Trans ban unfair, unneeded
In a sudden reversal of policy, President Donald Trump recently announced transgendered people would no longer be eligible to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. Yet a 2016 Rand study found that the costs of gender transition related health care are relatively low, and that allowing them to serve openly has no effect on military readiness. Furthermore, according to estimates, thousands of transgendered people are already serving on active duty.
As a veteran, I am deeply concerned about what this sudden reversal means for our armed forces. After the Pentagon’s end to the ban on transgendered service members last year, many transgendered troops have just come out to their units — only to be told now that they are banned from serving.
At a time when the military’s role around the world is growing, the sudden reversal of policy creates unnecessary disruption, shuns good service members and limits the pool of potential candidates. This is not only a discrimination issue but it also directly affects readiness, national security and morale.
This year at a conference in Washington, I had the pleasure of meeting a high-ranking Department of Defense civilian working in naval intelligence. Born a male, she was finally ready to transition to female about 10 years ago to the gender she felt she actually was meant to be. The decision was extraordinarily difficult as her colleagues were very conservative, and so rather than create controversy or attract undue attention, she was prepared to discreetly resign from her hardearned position. Yet, instead of ostracizing her or agreeing with her decision to resign quietly, the commanding officer listened to her, embraced her situation and rallied the whole office behind her medical decision. He couldn’t afford to lose her talent, regardless of her gender. Now, that is leadership.
For many Americans, there is a huge misunderstanding as to who transgendered people are and what they want. Most transgendered people are hard-working Americans with a serious medical issue that has plagued them throughout their entire life. The medical community is sophisticated enough to address their condition and offer transgendered people a better chance at living a more fulfilling life, while officers have stated that the military is open to all people, so long as they meet the standard. So why would the president forbid them from serving?
Diane Maye is a former U.S. Air Force officer, defense industry professional, and a member of the Truman National Security Project’s Defense Council. She wrote this for Insidesources.com.
My first thought when I saw Mike Measday’s letter to the editor, which filled an entire column of the Op-ed page, made me wonder if folks who normally write letters to the editor went on holiday. Look, I’m glad that Measday had the opportunity have his voice heard, but I can’t let this go without commentary.
I was struck by the specificity and detail in which Measday enumerated Trump’s failings and yet seemed to justify his vote as being more of a vote against Hillary Clinton for reasons that lack any specificity or detail. Measdaycharacterizes Clintonasoffering, “more of the same old empty lies and dirty politics emblematic of Washington.”
Exactly what lies and what dirty politics? Keep in mind that Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives for six of the eight years of Barack Obama’s presidency and controlled the Senate for two of the eight years of Obama’s term in office. So what dirty politics are we talking about? Would it be the Republican determination to make President Obama a one-term president? That kind of dirty? Perhaps blocking President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee from a Senate hearing? That kind of dirty?
Some points that Measday cites to support his argument are just plain wrong.
As an example, Measday characterizes Obama’s short term in the U.S. Senate before becoming elected as president to support a characterization that Obama lacked experience in government. I would remind Measday that before he was elected president, Obama was a constitutional scholar and professor and served in the Illinois Legislature for eight years.
Measday’s point that because there is no law requiring a person running for president to release tax returns and therefore Trump gets a pass seems quite flaccid. The purpose of a candidate releasing tax information is to provide information to the American people for them to assess the individuals they may vote for. Measday is correct that there is no law requiring the release of Trump’s tax returns. I would only say in response that the law is the ethical minimum.
After reading Measday’s letter it seemed to be yet another regurgitation of those often-repeated, overly broad and unsubstantiated attacks against Hillary Clinton. It sure