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In studying the background for Trump’s decision, President Obama in 2011 repealed the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy but was silent regarding transgender members of the armed forces.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We have transgender soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines — real patriotic Americans — who I know are being hurt by an outdated, confusing, inconsistent approach that’s contrary to our value of service and individual merit.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
I meant adding transgender issues into the mix. The problems are the same re: readiness, it seems. Adding in this ‘interest group’ turns this into the Flying Spaghetti Monster, just sayin’…
So I am not actually sure what the problem is with Transgender(Trans) personnel is.
It is so strange that conservative thinking people fall into the same trap on this issue as left-wing thinkers do when it come to economics. You are only looking at the category/statistical average/group and not the individual. Thomas Sowell does a great job of highlighting this problem in economics.
The statistical averages don’t matter, we are asking for particular roles and task to be filled by individuals not by a category of people. Can you personally fulfill the task requirements? Yea or nah?
In order to justify a change to the existing force structure, the change should:
How does this social experiment do any of those things? Does it degrade any?
How is it a social experiment?
I agree with everything you say, Curt. (And thanks for the kind words.) As the Cable Guy would say, “Just git ‘er done!”
I love that term! May I borrow it at the appropriate moment? ;-) Thanks for clarifying, Nanda.
So you think that allowing transgenders into the military, a “category” that has only recently come into the lexicon, is not a social experiment? Let me also add to @Percival‘s comment. The military is not about satisfying the individual; it is about the military collective protecting this country. In fact, our soldiers must sacrifice freedom, personal safety and independence to become part of the military. I would also counter your question, “Can you personally fulfill the task requirements” ; it is not something the recruit gets to decide on his or her own. The military gets to make that decision, on behalf of the recruit and the organization.
Because the only way to find out the true effects is to do it. I don’t see any of the criteria that I listed being meaningfully enhanced, and some of them possibly being degraded. Even if there is no effect at all, if it requires time or money, those resources are not available for other more advantageous purposes.
Because this is an attempt at normalizing of a dysfunctionality.
Ms. Susan Q., use caution with the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” as an analogy. It is famously used by anti-Christian Atheists to mock all traditionalist religions. There are many variations; some of them depicted as a variation on the “Space-aliens Theory of Creation,” in which the Creator is frequently depicted as an alien that looks like a handful of spaghetti noodles with googly eyes, stretching a noodle out to touch the outstretched finger of Adam in a sendup of Michaelangelo’s Creation scene from the Sistine Chapel. It is 99% intended for non-serious anti-Christian mocking and scoffing.
A few general responses.
The military is a social institution as are all human creations. The idea that it must not be changed is antithetical to modern militarily doctrine. A lot of you are acting as if the military is one thing like a person, it like all groups is a collection of individuals and reflects the values of those individuals, this is inescapable.
Now that change must be justified and I generally agree with the considerations Percival laid out. So how does arbitrarily discriminating against an individual based solely on an aspect of their group identity help anyone? You are losing out on technical experts for instance. So long as you maintain role specific standards and an individual meets that, what is lost?
Unit cohesion is perhaps the most lame of the criteria. Cohesion does not naturally exist it, soldiers must be trained, taught and even coerced to work together. There is no reason to believe that this can’t be accomplished with Trans soldiers.
How does a trans soldier’s inclusion create a morale problem and who does it create a problem for?
Another note Trans individuals already have been serving, the American military machine still seems top notch.
I thought as conservatives we assess people by their individual merits?
MJ, you’ve never teased me before, so I’m going to take you at your word. I wonder if @nandapanjandrum is aware of that?
I disagree with you on almost every point, Mitchell.
The military is a social institution as are all human creations. The idea that it must not be changed is antithetical to modern militarily doctrine. A lot of you are acting as if the military is one thing like a person, it like all groups is a collection of individuals and reflects the values of those individuals, this is inescapable.
No one says the military can’t be changed. It has gone through huge changes culturally, technologically–the list is endless. Yes, it’s a collection of individuals, but it doesn’t necessarily reflect the values of the individuals; the only values that are prime ones are to protect this country. Any other values they have are secondary.
Some discrimination is good; not admitting a person because they could jeopardize the organization is a valid discrimination. And I already listed the reasons they shouldn’t be admitted; the reasons are not arbitrary.
I have a feeling you’ve never been in the military, have you? Nor have I. But I can tell you that if I was in the military, and had to shower with a person who was a man, I would be very uncomfortable. That he believes he’s a woman would not reassure me.
This is such a huge generalization that I’m not going to address it.
Most welcome! And, of course, do borrow the FSM; someone introduced him/her/it and Pastafarianism to me a while ago; it just seemed apposite.
Yes, I’m well aware, SQ and MJB…I used the term to describe a situation I find totally nonsensical…I appreciate the concern from you both.
Susan Quinn
The reason you listed are statistical factoids of a group, they are not based on the individual’s merit. I am suggesting if an individual meets the requirements why not let them in? Such a categorical ban could easily be applied to other groups for other reasons. Perhaps we could use education averages of a group, would that not be a good filter? The fact that a majority of individuals in a group may not qualify should not exclude individuals who do. This ensures you are getting qualified and good quality soldiers.
Wait when did you start caring about the individuals beliefs and feelings in regards to the military? Oh, when they are your beliefs and feelings…. This is just plain hypocrisy. The fact you be uncomfortable is irrelevant we can train that out of you, after all you hypothetically joined the military not to express your values….
And save me your personal assumptions….
The reason I listed unit cohesion third was because it isn’t very important in that list, but I think it finishes above morale because I don’t see how including an individual that in addition to all other requirements will require logistical support for hormones and such.
There is not a vast pool of transexuals with superior technical skills.
If you want to do this experiment, go do it and get back to us. I think you’ll spend a lot of money, annoy a lot of people, and fail. The first two are trivial. The last one is not.
See this is interesting this plays in the dependability of such soldiers. For instance diabetics may still be in the military but not a great candidate for say combat engineers in a remote outpost in Afghanistan. However they can fill other roles even overseas, does this disqualify them from certain roles? Certainly, we can look at that in a very objective way. You need “X” regularly we can’t guarantee that, to bad to sad.
Like the sexual equipment they were born with?
I apologize for my incorrect assumption. It doesn’t change my views.
Which matters how? Other then your concern that some one may have to tuck or stuff.
Just respecting your insistence on objectivity in these matters.
So I guess in closing most of you haven’t really thought about this issue closely. A lot of you abandoned ideals you normally claim to hold in order to keep people away from you or from things you care about not out of concern for those things but because you find trans people personally repugnant.
I mean some of you flat out express bigotry.
I am suggesting no one use terms like trannies its like calling people faggots. Its just unkind and punching down.
Ask whether they think they’re a man or a woman. And then confirm their grasp on reality by objective observation.
Passive-aggressive much? Are you sure you’re a conservative? Reaching for the “bigot” card is a bad play.
You’re making the same mistake I made, Mitchell–making assumptions that aren’t correct. I have looked at the issue closely, did quite a bit of research several months ago from all kinds of sources–medical, psychological and cultural. I’m convinced that transgenders have a mental disorder for which I would very much encourage them to get help. I’m not trying to keep people away from me; when I spoke about not showering with a male who believed he was a woman, I believe that I might be speaking for many women who feel that way (whether they are willing to be politically incorrect saying it or not). I don’t find transgenders personally repugnant. But I do feel their interest in changing their genders is misguided, inappropriate and unhealthy. If you knew me, as many on this site do, you’d know that I’m a principled person and work to honor my values. It’s unfortunate that you and transgender folks don’t seem to honor mine.
Since this is my post, Mitchell, I’m going to ask that you try to keep from insulting people and name-calling. I’ve let you label me up to a point, but I’d ask you to either stop commenting or review your comments more carefully before posting them.
“Bigot” is how a liberal announces that he’s losing a fight. I care nothing about the sexually confused, as long as they are secure enough in their nebulous “identity” to not insist I participate in their delusions.