Abstract
The US military is discriminative in a variety of ways. For instance, the military does not include, which implies that it discriminates against individuals with any of a list of medical health conditions, objectors of consciousness, transsexuals, handicapped people, felons, and single parents. Additionally, the military is discriminative on age, youth, language, religious affiliations, political beliefs, visual acuity, mental and physical abilities, weight, and height. Additionally, all the policies of the military in the US are discriminative. Such policies discriminate against groups or individuals with a credible success potential soldiering and others that do not. The service secretaries, Secretary of Defense, and Congress pass such discriminative policies in the fulfillment of the obligation to compose combat-ready, healthy, and efficiently managed armed forces. While the basis of discrimination is broad-ranging, the focus of this essay is on transsexuals. The work argues that while policies that discriminate against the transsexuals in the army have been existing for a long time now, it is time they were scrapped and inclusive ones constituted to attain equality.
Introduction
The September 2011 decision that saw the removal of the DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) did not have a direct effect on the policies concerning transgender individuals that currently serve or those that may wish to serve the US military (Yerke & Mitchell, 2013). In fact, DADT did not deal with the issues of the transgender community to entirety. Indeed, entry into the US military remains restricted to transgender individuals who are transgender when such people are identified or when they admit openly to being transsexuals or transgender (Bockting, et al., 2013). Additionally, as with the lesbians and the gays that served under DADT, the transgender that serves the US army currently cannot work openly without any fears of being dismissed from their service (Yerke & Mitchell, 2013).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to (Stryker & Whittle, 2016), transgender is considered a complicated internal struggle for gender identity. The gender with which individuals identify has a difference from that which they were assigned at birth. Such complexities of transgender are additionally echoed within the psychiatric and medical communities that related to the treatment and classification as well as in the terminology utilized in the representation of the numerous identities that are extant under the term of gender identity, transgender. The classification and evolution of transgender in the International Classification of Diseases of the World Health Organization and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association has resulted in transformations in the category of diagnosis and the classification of transgender (Kerrigan, 2012). Forces pushing for the transformation in the classification of the issue as a mental disorder by professionals in the mental health sector, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the European Union and different advocacy groups for transgender have been effective. For instance, they have caused a shift in the manner in which the civilian society perceives the transgender community and might have the same effect on practices and policies in the US military (D'emilio, 2013).
Unless stated otherwise, transgender in this writing relates to all people that have a cross-gender identification regardless of whether or not surgical or hormonal treatments have been used in transitioning their gender or if such transitioning is planned. Transsexual is used interchangeably with transgender within the same work since the author finds the two terms similar according to the definition provided by (D'emilio, 2013).
History and Definitions Transsexuals in the Army
The Department of Defense has held for a long time that transsexuals are sexual deviants, which means that they should not be allowed to serve in the US army. This policy also meant that any individuals that would identify themselves openly with being transgender were not allowed to serve the US military even while they would meet other criteria that define who a US soldier should be (Kerrigan, 2012). The Obama administration attempted to repeal the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, which had prevented men and women who confessed openly to being bisexuals, lesbians, or gays from offering their services to the army on ground that such gender identities interfered with the preparedness of the US for battle as well as causing unnecessary medical costs and related issues (Brown, 2012). However, it should be noted that President Obama’s move only resulted from the pressure from LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) activities that were pushing for equal rights for all individuals.
Even with the repeal of the DADT policy in 2010, most of the individuals in the US did not understand that the DADT policy had no relationship with persons who were transgender (Gates & Herman, 2014). People with such a sexual orientation continued to be banned from rendering their service to the military by different regulatory framework within each of the five divisions of the US armed forces as well as a directive of the Department of Defense that imposed specific medical and psychological restrictions (Brown, 2012). Such restrictions were so strict that they did not leave any room for an evaluation of the readiness to serve for each individual that applied to serve the military. Even while transgender is a variant concept from that of homosexuality, the rights of transsexuals need not be ignored in the discussion of the repealing of the DADT policy that was thought to be controversial. For instance, studies such as (Gates & Herman, 2014) indicate that most of the transsexual individuals that served in the military were asked at one point of their service within the military if they were gay or straight, which caused many of them to be discharged from their duties.
Although restrictive measures are in place to hinder transsexuals from serving in the US military, there is still a significant number of them in the military. Perhaps a majority of them did not reveal their status during recruitment for fear of victimization and discrimination. It is usually too late for those in higher authority to take action against them especially if their services are valuable to the military. Different studies give varying figures of the actual number of transsexuals serving in the defense forces in the country. In a 2014 study conducted by UCLA, it was estimated that approximately 15, 500 individuals were either working on active duty or in the Guard or Reserve forces (Gates & Herman, 2014). The study relied on data collected by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force as well as the National Center for Transgender Equality. The study was carried out over a duration of six months, and experts posit that it drew the largest sample of transgender individuals in the US available at that period. However, the researchers cautioned that there was no direct information that could be used to tabulate the exact number of transgender individuals serving in the US military. As such, the survey made many assumptions which could affect the accuracy of the results. The given estimates by the researchers indicate that indeed transsexuals serve in the military even in portions that are higher than that of the general population.
A 2016 study carried out by the RAND Corp., which was flagged by the Pentagon came out with even much lower estimates as compared to those of the UCLA study. The researchers estimated that transsexuals serving on active duty ranged between 1, 320 and 6, 630 while those serving in reserve capacities ranged between 830 and 4, 160 (Gates & Herman, 2014). That would translate to between 2, 150 and 10, 790 transgender service members. Researchers in this study claim to have derived their data from multiple surveys. Nonetheless, they also indicate that there is a challenge of carrying out such a type of study in the military because of the unresponsiveness of many individuals who may fall under such category.
Accepting transsexuals in the army
Debate still rages over the inclusion of people with different sexual orientations in the military service. A different school of thought supports the inclusion of transsexuals and gives a myriad of reasons. First, if the military resolves to exclude a particular demographic group from equal employment opportunities, the concerned individuals will encounter stigma. The group will feel inferior regarding offering civic duty to the country. The US, as one of the prominent countries that have been championing equality, may face criticism from other countries. The country will lose the authority to compel other nations to stop discriminating individuals based on their sexual orientations (D'emilio, 2013). Around the globe, many nations are guided by the notion that all citizens are required to serve their nations when the need arises. Giving opportunity to transsexual military personnel to serve their country would be a big step towards the attainment of equality, an aspect which the US direly champions. Experts also suggest that allowing transsexuals in the military leads to diversification which is an element that is critical in the twenty-first century.
Experts point out that the military still recruits men and women. Therefore, it ought not to have a problem with recruiting transsexuals. If the military only admitted a single gender, then it would be justified in rejecting transsexuals (Blockting et al., 2013). The facilities that are available in the military cater for both the sexes hence admitting individuals with any sexual orientation is not expected to change anything. Militaries also often bring out the medical cost factor as one of the reasons to discharge transsexuals from military service. However, the military still incurs costs in recommending hormone treatments for several reasons and conditions apart from sexual orientation related issues. Even though the cost of gender realignment surgery is high, studies indicate that only less than 2 percent of transsexuals decide to undergo gender realignment surgery (D'emilio, 2013). Too much talk on medical costs seems to make the public think that transsexuals require specialized medical attention from time to time. Many individuals forget that being transsexual is not a disorder, but just a sexual orientation issue. Transsexuals are just as healthy as the heterosexuals.
Also, there is a notion among many people that say that transsexuals are unfit for service. However, some experts dispute such a preconception saying there is no empirical evidence. Most people associate transsexuals with conditions and disorders such as anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts. Scholars with a different school of thought allude that some transsexuals may experience such conditions as a result of being discriminated and not as a natural occurrence (Cooper, 2017). They suggest that such conditions may be eliminated if the individuals are given equal opportunity as well as the full support.
Individuals advocating for the inclusion of transsexuals in the military cite various countries that allow transgender service. Most prominently, the British Armed Forces, Israeli Defense Forces, and the Canadian Armed Forces allow transsexuals to serve in their militaries and do not find any undesirable impacts on the performance, teamwork or the morals of the members (Brown, 2012). If such countries can successfully incorporate transsexuals, then the US should have no problem with doing the same. If the current service men and women with transsexual identities are discharged of their militaries duties, there will be a big vacuum which might be difficult to fill. A significant number of the transsexuals hold strategic positions, and if they lack replacement, the security of the nation will be compromised. Placing the security of the country in jeopardy just because of getting rid of fit transsexuals does not sound logical (Cooper, 2017). It is even part of the reasons why high ranking military officials are skeptic despite the high political debate on the issue.
Denying transsexuals from serving in the army
The most vocal person recently against transsexuals serving in the military has been the US president, Donald Trump. Despite a majority of citizens as well as various stakeholders having no problem with transsexuals working in the army, Trump together with other like-minded individuals cites some reasons why they are opposed to the idea of transsexuals serving in the army. The first reason that is given is the medical costs (Jones, Deeken & Eshelman, 2014). Quite often, some transsexuals apply for gender reassignment surgeries. Studies reveal that it costs approximately $1.3 billion in healthcare costs administered to transgender service individuals. Moreover, some individuals take advantage of the military’s resources to fund their gender reassignment agendas. The figure of $1.3 billion was arrived at by using the number of 15, 500 active-duty and reserve transsexual personnel in the military. On the average, it costs approximately $132, 000 to perform a single surgery (Jones, Deeken & Eshelman, 2014). When the US compares its costs to other countries, the government feels the expenses would have been incurred on other pressing issues. The government also thinks to tolerate such kind of freedom encourages more people to request for the surgeries. Trump suggests that the military ought to give service to the nation as opposed to making the government incur ‘unnecessary’ losses.
A prominent argument placed against transsexuals is that they have a mental illness and therefore they are unfit for service. Transsexuals are associated with high incidences of depression and suicide. These conditions arise from the fluctuation of hormones estrogen and testosterone (Brown, 2012). The imbalance of these hormones affects the mood of personnel in the military and might compromise their capability. When the personnel is deployed to remote or field training settings, they might not perform well if they are affected by the hormonal imbalance.
Another argument suggested is that the military needs cohesion for smooth running. Some of the transsexuals are usually drawn back. In the circumstances that commanders in the units in which the transgender individuals serve do not perceive them positively, they may retract and participate in the activities of the military reluctantly (Jones, Deeken & Eshelman, 2014). To boost the morale of the transsexuals, special considerations would have to be made. Unfortunately, the military life requires that the service personnel live in innate structures. Changing the living conditions of the transsexuals will come with huge cost implications. Perhaps the whole military living structure will have to be changed, an aspect that may affect the security arrangements of the barracks. Many stakeholders, therefore, see it best to reject the recruitment of the transsexuals to avoid such eventualities.
Therefore from the reasons given, many people are of the view that the military will waste time debating issues regarding gender orientations instead of laying down military strategies. Some of the transgender individuals may request to be treated differently from the rest and hence miss out on some crucial military activities. It is essential that the military does its defense role instead of engaging in discussions that are not in tandem with its functions.
Solution
Ultimately, banning transsexuals from serving in the military does not help the military. Transsexuals are also up to the task, and if they are excluded from the military, the military might miss out on invaluable skills that could be useful during crucial times. If the army becomes the first institution to enforce such discriminatory policies, other agencies may emulate it and justify their actions. When different groups are discriminated by inherent characteristics, many of them may not strive to contribute to the development of the country (Marchant & Marchant, 2017). Such situations compromise America’s objective of fairness and promotion of national unity.
Many parties are of the view that the military ought to be more concerned about how individuals ought to behave in the camps and not what individuals to recruit. Bearing in mind that transsexuals have no physical disorder, there is no proper ground that the military can refute the services of transsexuals. The military should make it clear that there will be no differential treatment to transsexuals once they are enlisted in the army (Cooper, 2017). That all military personnel is supposed to serve the country without expecting favors from the government. The army should also state that their objective is to be the world’s most potent force and not a politically correct force (McDuffie & Brown, 2014). The army is charged with the responsibility of preparing its members for warfare. Members who wish to have their gender realigned should not expect the military to incur the costs. Instead, they should find their way of doing the operation at their own expense. However, the surgeries ought not to affect their service delivery (Kerrigan, 2012). When called upon to offer their services, they should do so without excuses or delays. As much as they are given the freedom to attend to their needs, they should be made to understand that they are bound by the same rules as other service personnel. Experts say that the military should have written contracts that require all recruits not to conduct themselves in a manner that may compromise their service delivery (Marchant & Marchant, 2017). Signing such documents will commit everyone to the demands of the country above personal needs.
Commanders that have transsexuals in their units should provide an environment that fosters cohesion rather than segregation. Their leadership should enhance equal participation. Roles should be given by merit and not sexual orientation (McDuffie & Brown, 2014). When commanders view transsexuals differently from the rest of the troops, they may affect their emotions hence reduce their morale. The transsexuals should also be expected to consider themselves as not different from the other service personnel. They should adapt to the available military amenities such as accommodation.
Service men and women who wish to change their sexual orientations ought to conduct proper research before undergoing surgery. Some individuals who have had the surgery performed on them have regretted afterward (McDuffie & Brown, 2014). Most of them feel the operation did not solve their needs and therefore wish to revert to their birth genders. The regret may have an undesirable psychological toll on the personnel hence hindering their ability to discharge regular duties. Thus, before any person has the surgery performed, he or she should be made to follow a process to ascertain the psychological preparedness.
Conclusion
Rights of every individual should be respected. Every citizen should be made to feel important to building the nation. The military should only require that recruits be fit and have the capacity to protect their nation. Matters of sexual orientation should not be a factor to be considered. On the contrary, transsexuals should not expect preferential treatment. The military should strictly adhere to strategizing combat tactics. The roles ought to be given to individuals who qualify as opposed to considerations like sexual orientation. The military is a critical entity that should be left out of political and gender-correctness debates. The army authority has the right to choose what works best for them instead of being compelled by other external factors that are not related to its operations.
References
Bockting, W. O., Miner, M. H., Swinburne Romine, R. E., Hamilton, A., & Coleman, E. (2013). Stigma, mental health, and resilience in an online sample of the US transgender population. American journal of public health, 103(5), 943-951.
Brown, G. R. (2012). Flight into Hyper masculinity: Transsexuals in the Military. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17(6), 527.
Cooper, H. (2017). Transgender People Can Still Serve for Now, U.S. Military Says. Nytimes.com. Retrieved 21 December 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/us/politics/transgender-military-trump-ban.html
D'emilio, J. (2013). Creating change: Sexuality, public policy, and civil rights. St. Martin's Press.
Gates, G. J., & Herman, J. (2014). Transgender military service in the United States. The Williams Institute.
Jones, F. D., Deeken, M. G., & Eshelman, S. D. (2014). Sexual reassignment surgery and the military. Military medicine.
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.
Marchant, L., & Marchant, L. (2017). Perspective | Why so many transgender Americans find refuge in military service. Washington Post. Retrieved 21 December 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/07/27/i-am-a-transgender-veteran-the-military-gave-me-refuge-after-i-fled-my-conservative-hometown/?utm_term=.a1dbaceb0bb0
McDuffie, E., & Brown, G. R. (2014). 70 US veterans with gender identity disturbances: a descriptive study. International Journal of Transgenderism, 12(1), 21-30.
Stryker, S., & Whittle, S. (Eds.). (2016). The transgender studies reader. Taylor & Francis.
Yerke, A. F., & Mitchell, V. (2013). Transgender people in the military: don't ask? Don't tell? Don't enlist!. Journal of Homosexuality, 60(2-3), 436-457.
