Abstract
In June 2016, the Pentagon reviewed and revised the Department of defense’s accession disqualifications with the effect of lifting the ban on transgender populations from serving in the military, but the debate on the suitability of the new policy has grown even more heated. This paper argues that barring transgender individuals from serving their nation in the most selfless way possible is at odds with both the constitution and the values that the military fights to defend. Given the large number of transgender personnel already serving or having served in the military, there is no reason to believe that their sexual orientation is an impediment to their ability to meet the performance expectations. While a small fraction of transgender personnel may require treatment, such care cannot be termed as unduly burdensome on account of size of the military, number of transgender individuals in service today, as well as their sacrifices for the nation.
An estimated 1,320 to 6,630 transgender personnel were actively serving in the US military and up to 4,160 had been enlisted in the Selected Reserve, while 134,000 veterans are thought to be transgender. These servicemen were largely enlisted due to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) Act of 1993, which required them to hide their gender identity (and by extension forfeit necessary services/protections) under accession disqualification contained in the Department of Defense’s medical guidelines for recruits. The guidelines require candidates to be free from medical conditions that could endanger the health of other personnel, as well as defects/conditions that may need excessive time away from duty or result in excessive difficulty in completing and/or adapting the necessary training or military environments. This paper makes a case in support of the Pentagon’s new policy, asserting that Americans that want to serve their country, and meet the required standards of services, must be afforded the opportunity to serve their country.
The ban on transgender populations from serving in the military does not only serve to deprive the military of qualified individuals happy to serve their nation, but perhaps most importantly, it serves as a basis for unwarranted discriminations for transgender personnel and veterans. The US’ all voluntary army is founded on honor, trust, above all, having individuals who meet the standard. These individuals make great sacrifices in the service of their nation and its constitution. The constitution recognizes the equality of all human beings, notwithstanding their individual circumstances, and this very constitution embodies values that all Americans must defend. The military personnel epitomize this readiness to protect their nation’s values and beliefs to the extent of laying down their lives, and the least they deserve from their nation, is recognition and protection. While the DADT made it possible for transgender individuals to serve in the military, the requirement for them not to disclose their sexual orientation, created loopholes under which people that openly identify themselves as transgender and/or are discovered to be, can be discharged and lose their benefits. Even most importantly, the closet created by DADT means that transgender personnel are deprived of medically necessary health care and other services, with a possible detriment to their wellbeing (Dietert and Dentice 4; Elders and Steinman 7).
With up to 15,500 transgender personnel serving in active duty or in the Reserve/Guard forces, such neglect does a disservice to men and women serving their nation under difficult circumstances. Research evidence points to extreme psychological and medical restrictions against transgender personnel, coupled with the military’s broad power to discharge any individuals on account of behaviors that are contrary to good order. Depriving transgender personnel of medically necessary health care is considerably detrimental to their wellbeing. This is not last because the US military policy required that the provision of mental and substance abuse treatment or services to its personnel must be reported, and since transgender personnel have no access to such help within the service, they are forced to forgo treatment.
The long-standing ban that was largely based on the assertion that transgender individuals’ sexual orientation does by its very nature, and/or, as a result of it, constitute a factor that interferes with the ability of such individuals to perform their duty, endangers self and others, and/or imposes undue burdens for care. Under the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health (DSM-5), transgender populations undergo significant distress related to their transgender status, known as gender dysphoria, which demands pharmacologic, surgical, and psychosocial care. A section of transgender individuals opt to transition to genders different from that assigned to them, while others require ongoing hormone therapy, plastic surgery, hair removal, and other care to align with their gender identity. A section of those that medically transition may require costly reassignment surgery to render their bodies as congruent as possible with their chosen gender identity. Their conditions may also affect their training, their adaptation to the combat environment, relationships, and ultimately, imposes considerable costs on the military. Effectively, such discrimination is necessary, particularly because it leads to the creation of a strong, combat-ready, and efficiently administered fighting force. Further, the military actually discriminates on a variety of multiple other grounds. For instance, the military based on height, felons, single parents, weight, conscientious objections, political beliefs, visual acuity, mental ability, and even physical ability.
It is instructive, however, that the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military has not had the consequence of discouraging them from enrolling, given the 15,500 personnel in service today, and the more than 134,000 veterans. Even if it was true that their presence in the military hurts its performance, and there is no such evidence, such a policy only serves to institutionalize neglect of the medical needs of these personnel, particularly since it also blocks other avenues for them to receive such help. With respect to the undue burden of health care, private health insurance data on the utilization rates among the civilian population, indicates that only 29-129 active military personnel are likely to want to seek any form of gender transition while in the service, while 30-140 and 25-130 are likely to seek hormone therapy and surgical reassignment treatment, respectively. Given the size and resources available to the US military, it is difficult to argue that such as small fraction of its personnel can impose an undue financial or other burden to it. Even most importantly, some of the health difficulties suffered by transgender personnel stem from the repression/discrimination suffered while in the service, as against, it being a direct consequence of their gender.
Bans on transgender personnel in the military, even with the DADT, has the consequence of forcing service members to live in a repressive closet, and exposes them to the risk of continual harassment and discrimination. This, in turn, exposes them to psychological/mental and physical health problems, for which they are incapable of finding help because bans block avenues to formally provide for such needs. Even most importantly, there is actually no compelling medical, tactical, financial or other reason for barring transgender individuals both from serving at all, and serving openly in the military. This is not least because only a fraction of transgender servicemen are likely to seek treatments thought to be unduly burdensome, and given the sacrifices that such individuals make for their nation, affording them such care is the least the country can do for them.
Works Cited
Dietert, Michelle and Dianne Dentice. "The Transgender Military Experience: Their Battle for Workplace Rights." Journal of Workplace Rights 1.2 (2015): 1-12. Print.
This article is peer-reviewed and published in a respectable journal, hence reliable. The credibility of the authors i.e. Prof. Dietert is a researcher and lecturer at Texas A&M University, while Dr. Kileen is a researcher Stephen F. Austin State University, also adds to its credibility. This paper offers a helpful insight into the experiences of transgender personnel in the military, including the effects of DADT. It shows how the ban has the effect of institutionalizing neglect for the needs of the personnel as against fostering competency of the service.
Elders, Joycelyn and Alan, M. Steinman. Report of the Transgender Military Service Commission. Commission Report. Washington, D.C.: PALM Center, 2014. Web.
PALM Center produces scholarship designed to foster the quality of public debate about serious and controversial public policy matters, besides advancing policies/laws that increase the public understanding of such issues. It is non-partisan, and thus its work is highly to be without bias. The report provides specific background into the Department of Defense's medical guidelines that effectively bar transgender individuals and other groups from serving openly in the military. This, in turn, helps provide a perspective into the basis for the policy. The report also offers insights into the medical factors pertaining to transgender military service and provides helpful recommendations as to whether to repeal or maintain the policy.
Rizzo, Jennifer and Zachary Cohen. Pentagon ends transgender ban. 1 July 2016. Web. 31 July 2016. <http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/30/politics/transgender-ban-lifted-us-military/>.
Given the recent lifting of the ban on transgender individuals serving openly in the military, this news article was important in providing the current state of affairs for the purposes of this paper. CNN is a fairly reliable news source, and thus the choice of this article. In addition, the article includes videos and related news links which provide a deeper insight into the issues surrounding this policy, including important policy agents involved.
Schaefer, Agnes Gereben, et al. The Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly in the Military. Policy Brief. Washington, D.C.: RAND Corporation, 2016. Print.
This is a policy brief prepared by the RAND Corporation’s National Defense Research Institute, which assessed, among others, the implications of permitting transgender personnel to serve openly in the military. Other than the fact that the authors are leading researchers and practitioners in the field, this report offers a helpful background to the issue as well as arguments both in support and against the policy. It includes statistics on the estimated number of transgender serving in the military, and evaluates the arguments in support of the policy, including practical accommodations for such populations within the military.
Witten, Tarynn M. Gender Identity and the Military - Transgender, Transsexual, and Intersex- identified Individuals in the U.S. Armed Forces. Santa, Barbara: Michael D. Palm Center University of California, 2007. Print.
This is a report makes the point that discriminatory practices in the military are not unheard of, but transgender discrimination lacks sound medical or even technical justification. It argues that discriminatory policies are a consequences of dated scientific foundation and rigid policy-making structures that have prevented changes in the wake of ne medical and scientific information. The article is credible on account of the fact that it is peer-reviewed and the researcher is a renowned academic, direct and senior fellow at the TranScience Research Institute.
