Our Government is the Problem.

A couple months ago, President Trump posted on Twitter that “after consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you.”

Since this unexpected announcement, the US has erupted in a heated debate between civilians, policy makers, and, of course, retired and active duty military.

For those that choose to align with the policy, the following concerns have been voiced: “We don’t want mentally ill people serving in the military.” “Transgender individuals cost the American taxpayer too much.” “It’s too big of a risk.”

For those against this new policy, many valid objections have been brought up: “The ban is discriminatory against transgender individuals.” “The costs are minimal.” “Transgender people have a right to serve their country.”

The fallacy of these arguments lies within the premise that this new policy simply concerns the military; both sides fail to realize the negative implications of this policy — that by refusing to accept individuals into the military solely based on their identification as transgender causes a trend that negatively stigmatizes trans individuals. Regardless of the policy’s intent and reasoning, a complete rejection of all individuals from the military who identify as transgender promotes a primitive society which chooses to group and label its citizens, thus entrenching a mental barrier that prevents them from contributing to society.

These negative stigmas take root in the bedrock of American ideology and lead to institutionalized discrimination that has a multitude of far-reaching impacts on society. Black men are six times as likely to be incarcerated as white men. Additionally, 46% of gang members are Hispanic, compared to only 12% being white. Suicide rates for those identifying as LGBT range from 10%-40% compared to the 0.4%-5.1% rate of heterosexuals. Although research has attempted to correlate these statistics to factors such as “disparities in the allocation of police resources,” “socioeconomic status,” and “structural factors,” these factors always directly link to prejudice and discrimination.

But whose fault is it? Does discrimination just “happen?” Does anything have to do with an individual’s genetic makeup, with the color of their skin?

No. While predjudice and discrimination sometime find their start in public opinion, the problem exists within institutionalized discrimination. Institutionalized discrimination is fueled through the actions of those respected and prominent individuals of power within our society and its effects are much greater than those of public opinion.

Just this year, Senator Frank Artiles resigned after he commented that Senate President Joe Negron had only risen to his position of power because “six [N-word]” in the Republican caucus elected him.

Representative Steve King, known for his outlandish, often inflammatory comments, said in 2013 that there are Mexican immigrants “who weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.”

And that’s exactly it. Those individuals who we, the American public, have elected to positions of power and entrusted with influencing our country, have the potential to further divide us. These comments further entrench the logic that certain people are “different” because of their skin color. These comments are the reason discrimination is as wide-spread as it is. These comments are to blame.

An examination of the movements that fueled the gay, black and Latino subcultures throughout the 20th century illustrates a pattern of a subculture’s endeavor to overcome societal suppression of their identity. The 1960’s were the friction point for the black civil rights movement where the American society treated blacks as outcasts and subjected them to endless forms of discrimination. The gay community, in turn, was accused of promoting unhealthy and immoral behavior in society. Similarly, the Latino subculture found itself at odds with the majority and was prohibited from acting as a jury in court cases. Although society has progressed and stigmatization against minority groups has decreased, the impact is ever-lasting.

This new policy against trans individuals in the military is doing the exact same thing. Should people medically unqualified be allowed to serve in the military? No. Are all trans individuals medically unqualified? No, there is sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. Regardless of its intent, this policy is being institutionalized by people of power. This policy will inevitably negatively stigmatize transgender individuals and thus condemn them to decades more of hated, discrimination, and community isolation.

Our leaders must hold themselves to a higher standard. While they have the ability to institutionalize discrimination, they also have the ability to undo its poisonous effects.

Should transgender individuals be allowed to abuse the system and get their medical treatment paid for? No. But that’s not the point. Medical standards exist in the military to maintain a fit fighting force that’s ready to project US power and influence abroad. So why make this a transgender issue? The government can still regulate expensive medical procedures and those medically unqualified for duty without targeting transgender individuals.

In an effort to preserve American values of equality and individualism, a fervent attempt should be made to pass government policy that does not throw a group such as the transgender community into a spotlight they will be hard pressed to leave.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any agency of the U.S. government.