Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Standoff Between the President and the Military on Transgenderism
A few weeks ago, President Trump again threw the country into a tizzy by declaring a ban on transgender people in the military. Everyone was surprised, including James Mattis, Secretary of Defense. A number of factors seemed to contribute to Trump’s decision, including contradictory ones. I’d like to explore some of those here, and also explain the reasons why his decision may actually benefit not only the military, but this nation.
In studying the background for Trump’s decision, President Obama in 2011 repealed the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy but was silent regarding transgender members of the armed forces. Following that decision, however, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced that transgender people could openly serve in the military. He said:
We have transgender soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines — real patriotic Americans — who I know are being hurt by an outdated, confusing, inconsistent approach that’s contrary to our value of service and individual merit.
Implicit in his comments are the desires of individuals rather than the needs of the military.
Looking at these factors has raised a number of questions regarding the reasons for and impact of approving the acceptance of transgender members of the military.
First, although he had not consulted Defense Secretary Mattis, the President had consulted generals and military experts before he made his decision. I also believe that Trump’s not telling Mattis might have been purposeful: Gen. Mattis won’t be branded with supporting this decision, although he may need to answer for it later.
The second factor is that when Obama had Secretary Carter announce the acceptance of transgenderism, we have no way of knowing whether the military thought this was a smart decision or not. The military, after all, is subject to the decisions of the Commander-in-Chief, and officers may have assumed that the potential blowback for resisting wasn’t worth contesting a decision that was likely inevitable.
A third factor is that we have no idea how military personnel in general are responding to this decision. The military is not in the habit of consulting its personnel on these matters, nor should it be. The media report that personnel support the decision, but that is a meaningless assessment that has never been verified.
A fourth factor might be pushback from the military against Trump. Although he has spoken positively about the military, Pentagon officials expressed concerns that his decision might open them to lawsuits. Trump’s announcing the ban through Twitter rather than through the normal procedures probably didn’t sit well either.
Fifth, Secretary Carter had also ordered the 2016 Rand Report which estimated that the maximum cost of healthcare for transgender troops would be $8.4 million a year, less than 1 percent of annual spending on active duty health care. I would suggest that the resistance to approving the funding is more about moral concerns than just a political or legislative one.
Sixth, there are a number of reasons why originally pushing through the approval of transgender people in the military was a bad idea. David French, in his article in National Review shared reasons for reviewing the original transgender approval. Since a degree of mental well being is important for those in the military, he cites the statistics from the US Transgender Survey of 2015 (PDF):
Fifty-three percent (53%) of USTS respondents aged 18 to 25 reported experiencing current serious psychological distress [compared to 10% of the general population] … Forty percent (40%) of respondents have attempted suicide at some point in their life, compared to 4.6% in the U.S. population. Forty-eight percent (48%) of respondents have seriously thought about killing themselves in the past year, compared to 4% of the U.S. population, and 82% have had serious thoughts about killing themselves at some point in their life … 29% of respondents reported illicit drug use, marijuana consumption, and/or nonmedical prescription drug use in the past month, nearly three times the rate in the U.S. population (10%)
He reminds us that transgender people may feel more accepted if they are part of the military, but he also points out that, particularly in the field, physical strength matters:
Here’s some basic science: Testosterone also causes development of a heavier and stronger skeleton in males and has a specific effect on shaping the male pelvis, adding greater strength for load-bearing tasks and enabling more efficient locomotion. It increases the size and function of their hearts and lungs and consequently males have 40% greater aerobic capacity, and higher endurance compared with females. Women’s smaller hearts require more blood to be pumped each minute at a given level of exertion because they have less hemoglobin in their blood to carry oxygen. These differences will put women at a distinct disadvantage in newly opened infantry jobs, where they will be expected to carry 100-pound packs routinely, or in armor jobs, where they will have to load 35-pound rounds again and again. Women in these roles will have to constantly work at a higher percentage of their maximal capacity to achieve the same performance as men. No training system can close the gap. That is absolutely right, and as political pressure increases, we will fling disproportionately unfit soldiers into the most stressful of jobs. But it’s not just individuals who suffer. The mission suffers. The nation suffers.
There is also growing evidence that the science of transgenderism is incomplete. The reasons people identify as transgender can range from ambivalence about their sexuality, to early pressures from people in their lives to acknowledge that since they like to participate in non-traditional activities (girls who like to wear overalls and roughhouse, and boys who like to dance), they are meant to live as the opposite gender. The list of ambiguities and inconsistencies of transgenderism is a long one.
We now wait to see if President Trump goes through the formal channels to enact the ban.
So we have on our hands another progressive agenda item with incomplete data being forced, not only on society, but on our men and women in the military, where lives are at risk. To comfort or satisfy the individual desires of a very small group, we once again bow to the god of political correctness. I’ll close with a quote by David French:
So, please, stop talking about individual rights. Stop talking about individual goals. The military has to make hard choices on the basis of odds, probabilities, and centuries of hard-earned experience. Our national existence — ultimately, our very civilization — depends on getting those answers right. And if there’s one thing that any person learns in war, “fairness” has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome. The battlefield is the most unjust place on earth.
[David French and Andrew Walker, author of God and the Transgender Debate discuss the transgender issue on Ricochet’s Liberty Files podcast.]
Published in Military
Interestingly enough, I have never heard an active duty soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, or coast guard’s man speak of his rights. All he seems to care about is his duty.
That’s been my perception, too, Mike. They are not there to be coddled, but to serve. Bless them.
Excellent post, @susanquinn; thank you!
The quote above stands out to me as a retired Army officer. I found that far too many of my senior colleagues (Army colonels and Navy captains) were unwilling to speak out against politically-motivated policy initiatives. When asked why, the two most common reasons given for not speaking out were: 1) “This is a political thing, and as a true professional, I have an ethical obligation not to have an opinion, only to carry out the lawful orders given me.” And, 2) “I’m too junior in rank to make a difference. If I sacrifice my career for no good reason, then I’ll never make General, (or Admiral) where I can then REALLY make a difference.”
I understand the pragmatic realities of both sentiments. Also, given that I never made general, it’s easy for me to stand on the outside and be critical. However, both attitudes above always struck me as fundamentally self-serving, placing career ahead of the higher good of the Service.
Rand Corporation study? Hmph. A bunch of people come up with a conclusion, hunt down data (massaging it as necessary) to support that conclusion, then stamp “study” on the top of it.
Seems legit.
PH, I can’t thank you enough for weighing in! I appreciate that your military retired and what you bring to the conversation. I think we both agree that these self-serving choices could be extremely detrimental to the long-term success of the military. But then I’m just a lowly peon. Thanks!
Precisely. Makes me so mad!! Especially with what is at stake. Thanks for confirming my perception, Percival.
Trannies give me the heebie jeebies. I have no patience or tolerance for them. That’s all I have to say about that.
I wonder if people think that Trump is going to submit it formally, or if he’s going to let the whole thing disappear. I mean, why would he want to stir up more controversy, right?
If he hasn’t by now, I doubt he will. Running his mouth was foolish without a plan to follow through.
I did quite a bit of research on them for a post a while back, and there was nothing that made me feel positive about them, or about the condition. Especially those who decide to have surgery. So I get where you’re coming from, BTN.
That would be a logical prediction, Aaron, except that we haven’t been able to predict much of what he’s done–including his initiating the ban. I do hope you’re wrong.
Ever since I heard about the ‘reproducibility crisis,’ I’ve had a hard time taking anything labelled ‘study’ seriously.
How long has Rand Corporation been doing “studies” that are essentially exercises in accounting?
It’s possible that the “study” was legitimate, but I doubt it. We do not know what guiding assumptions were provided before the study was conducted. Also, given the previous administration’s demonstrated inability to issue coherent strategic guidance, offering a RAND document based on cherry-picked data is worse than no study at all.
Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls.
It’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world . . .
Well done Susan.
One sentence stands out for me: “Implicit in his comments are the desires of individuals rather than the needs of the military.”
On a combat mission, a soldier needs to have a maximum of trust that their fellow soldiers will carry out their duties to the best of their abilities. The “desires” of any particular soldier should be irrelevant in a deadly combat situation; the safety of the group comes first. Therefore individuals who have special emotional needs as many transgenders do should not be allowed to serve in combat lest they endanger the group in that often deadly situation with their “desires”.
I can tell you exactly how the troops feel. They don’t want anyone in their unit whose primary concern is “me” and not “we.”
This was more thoroughly discussed here.
There are no concerns over lawsuits. The president enjoys immunity as the chief executive and commander in chief.
Thank you for the link to your post, EJ. It clarifies the issue even further. The lawsuit issue was mentioned regarding people in the Pentagon worried that they might be sued, not the President. This may be more “fake news,” but it was mentioned.
Edit: I meant to say I appreciate the commitment your son has made to our country.
I remember stories like this when women were put aboard Navy ships.
“36 Women Pregnant Aboard a Navy Ship That Served in Gulf”
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/30/us/36-women-pregnant-aboard-a-navy-ship-that-served-in-gulf.html?mcubz=3
You gotta love this quote:
“More than half became pregnant after the ship was under way, but a Navy spokesman, Lieut. Comdr. Jeff Smallwood, said there were no indications of improper fraternization between men and women on the ship.”
“600 U.S. Navy women participated in Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_American_women_in_war_and_the_U.S._military_from_1945_to_1999#1990
36 divided by 600 means that 6% of all women got pregnant during the first Gulf War? Maybe it was a higher percentage as 36 appears to the number from just one ship, the supply ship Acadia.
It looks like most of this occurred under George H. W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney.
TCG, maybe they have different definitions of improper fraternization than we do?? ;-)
Amazing what people will do and say to cover their butts. Sometimes we get mooned instead.
That was not unusual. During the 90s the military advertised themselves as being a trade school alternative to college. A lot of people who joined the peacetime military did not see themselves as warriors. Everyone who has joined since 9/11 are under no illusions about their status.
Sorry, I should explain my reasoning.
Trump has had ample time to research how to implement his wish and to do it. So he’s obviously waiting on something, if it was ever more than a ploy to misdirect the media.
Whose advice would he have not already gotten? The generals are my best guess. And our generals are politically correct: moreso since Obama culled and promoted. Then add bureaucrats, FiCons in Congress, and so on — also politically correct on such matters. Pressure would only increase with time for a retraction of Trump’s original position.
Trump is not schizophrenic, and so completely unpredictable. He simply doesn’t adhere to normal ideological paradigms. Like anybody, his actions are less impulsive than his words.
The only disagreement I have with your comments is that he said he consulted the generals and military experts before he announced the ban. I suppose it’s possible that they told him that transgenders in the military are a bad idea, but that when push came to shove, they wouldn’t back him. I agree with the rest of your comments, though.
SQ, this ground has been covered by some here who’ve worn the country’s uniform – and by those who’ve encouraged family members to enlist…(I bet you know who they are.) The topic encompasses anything gender-related that might impact combat-readiness/unit cohesion/lethality: Integrated training and women’s entry into combat arms, for instance. I’m not so sure this adds to the discussion as much as it bogs us down in the current gender-identity fracas/faddishness…Just my two cents…Carry on, ma’am. :-)
So then I take it that no official move has been taken to implement his tweet as policy in anyway. So it was all a stunt. My guess is come October we will also be looking for that assessment of visa vetting that was promised in the Muslim Travel Ban EO.
That’s what he said, but the Joint Chiefs were completely surprised, so whatever generals he consulted, it evidently didn’t include them. And that, I think, is a major mistake if he’s actually looking to implement the policy.
I don’t think he is looking to implement it. More and more I think the tweets were a “look, a squirrel!” moment, and the issue is going to quietly die away with no policy unchanged. Mattis will study how to implement the Obama era edict to add more transgender troops forever without changing anything, and the Trump ban will never actually take place. Status quo will reign. Or at least, that’s what I predict as of right now.
Nanda, So you think this OP bogs us down in the discussion, or Trump’s actions or the whole topic of transgender. Just want to be clear. Thanks.
I tend to agree with you, TWM. How he could even think of doing this without consulting Mattis is a mystery. Or pure Trump.
Excellent post Susan.
I have to say that while I support the change as common sense and the best way forward for our national security, I didn’t like the way Trump announced this major policy change via twitter, and I REALLY don’t like that Mattis and the military in general have been somewhat mum on the subject. I’m entirely uncomfortable with how this currently stands.
I think Trump needs to exercise his authority as commander in chief of the armed forces and formerly sign this policy into effect. This shouldn’t be a debate between POTUS and his military leadership, there should be no stand-off here. But to be honest Trump may have brought this weird “phony war” upon himself by the way he rolled it out. It needs to be cleared up and put into effect asap.
The whole notion of transgenderism is absurd. To entertain it shows where society has devolved. This is a mental illness, and as far as I understood it, mentally ill people are not allowed to serve. They used to let people out of the military for soldiers with these problems. Now they are pushing them into the army.