This story is unavailable.

“Transgender military service means that some soldiers may have to share facilities with people who have different body parts than they do.”

Sigh. Here we go again. We’ve heard this song and dance many times before.

In the late forties, this argument was used to protest having people of different races serve together. The idea that a white person might have to share facilities with a non-white person was going to hurt our military readiness. It didn’t.

In the seventies, this argument was used to keep men and women from serving together on ships. Years later, women were allowed on ships along with men, and our military readiness wasn’t harmed.

In the nineties, allowing DADT was going to hurt military readiness because gays were no longer going to be screened out (as long as they stayed in the closet). The very idea that a straight man might have to share a shower facility with a gay man could threaten our entire military. Gays now serve openly, and our military is still the best in the world.

And now, we’re clutching our pearls and are convinced that our military is going to collapse? Because a woman serving might have a penis? Guess what — I served in the Navy years ago, and even then, I can tell you that virtually all the women I served with had seen a penis before. If it’s attached to a woman, someone who everyone in the company accepts as a woman, it’s not a big deal.

Like what you read? Give Victoria Lamb Hatch a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.