Trump’s reversal on the DoD’s direction on transgender service members was indeed surprising. The path seemed well on its way, and in many ways seemed initially unlikely to turn around – despite having been rushed and having some real practical considerations.
The reason the Obama administration acknowledged transgender service members last, and why it was not fully implemented during his administration, was because of the complexity of the medical services required. Gay military members had been serving quietly for quite some time – that change was made quickly with not much more than a shrug from the services. Opening all career fields to women took at least some changes – including selling service members on the idea that standards for combat forces would not change, we were just doubling the potential candidate pool (which if done without quotas should in all cases lead to more competitive standards in all areas, not less). Three brave and talented female soldiers subsequently graduated from the US Army’s Ranger School, and West Point’s most recent branch night included a number of new female infantry officers.
Medical treatment for transgender service-members is more complex for the services. Sex reassignment is an expensive, risky, time-consuming major surgery. It requires a litany of interviews and psychological reviews to ensure the individual has thought through the process and that the surgery is responsible and beneficial, and once done, it has a long recovery period and requires lifetime hormone therapy. If a person (even with a good prognosis) looked likely at the outset to need such a large medical procedure of another kind, the candidate would under long-standing policy be medically ineligible for service, and for good reason: Military service members retire after 20 years and then collect benefits for a lifetime. That’s an expensive investment- especially if 2 years may make them non-deployable for surgery at a minimum, and for years after they continue with guaranteed medical needs and lifetime complications (and sanitary requirements) that may be difficult to ensure in the filthy, harsh business of war in dark places. For this reason, it was slow-walked (although made to progress at least in lip service) and was rushed to implementation only when it became clear that HRC would not be the next president.
However, the DoD does quite a few un-economic things, and many argued that the social benefits outweigh the cost of complications for a very small number of service members. As they would say: if we can deal with $500 toilet seats, we can deal with this, and as a social venture, proving that a transgender person can make it in the service should prove they can make it in the world as well. Also, the DoD had set a path under the Obama administration and that should carry a lot of momentum. Career choices (like joining or leaving the military) are ones with long-dated consequences to service members’ lives. So is one’s commitment to a sex change operation (obviously). People expect to make those decisions based on stable policies over time. So while the initial policy direction was rushed and perhaps ill-considered, it’s reversal seems also rushed and ill-considered.
Until you look at the underlying reasons for both: Barack Obama rushed the decision because he had made a commitment to advance a LGBTA agenda, and had reached a point where he had to set course or let it go. While the DoD had briefed him on the special medical considerations, risks, costs, and was messaging hard to wait for more study, it was clear that study would not continue under Trump as it would have under HRC. The resulting action felt like “DoD- this is more important than military readiness, and even though we aren’t ready to implement, I have political commitments – so you need to figure it out.” That’s an annoying reason to rush implementation. Likewise, the reversal seems also to be less about readiness and more about convincing the Tea Party wing of the GOP (which tends to overlap heavily with the religious right) that they should approve of Trump’s infrastructure budget (most notably a wall across the Mexican border that apparently will eventually be reimbursed by Mexico). Granting Senate Tea Partiers a Pyrrhic victory of savings from a few people (as well as the rejection of a social issue) seemed to be an easy administrative fix for a President getting ready to present a budget case this fall that looks harder to pass than even an Obamacare repeal… and the services (and recruits and service members) are simply horses for trading.
So now we are in a place where any decision is a bad decision. It could have made sense to say that transgender service members (unless they would definitively say they did not require and would not request a sex change operation during their service) were not in the best interest of the services – just as cancer survivors or others with extensive medical needs are not. On the other hand, one administration just told service members to raise their hands for help if they wanted it; the next seems willing to cut those hands off. That’s a horrible precedent and seems like a betrayal to people that have asked to defend us while we sleep.
We all as individuals need to do better in judging our elected officials and get beyond the sound bites. Getting your way is only better if it results in better outcomes. These last few years have divided us greatly in our views on the direction of the country. Debate is good. Progress is good. Making the world a better place is good. But we would all do well to remember that change takes planning, and ideology takes thoughtful implementation, and throughout its entire life cycle and repeal, this issue saw none of that from either side, and the losers were all of us.
Want to read similar content from the Left, Center, Right? SUBSCRIBE for only $2/month.
