Transgender military service

What do you know? Albert the Pious is opposed to allowing transgenders to serve in the military, arguing, basically, that it’s always been that way. Unfortunately, this is in a The Briefing episode, and no transcript is available; you’ll have to listen. Ironically, the segment is entitled Why the concept of ‘lethality’ must be considered when it comes to military policy — exactly the point I made here:

No one, including the lawyers for the Trump administration, has been able to show that inclusion of transgender service members or providing care to them has had any measurable negative impact on morale, readiness or unit cohesion. The chiefs of staff of all four service branches of the military have testified to Congress that there have been no issues.

This goes directly to the only licit question: Does the presence of transgender troops impair the ability of our armed forces to fight?

If the judgment of the people I have to trust to know is that it does, I would hold my nose and support Trump’s ban. If it does not — as seems to be the case — then transgenders who wish to join the military should be able to do so.

Unfortunately, Mohler does not consult the people who are competent to judge whether or not our ability to fight is impaired. If Mohler is unwilling to trust the Joint Chiefs — The Inerrant Bible! The Inerrant Bible! — perhaps he is willing to trust the judgment of a great many of America’s allies which allow transgenders to serve openly?

  • Australia

  • Austria

  • Belgium

  • Bolivia

  • Canada

  • Czech Republic

  • Denmark

  • Estonia

  • Finland

  • France

  • Germany

  • Ireland

  • Israel

  • Netherlands

  • New Zealand

  • Norway

  • Spain

  • Sweden

  • Thailand

  • United Kingdom

Mohler will doubtless be comforted to learn that Iran, at least, treats transgenders as second class citizens.

As of 2017, Iran requires all male citizens over age 18 to serve in the military except for transgender women, who are classified as having mental disorders. New military identity cards listed the subsection of the law dictating this exemption. This practice of identifying transgender individuals put them at risk of physical abuse and discrimination.

Birds of a feather, looks like to me.

UPDATE:   A transcript of Mohler’s remarks is now available. The important quote:

The argument that the Trump Administration is making is one that is backed up by centuries. You could even say millennia of military experience and that is that when you bring into the confines of a military fighting force extraneous issues or even complications that do not belong there you subvert and you diminish the lethality of your own defense forces. To get to the bottom line on this issue, the policy does not say the transgender persons would not intend to serve the country well even bravely and courageously. It is simply a reflection of the fact that when you insert gender confusion, gender dysphoria, transgender identity into the unique confines of a fighting force in the context of training and of deployment you are reducing the lethality. You are confusing the very purpose of your military.

By the way, that is a modern problem. Confusing the purpose of the military for many especially on the cultural left in this country the military is a way of bringing about social change, not a way of defending the country and its national interest.

Mohler’s argument here is, basically, transgenders have always been outsiders. That’s true — but it’s not evidence that bears upon fitness. And, again, the commanders of almost 2-dozen countries’ fighting forces, the people most competent to make the judgment, profess unconcern. That’s good enough for me.

Oh … one more thing: Does Mohler really not know that he sounds, almost word for word, like the smug racist morons who had conniption fits when Truman ordered the integration of the armed forces?

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.