The United States military got great public and media attention as a result of the well-publicized repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law (Ross, 2014). The repeal of this sexual orientation exclusion law was a paramount step towards achieving an entirely integrated military as well as recognizing that lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals have the capacity to serve openly and have a successful career in the Military (Kerrigan, 2012). However, to the transgender community, this repeal was another ‘bridesmaid moment.’ Even though the U.S military today allows bisexual, lesbian and gay persons to serve openly, the transgender community members are still categorically barred from service due to medical as well as psychological regulations (Horton, 2014). Today’s United States Army must rescind its ban on transgender individuals from serving. Moreover, it must recognize that nothing renders this group uniformly or inherently unfit for the military (O’Leary & Sprigg, 2015).
Background
Before addressing why the US military needs to reverse its ban on transgender soldiers in service, it is crucial to explain who is involved in this military exclusion. This involves looking into the gender theory to explain how transgenderism and explain what it implies to be a transgender individual as well as explain military’s regulatory exclusion of this group.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Gender Binary
Today, our society has been dominated by a gender binary. That is, the ideology of a human body only assuming only two biological forms, the female body and the male body (Ross, 2014). This female/male binary has lasted for decades and encompasses both a gender binary and a biological binary. On one hand, the gender binary is a socially constructed and culturally defined set of conventional behaviors for biologically defined women and men (Horton, 2014). On the other side, the biological binary generally focusses on sex, which is assigned to an individual at birth and encompasses attributes such as genitalia, chromosomes, and hormones (Kerrigan, 2012). While one is assigned their sex at birth, gender is imparted from a young age and is recurrently enforced all through life. For example, male and female children are taught to play particular games, like given colors as well as confine themselves to their gender-conforming behaviors. Moreover, the gender binary guides the people one can interact with, marry, and even the type of clothing one should wear. In the same way as sex binary gender binary categories individuals into males and females which are mutually exclusive. Therefore, it is impermissible in gender binary for one to transcend themselves into the other category or even embodying attributes of both sexes simultaneously (O’Leary & Sprigg, 2015). The US military enforces this binary in several ways. For instance, both men and women are gender-segregated in training as well as housing. Until 2013, women were prohibited from serving in direct ground combat positions (Ross, 2014). Moreover, for many years, the military has been considered a male-oriented institution. As a result, service is difficult for women, gay, lesbian, transgender individuals, bisexual persons as well as any other gender non-conforming persons who are not heterosexually identified males (Kerrigan, 2012).
What It Implies To Be a Transgender Person
Transgenderism strongly challenges the sex-binary that is assumed by both the military and our society. The term transgender broadly encompasses individuals whose gender identity, expressions, or behaviors do not conform to the sex they were assigned at birth (O’Leary & Sprigg, 2015). These individuals express their sexes in different ways. Most of them chose to transition to the opposite gender or in-between male and female (Ross, 2014). The transitions process differs with individuals, but in most instances, it incorporates embodying the desired sex via clothes and grooming, adopting a new name, identity documents and using hormones therapy treatment or medical procedures to conform their bodies to their desired sex-identity.
Current Military Regulations
In the US military, transgender issues arise at enlistment, during services as well as in the inactive reserve. Before joining the military, it is mandatory for individuals to undergo both psychological and physical examinations, both of which can be used to disqualify a transgender prospect. The Army’s Standards of Medical Fitness defines ways serving, and prospective members may be disqualified which is inclusive of sex-reassignment surgery as well as identifying as a transgender individual. Surgically sex-reassigned transgender persons are disqualified during physical examination under a medical regulation (Ross, 2014). Those who have not taken surgery but identify as transgender are declared ineligible under the psychological examination based on disorders such as transsexualism, transvestism, GID, and psychosexual conditions (Kerrigan, 2012). Those in service are required to pass as their biological sex implying that they are prohibited to take hormones, take gender-reassignment surgery, and must hind their sex-identities as well as transgenderism, failure to which they risk dismissal. This also applies to recalled members of the inactive reserve. These regulations are in direct violation of the nation’s ideal of fairness and equality. Transgender persons in the military have for long served to protect the nation and they have showed that they have the capability to do so without affecting the military’s effectiveness.
Why The Government Should Rescind The Military Service Ban On Transgender Individuals
From an ethical perspective, it is wrong to categorically bar the transgender service members from serving in the military. The medical regulations that bar transgender services are purely focused on the gender of an individual and not in any way focused on their ability to serve in the military. No one has the ability to determine his or her biological binary at birth. The ban on transgender people to serve in the military is unethical move that is targeted at punishing them for being in a situation that they have no control over. These flaws have been exposed by cases of successful and high achieving transgender service members in the US military. Today, Gender Identity Disorder (GID) diagnosis is uniformly used to disqualify every transgender individual who exhibits its symptoms, which is unethical (Ross, 2014). Moreover, the recent effort of American Psychiatric Association to change GID diagnosis to gender dysphoria prompts a reevaluation of this categorical exclusion of transgender persons from military service.
Transgenderism Does Not Affect a Person’s Service Capability
Our society has for centuries defined what a man or a woman can or cannot do. This gender responsibility allocation creates a notion that a certain gender is limited in certain ways in regards to given activities. However, as proven by many people today, it is unethical to presume that an individual’s gender can limit his or her capacity to serve in the US military. One such example is S.C., a prominent transgender pilot in US Military history. Irrespective of her transgenderism, S.C. had a fruitful military career, with thousands of combat hours. Despite being a transgender person, S.C’s gender identity did not in any way limit her capability to do her job. Mick Andoso served for over twenty years as a woman and managed to earn himself the rank of First Sergeant in the Air Force (Horton, 2014). His work at military’s defense language institution in California earned himself made him one of the top airmen in the military. Allyson Robinson is another veteran transgender person who while serving as a man, commanded a Patriot missile unit in the Middle East and Europe. These examples among others clearly illustrate that transgenderism does not make an individual automatically or inherently unfit for service. Therefore, the military is wrong to categorize transgenderism as a reason to bar transmen and transwomen from serving their country despite their capability and willingness. A military decoration is more of patriotism as opposed to one’s gender identity (Ross, 2014). This ban has in several instances proved counterproductive. For instance, a transgender service person can academically be more qualified compared to a non-transgender service member. It is, therefore, unethical for the military to bar qualified transgender persons who are more educated and willing to serve based on their gender identity or having had sex-reassignment operations.
Current Military Medical Policies and Transgender Medical Requirements
Military’s disqualification of transgender individuals on the grounds of medical concerns contravenes the way it addresses other medical diagnosis and conditions. One of the wrong presumptions the military holds over transgender persons is that they need constant medical treatment. Moreover, not every transgender individual requires sex-reassignment operations. Currently, the military allows women to take hormones (oral contraceptives) during military service. As a result, it is unethical to bar transgender service members to take transitioning hormones. Women who take hormones in the services deliver their services to the military efficiently. The hormones have not affected their service ability. Therefore, there are no grounds for assuming that permitting transgender individuals to take transitioning hormones will affect their capabilities to serve (Ross, 2014). Hence, since cisgender women are permitted to take hormones orally, the same should be permitted for both transmen and transwomen. Banning transgender individuals from serving renders the military institution unethical through its discrimination and lack of equity and fairness for its members.
Psychological Regulations and Transgenderism
Transgender services members who pass the medical regulations are subjected to second qualification evaluation. Once again, this practice is unethical from the perspective of subjecting transgender individuals in more qualification criteria than non-transgender people. If one is diagnosed with GID, which is considered mental disorder in the military, they are disqualified from service. According to American Psychiatric Association, GID is the psychiatric diagnosis for transgender individuals in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) IV (O’Leary & Sprigg, 2015). The military has relied on the GID diagnosis as described in DSM-IV as disqualification criteria. However, with the 2013 DSM-V, which changed the GID diagnosis to gender dysphoria, it remains unclear how the military will react to this change (Kerrigan, 2012). Just like transgender persons undergoing hormone therapy or sex-reassignment operations, individuals diagnosed with GID are not automatically unfit to serve in the military. Therefore, the military should acknowledge the capability of transgender individuals to serve and rescind the segregated ban on individuals diagnosed with GID.
Other Oppositions to Transgender Service
Unit Cohesion is one of the recurrent objection to transgender military service. There is a general fear that allowing transmen and transwomen to serve openly will affect weaken the unit cohesion. However, this argument is implausible and unethical. The argument has racial segregation backgrounds, and to this date, no evidence indicates that transgenderism threatens aspects of trust and bonding, interfering with unit cohesion or in any way impeded the overall performance of the military (Ross, 2014). Moreover, studies conducted from countries that openly allow gay individuals to serve in the military such as Canada, Britain, South Africa, Israel and Austria indicated that transitions to equal treatment policies irrespective of sexual orientation had no adverse effect on unit cohesion, morale, readiness, retention as well as overall combat effectiveness. As such, there are no solid grounds to argue that allowing transgender individuals to serve in the military will adversely affect unit cohesion.
The US’s Military unit cohesion argument basis for categorical exclusion is rendered inadequate by the experience of nations that allow open transgender service. Currently, countries such as Canada, Norway, Spain, Austria, Thailand, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Israel have permitted transgender persons to openly serve in the military. Other countries such as Brazil, Netherlands, and Belgium allow transmen and transwomen to serve under given restriction (Kerrigan, 2012). More countries are as well including transgender service to the military and none has reported that transgenderism affects unit cohesion or military performance. As a result, the inclusion policy has not been reversed in the above countries. The experience of these countries is an adequate reason for the US military to stop discriminating against the transgender individuals and instead rescind its ban and show support for this group.
The other objection is financial burdens that the military will have to incur if it allows transgender people to serve openly in the military. This objection cites the monumental accommodation and sex-reassignment surgeries costs that some transgender individuals chose to undergo (O’Leary & Sprigg, 2015). However, this objection has numerous limitation. First, not every transgender person wants to undertake sex-reassignment surgery; hence, the cost cannot in any way be monumental. Secondly, given the small number of transgender persons in military service, it is illogical to assume medical care costs of the transgender individuals will be high. Finally, their small number makes the demand for sex-reassignment operations very small. Moreover, its costs are approximately equal to the cost of common military injuries such as repair for Achilles tendonitis (Ross, 2014). Nonetheless, in upholding ethics, the military must treat all the soldiers equally irrespective of their financial or medical requirements.
The repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, along with the reversal of the Combat Exclusion Policy as well as revised DSM-V creates an opportune moment for the military to rescind its ban on transgender persons to serve. The military can treat the case, transgender people, the same way it deals with other diagnosis and conditions. Since it allows serving women to take oral hormones (contraceptives), it can also permit the transgender people to take oral hormones in the form of pills. The military regulation also stipulates that diabetic people under insulin should be deployed in areas where insulin is available and can be stored properly. Similarly, it can require that transgender individuals taking hormones to be deployed in areas appropriate medical care or proper storage of the hormones can be assured (Horton, 2014). In so doing, it will upheld the ideal of equal opportunity and fairness that the nation prides itself in. However, enacting such a change will not be simple given that policies against transgender individuals are in both military statutes and regulations. Moreover, two section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) prohibits conduct that is not complaisant to military personnel. Although not clearly stated, the sections have been considered to incorporate non-conforming sex conduct such as cross-dressing (Kerrigan, 2012).As a result, transgender person dressing as their lived sex can be penalized under the UCMJ.
The best way to implement this change in the military is a federal statute. The country as a whole has to take responsibility to end this injustice against the transgender community whose existence is not acknowledged in the society. Once the statute is passed by the Congress and signed by the President, it will supersede the current military policies that ban transgender persons from serving in the military. The federal statute is more powerful since it can revise the psychological and medical regulations as well as put some limitations on the UCMJ. As a result, this paper urges the Congress to enact a federal statute to order both branches of the military to eliminate or reverse the psychological and medical discriminations against transgender individuals. It should also ensure that transgender persons dressing in accordance with their lived gender are not penalized by exempting them from the UCMJ. Rescinding the ban on transgender persons to serve in the US military will enhance its strength, readiness and will as well as promote the nation’s fairness and equality ideals.
References
Kerrigan, M. F. (2012). Transgender discrimination in the military: The new don't ask, don't tell: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law , 18 (3), 500.
Ross, A. (2014). The invisible army: Why the military needs to rescind its ban on transgender service members. S. Cal. Interdisc LJ , 23 , 185.
Horton, H. K. (2014). Gendered Bodies and the US Military: Exploring the Institutionalized Regulation of Bodies.
O’Leary, D., & Sprigg, P. (2015). Understanding and Responding to the Transgender Movement: Family Research Council Issue Analysis, Executive Summary .
