I think the issue of whether the transgender should be allowed to serve in the military is one deserving of more serious discussion than I’ve been seeing. As usual where you sit seems to be where you stand.
Serving in the military is not a right. The military takes whom it wants, not necessarily those who want it. There are exceptions, the most notable being when Harry Truman desegregated the U. S. military in 1948. Is that a fair comparison with the transgender today? Why or why not? With women today? Why or why not?
In 1948 nearly all of those serving were draftees; today none are. Is that a relevant consideration?
How do you balance force readiness and cohesion, morale, and so on with ideas of legal and social equality?
I’m glad I don’t need to make decisions like this.
The aspects of this matter on which I think we all should agree is that it shouldn’t be decided by presidential spasm and announced by tweet.
Mollie Hemingway’s response, to the rejection of transgenders into the military service, was to list all the medical issues and/or non compliant physical characteristics which currently exclude many from being able to serve. Why is it that being transgender has joined such a list should so many hackles be raised?
I personally hope, though, that any implementation of this transgender “tweet” will only effect new recruits rather than those already serving.
It varies from individual to individual. For some any distinction between individuals on the basic of gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity is an intolerable affront to liberty. For others anything that upsets the existing order of society is a means to that end. Yet others see it as a wedge issue they can exploit for political purposes.
Transgender soldiers have been serving openly for a year. Have there been problems?
It’s a cruel policy, and it was announced in an incompetent way by an idiot. But, it it a cruel but necessary policy?
I haven’t been paying particular attention to transgender soldiers (thank you, transgender soldiers, for your service), but I haven’t heard of any. I suspect there are no major problems (I read a lot of news, if there were any real problems, there’s a good chance I would have heard).
There should be a higher standard of evidence on these decisions than the president’s supporters think transgender soldiers are icky.
Because there are a large number of people who want to be able to discriminate against transgender people in general, for “moral” reasons, so any discrimination against them is suspect.
Of all countries in the world 18 allow transgender people to serve: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom. IMO attributing the varying policies solely to baseless discrimination is probably a step too far. I’d say it’s probably among the factors.
A more basic question is does evidence even play a role in the decision-making process? I don’t even see agreement on that.
BTW there’s what strikes me as a pretty non-agonistic article on the subject at ABC News.
To be clear, the military does have a right to discriminate on practical grounds — a paraplegic in a combat zone would be problematic, for instance.
I mean, can you imagine installing all those wheelchair ramps while under enemy fire?
The military seems fine with Obama’s order. I can’t believe that there’s tons of angst going around the pentagon about trans soldiers. But Trump knows his audience–these people are terrified of humans speaking up. Gay people, for example, have brainwashed America into thinking that being gay is normative through nefarious acts such as being human. Trans people might do the same, and maybe they already have. Corrupting generals, soldiers, children, bodily fluids, children’s ice cream, etc. At the heart is this weird flimsy notion of ‘normal’ that bears no scrutiny at all. It can be subverted or corrupted–it can never be asserted through life.
There has always been a big group in the military that think gays are icky and that goes double for transgenders. They are pretty noisy about it. I think this will get a lot of support in the military because of this group, and for other reasons. The military has had a few too many awareness classes. People get tired of those. Also, it kind of sucks when someone gets extra time off for voluntary reasons.
Finally, the religious right remains well ensconced in parts of the military. They will love this.
That said, the way this was handled sucked. I hope Mattis grows a pair and tells Trump if he does something like this again he walks.
Steve
Dave,
Your post is easily the best thing I’ve read on the topic since Pres. Trump’s tweets and I agree with it entirely.
“There are exceptions, the most notable being when Harry Truman desegregated the U. S. military in 1948. Is that a fair comparison with the transgender today? Why or why not? With women today? Why or why not?”
I think the comparison is somewhat fair, for lack of a better description. But it’s important to point out that the proposed DoD policy is fairly limited. The military would still only recognize two genders. The requirement to officially change genders would be essentially the same as what most states require to change the gender of a person’s birth certificate – an actual medical transition/gender reassignment. Trans personnel who are not diagnosed with gender dysphoria or do not seek to actual gender reassignment will still need to meet all the military requirements and obligations of their biological sex.
According to the Rand study that everyone is floating around, the estimated number of personnel who would go through the process would range somewhere from 25-140 per year. That’s not a lot, which is why the projected medical costs and the impact on readiness are so low.
After reading the DoD proposals and guidance from last year, I think the proposed policy changes to allow transgendered personnel are consistent and defendable but not without fault. Pres. Trump should have waited for the Pentagon to complete it’s review to see what recommendations they had but prudence is not his thing.
It will be interesting to see if his tweets actually become an order. I think Mattis will get him to soften it considerably, but who knows.
“The aspects of this matter on which I think we all should agree is that it shouldn’t be decided by presidential spasm and announced by tweet.”
I find most of the criticism of Trumps style to be just so much pearl clutching. This was indefensible.