There is some context needed and it is not simply "because you are trans and we don't like trans so you are fired." I believe there is legitimate questions regarding the standards needed for the military. I don't know what that is, I am not American, but have no issue with certain requirements and not being altered for the sake of inclusion in certain fields like police, military and fire.
It would be one thing if there were legitimate reasons for banning trans people from the military, and that it was done in an ethical way with facts and data to back it. The thing is, the facts don’t back the reasons stated.
And even if they did, how can they justify not awarding a pension/partial pension to those trans troops who are so close to retirement but are now going to lose everything? That’s just cruel.
It’s so frustrating when they say they’re banning something for potentially legitimate reasons that could be researched, and carried forward in an ethical way with care to those who served for us, but then do it in the most slapdash cruel way possible.
Can you see the difference?
For the record, I am against the banning of trans troops from our military. If an able body wants to serve, let them serve.
Now, if they are somehow not able, there should be an ethical and uniform way to determine that. For example, and I can already feel the tension even writing this but…
If a trans troop member were to somehow receive gender affirming care and therapy and after that still experienced intense dysphoria that during such episodes rendered them unable to do their job, I’d support removing them from service, but with disability benefits. The same way we do when somebody with undiagnosed bipolar disorder joins the service but then despite care and treatment is unable to perform their duties.
What the executive order did was none of this.
Do you see how easily there can be nuance and humaneness, and conversely how easily their dignity can be stripped in a way that we’ve not done to other service members who in the line of duty find themselves unable to serve?
For the further record, I also think there are pitfalls to my line of thought that could be expanded upon. I am open to being humbled.
For example, I can also imagine a situation where “disabled” service people are at least allowed to serve in non-combat support roles where their disability and episodes related to it have no chance of harming combat troops.
Sheesh, what a touchy subject but it’s how we go about discussing it and where our intentions lie that matters.
Obviously in an ideal world we’d have no need for armies or war.
