connection with their gender transition, and to have been stable in their preferred gender for 18 months, as certified by their doctor, before they can enter the military.” That standard would then be reviewed “no later than 24 months from July 1, 2016 to ensure it reflects what more we learn as this is implemented, as well as the most updated medical information.”
Herein there are two important points to look at, as far as I can tell. First, allowing transgenders to serve should not, and will not, according to the DOD under President Obama, effect military readiness. I agree with that assessment, though many call it a political one that was forced on military leaders by President Obama’s DOD.
Regardless, military readiness should rightly be the starting point when we look at this issue, and we can argue over whether allowing transgenders to serve effects that, or if that is even a knowable fact right now. We can also argue whether or not President Obama’s DOD made the correct assessment in that regard.
The second important point here is the medical transition issue. Here is where this particular veteran is torn. I am all for allowing those willing and able to serve to do so, assuming that they meet all the standards. We should not prevent willing and able bodies from joining our military if they can get the job done. We are in a time of war, with no draft, and no large lines of people attempting to enlist and fight the nation’s wars.
The more the merrier, is my outlook on it. If you can fire a rifle, or drive a tank or armored personnel carrier, or fly an airplane or helicopter, and you have passed all the pertinent standards, then you should be able to do it. In fact, we need you to do it.
But, should the military be responsible for transitioning you from one gender to another, with all of the cost and degradation of readiness that the process entails? No, I don’t think that it should. This is simply asking too much of an organization with the overarching goal of fielding the world’s preeminent military power. Therein lies the point on which I am torn.
And I know that a RAND Corporation study calls the costs associated with this kind of treatment “small.” The study estimated that healthcare costs would rise $2.4 million to $8.4 million a year if such medical treatments were provided, representing a very small percentage increase in spending on active-duty service members. I get that. Still, it will put a strain on units who will lose personnel for however long it takes to have the surgery and recover, and it will cost millions.
From my vantage point — and again, it is only one veteran’s opinion — if you are transgender and want to implement a physical change on your own body via surgery, then you should make that decision before you decide to join the U.S. military, and pay for it yourself. The U.S. military should not foot the bill, nor should you be granted the down time to go through the procedure while on active duty.
So, there you have it. I would favor a middle way, in which transgenders were allowed to serve openly, as long as they meet all the standards, but would not receive the medical treatment required to transition from one gender to another from the U.S. military, while they served.
I get that there are strong opinions on both sides of this issue, but it seems like we can find a solution that is fair, conducive to military readiness, and amenable to most people if we really try.
(Featured image courtesy of Wikipedia.)
Join our community. To comment on this article please join/login. Here's a sample of the comments on this post.
Absolutely agree, YP. 100%.
How'd u know??
And thanks!
. ...The government is denying/failing to provide medical care for qualified veterans in too many cases. "Gender surgery" is not only stupid and wasteful, it is also a massive insult. ...As to gays (and whatever else) serving, the ultimate problem will undoubtedly be that the government does not screen people from those groups to see if they are fit in all respects to serve with the Colors. Re the gay population, reason to believe that 50% of those who might apply would make good soldiers...but not the other 50%. ...How in hell would I know that? Well, several answers. In the 1980s I knew a former Army medic who served in Vietnam until 1966 until he was wounded. He was gay... (but not "flame on" gay...) He trotted out the %. His reasoning went like this: ...In combat branches the mission comes first. (You take the "King's shilling" and you might have to pay a high price...) You might well have to put the survival of the unit above your own... Long story short, he said that the 50% that should be allowed to serve start out with a priority list that goes something like: "I am Rick... I am a member of the 3rd squad, 1st platoon Bravo Company..." According to him, the other 50% has a different priority system... "I am gay... I am..." Somebody who won't put his own identity first probably not a good idea in a fire team or squad... Why is it that way? Psychologists could argue forever about years of denial, assumed guilt, or toilet training or whatever... ...But that's just one opinion. Ok, how about the Swiss Army. All physically sound men subject to military callup. Approximately (figures are more than a decade old) one half of gay men are accepted. The others can do their time in Civil Defense or such-like.* To make the call, the Swiss Army (as of a decade or so ago) had a board made up of gay soldiers who advised on each such case. * ("...People determined unfit for service, where fitness is defined as "satisfying physically, intellectually and mentally requirements for military service or civil protection service and being capable of accomplishing these services without harming oneself or others", are exempted from service but pay an additional 3% of annual income tax until the age of 30, unless they are affected by a disability...") ...By the later years of the bush war in Rhodesia (1966-80) the ratio was about the same. So is the U.S. military in fact doing such screening? Not really. Even the suggestion would cause a political firestorm. ...One way to tell which half a serviceman belongs to is to check out a "gay pride" parade. The military has, since 2012 recognized "gay pride month" and on at least two well known occasions has authorized gay members of the armed forces to march in gay pride parades... in full military uniform. Lot of mealie-mouthing as to who authorized... Troops in uniform have no place in parades or demonstrations with political overtones. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/07/20/troops-allowed-to-march-in-gay-pride-parade.html https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/373f0924c9023ef336cef11fd8a64035d11386903b3404d7307dfc81bab83d14.jpg ...Boys in Vegas would bet that the professionals from the upper 50% would not attend such a parade in uniform. And certainly not do as some did... in uniform... wear a dog collar. ...Of course, during the Obama administration, any officer asking his superiors for permission for troops in uniform to march in an NRA parade... would have just committed professional suicide... ...One major problem is that even if the current administration tries to bring rational adjustments... many judges might take the position that once the gate was opened that there is no going back... and declare any such adjustments as "unconstitutional..." They will be supported by many politicos... (in and out of uniform...) -Yankee Papa-
Wow Fru look what happens when people are logical rational and reasonable .... amazing isn't it ..