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In studying the background for Trump’s decision, President Obama in 2011 repealed the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy but was silent regarding transgender members of the armed forces.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We have transgender soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines — real patriotic Americans — who I know are being hurt by an outdated, confusing, inconsistent approach that’s contrary to our value of service and individual merit.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
That is why I predicted the first women who demanded a right to attend VMI and The Citadel would fail. It was all about them. Also, it is ROTC that gives a path to a commission, not attendance in those two schools. Air Force Academy, Naval Academy, and West Point exist to commission officers. Many colleges offer ROTC, a good choice for people trying it out to see if they are making the right choice. Folks like me who desire to serve after they have a degree (I had my Masters) can apply for officer training/candidate programs.
Nothing prevents service except the needs of the military and one’s fitness to serve. Can’t enlist with a GED at the moment, then attend a tech school for a year and reapply. Nothing lost. The military expects its people to pursue an education. Getting a semester or two under your belt before you enlist will make things easier later.
For many who can’t afford college, the military is a way to serve and become a productive member of society. Every transgender who might not be a good fit for military service displaces a kid who could have used the military to better himself (except for times when the military isn’t meeting recruitment and retention goals). People looking to feel good about themselves for supporting transgender service never look at the unseen, the people who might be denied a chance to serve.
Society needs to work out the transgender thing before it is thrust on to the military. Right now, we haven’t even agreed on bathroom policy. If you think you don’t have privacy in a civilian bathroom, wait until you deploy.
ROTC offers a valuable opportunity in high school and college and many who take the courses don’t serve afterwards. However, it offers discipline and classes in military history, something missing in the traditional liberal arts education.
The Chaplain Panda/Angel Pup would’ve served in a heartbeat, but physical realities outweighed my desires; so I support instead.
The question of there being a “right to serve” embedded within the concept of citizenship within a republic is a fair one. It certainly had applicability regarding the raising of Black regiments during the Civil War. (In the course of my PH.D studies I was challenged by one of my committee to research this concept as it relates to the question of assigning women to Infantry units. I can share more of this research of this upon request, otherwise I risk inflicting terminal boredom on everyone…)
However, I suspect that many of your quarter-wit acquaintances are simply parroting a bit of ill-understood doctrine, possibly traced back to Robert Heinlein, a very popular writer among the libertarian set, who popularized it in his 1959 novel Starship Troopers. BTW – I love the book, but am surprised how often people mis-represent it.
Had those people said “the right to be considered for service”, I’d have had no disagreement. I simply considered it to be up to the military to determine if an applicant was up to the task. I admired the instructors I met in ROTC. Most of them were decorated Vietnam veterans, and I would not want them to be forced to serve in combat with people who thought they had a “right” to be there.
Could you just give us a taste, PH? I’m intrigued about right to serve in these contexts.
Me, too, PH! Would you rather we PM you for more?
I’m a little late in the discussion, but I need to comment on this. First, this is disingenuous, since it doesn’t say say how many individuals are affected. If 1% of military members are potentially transgender, the the cost is a wash (except for # 2 below); i.e. there is no increase in cost compared to any other service member. I read through the referenced RAND report and it looks like transgenders make up about .01-.04% of military personnel; in other words they will cost 2 1/2 to 10 times as much as other service members. And the numbers are even worse if you consider that only a small percentage are actually undergoing the transition. Based on that, the actual cost is 100-500 times that of healthcare for other military personnel.
Secondly, are we gaining any increase in military effectiveness for this extra expense? It does not matter if the cost is $8.4 million or $8.40 if the military is less able to fight. I would argue that this makes the military less, not more effective.
It is hard enough for a commander to maintain good order and discipline, train troops and keep them safe, accomplish the mission, send troops into harm, handle budgets, report to higher ups, maintain morale on deployments, and ensure the troops’ families are supported. It sucks to high heaven that the PC culture has added worrying about religion, worrying about sexual harassment, worrying about offending, worrying about the environment, worrying about sexual choice, worrying about suicide from high risk transgender, and using the right pronouns to the mix. That we can field an effective fighting force with fewer people, less money, and more worries amazes me. If you think the PC culture will keep you safe, dream on. We still have fine warriors doing their best but one wonders sometimes how much we deserve them.
Well said, E. We should be doing everything we can to help them be effective; instead, we burden them with political correctness and making the right statement. It disturbs me greatly.
Yes, and I didn’t even address the crippling ROE and threat of lawsuits when one actually kills the enemy.