Trangender Ban
Let’s preface this with 2 disclaimers:
1) The “transgender ban” was made in two tweets. I have no evidence of an executive order, directive or Pentagon/Defense notice of guidance. The policy allowing the service of openly transgender servicemembers is currently still up on the Defense website. James Mattis, our Sec of Defense, is currently on vacation. So this could theoretically be nothing more than a person upset at Russian investigations making crazy statements.
2) I obviously oppose a ban on openly transgender servicemembers in active duty positions based solely on moral grounds. I find this type of ban (like the ones opposing integration of African-Americans, women and the LGBT community in general that we have dealt with for the last 50 years) to be morally wrong in and of itself.
However, I fully understand that for people who do not have a moral opposition to these bans that moral arguments will not win them over.
So in light of disclaimer 2, I’m not including them. I am fully arguing against this type of ban based solely on academic research and financial considerations.
1) The number of transgender individuals in the military is extremely low. In 2014, it was estimated there were between 1,300–6,600. The reason for the large window is the difficulty in determining the number of openly transgender and those both post- and pre- transition who are not openly serving. I will also add in that there are current openly serving transgender servicemembers and the military has not burned down. There are also openly transgender firefighters and police officers if you were unaware.
2) Not all transgender individuals choose to transition surgically. Not all transgender individuals choose to transition medically. Not all transgender individuals enter service pre-transition. You cannot make any determinations to someone’s medical needs based solely on whether they are cisgender or transgender.
3) One of arguments made today for the ban was that servicemembers who receive a surgical transition during their active duty period (refer to points 1 & 2 on how large this number would realistically be) would then become ineligible to deploy and this was unfair to other servicemembers.
In 2015 alone, in the Army alone, more than 50,000 servicemembers were ineligible to deploy for the year for various medical, legal and administrative reasons.
If you took the highest number of transgender members theoretically active in the military today (6600) and assumed each one needed transitional surgery (not realistic) and assumed they all needed it at the exact same time (not realistic) and assumed they all served in the Army (not realistic), you still would only end up with 13% of all ineligible members being due to transgender issues.
4) President Trump claimed in his tweet that these transgender servicemembers are a “tremendous medical cost” to the military.
The military spent $6 billion on medical services for active personnel in 2014.
If every transgender servicemember needed transition-related medical care (again not realistic), using the previous assumed numbers, it could cost between $2.4 — $8.4 million. But again, openly transgender members already serve and therefore some of those costs are already included the first $6 billion.
By comparsion, the Defense Department spent $84 million on erectile disfunction drugs in 2014 alone. $7.5 million of that was for active-duty servicemen (I made the gender distinction for obvious reasons lol).
5) Which moves me into argument #5 that transgender members have a “psychiatric” issue that makes them unfit for duty.
The DoD reported that cases of erectile disfunction in active duty members more than doubled between 2004–2014. It found the main cause to be PTSD, a psychiatric disorder. Which we are struggling as a country to destigmatize so both active duty and discharged servicemembers will seek treatment for.
Yes, the DSM-5 currently lists “gender dysphoria” as a mental disorder. But it is also currently under revision like 1973 when homosexuality was removed. Between the previous and current versions, the autism spectrum was revised drastically. As was the section on personality disorders. They also changed the phrase “mental retardation” to “intellectual disability” because someone realized it was 1952 (when the first DSM was published).
Oh and even more relevant, they finally added PTSD, even though in WWI we called it “shell shock” and it’s existed since forever.
6) Lastly, transgender troops would be a “disruption” to the military. Which was the same argument made in WWII against integrating African-American troops. And the same argument against allowing women to serve. And the same argument against letting gays and lesbians openly serve.
In 2016, 18 countries allowed for openly transgender troops to serve (including our major allies, Australia, Great Britain, Canada & Israel).
You cannot convince me that Israel’s military is not combat ready.
None of those 18 countries reported any significant disruptions to operational readiness, operational effectiveness or cohesion of force to the 2016 RAND report.
Unless someone would like to make the argument that Israeli & Canadian troops are just better than American ones. Which is not an argument I would subscribe to.
Every single individual who passes both the physical and psychiatric requirements to be a servicemember deserves the opportunity to do so.
There are no financial reasons to ban transgender members. There are no psychiatric reasons. The operational readiness and cohesion arguments are the same made against African-American, women, gays and lesbians. And we survived the integration of all of those groups. It’s a bogus argument made so no one has to really say why they’re uncomfortable.
There are no other logical arguments.
For those interested:
~ 2016 RAND Report- https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9909.html