Should trans­gen­der peo­ple be able to serve the U.S. mil­i­tary?

The Denver Post - - OPINION - Re: David Oyler,

“Trump tweet re­vives ban,” July 27 news story.

The pri­mary pur­pose of the mil­i­tary is to kill peo­ple and break things; that is the harsh re­al­ity. Any­thing that de­grades its abil­ity to ac­com­plish that task is bad pol­icy, and adding so­cial ex­per­i­men­ta­tion to its pur­pose cre­ates an un­nec­es­sary com­pli­ca­tion and puts our brave ser­vice mem­bers at risk. Such is the case re­gard­ing trans­gen­der peo­ple. This is­sue does not com­pare with de-seg­re­gat­ing our mil­i­tary decades ago; any able-bod­ied per­son should be able to serve. And, al­low­ing women to serve in com­bat po­si­tions was the right move, pro­vid­ing they meet all of the de­mand­ing phys­i­cal re­quire­ments.

My sug­ges­tion is that a per­son who has un­der­gone gen­der re-as­sign­ment and is le­gally iden­ti­fied as a cer­tain sex should be al­lowed to serve in an ap­pro­pri­ate role. But the mil­i­tary should not be pay­ing for these pro­ce­dures or as­so­ci­ated med­i­ca­tions, as we have way too many ser­vice mem­bers who are still not re­ceiv­ing proper care and med­i­ca­tions for their med­i­cal is­sues.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.