Transgender Personnel in the United States Military: A Critical Analysis

Should transgender personnel be allowed to serve in the United States military? United States government officials believe that transgender personnel that would like to serve in the military or are currently serving in the military, will not be involuntarily removed or denied the opportunity to serve, will not have a devastating effect on work environment/mission, or affect the interactions and dynamics of current Service Members. The purpose of this critical thinking assignment is to discuss the topic of transgender personnel who would like to serve and/or serving in the United States military and the effects it will have in the military environment, including extensions of the military environment, i.e. military families. Current transgendered military personnel and potential military personnel of this nature, should not be granted the opportunity to serve in the United States Military due to the heavy requirements of gender transformations that take place during the gender transition process and its effects on the mission. Here are the pros and cons of allowing transgendered personnel to serve in our military will be discussed, as well as possible obstacles and outcomes of both perspectives.

An official statement by the Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter - “Our mission is to defend this country, and we don’t want barriers unrelated to

a person’s qualification to serve preventing us from recruiting or retaining the Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine who can best accomplish the mission. We have to have access to 100 percent of America’s population for our all-volunteer force to be able to recruit from among them the most highly qualified – and to retain them… Starting today: Otherwise qualified Service members can no longer be

involuntarily separated, discharged, or denied reenlistment or continuation of service just for being transgender.” (Carter, 2016).
Before the June 30, 2016 transgendered policy emplacement, there has not been protection for transgendered personnel serving in the military; nine percent of transgendered military personnel have reported that they were discharged from service for being transgendered or gender non-conforming (Los Angeles Times, 2017). Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s statement and action is not unreasonable; currently, there is approximately 15,500 actively serving transgendered personnel in the United States Military and approximately 134,000 transgendered veterans who are alive today, making the United States Military the largest employer of transgender personnel in the country and it will only continue to grow (Campaign, 2016). The policy allowing open service of transgender Service members will be in full effect beginning July 2017, when military branches will be allowed to recruit potential transgendered personnel who would like to serve.
To reach beyond transgendered military personnel and remember that America’s Armed Forces is supportive of families, a positive outcome to this policy is that children and teenagers of military families that may be questioning their gender or have already identified that transitioning to a different gender will allow them to lead a happy life, will have the medical support needed to evolve through the transitioning process; parents will have the support and assistance needed to assure their families are taken care of.
It is a fact that Secretary of Defense Ash Carters’ perspective and decision has already been implemented by eighteen countries around the world and their forces are stronger than ever (Gross, 2015). Other countries have viewed the topic of transgendered personnel as how these
Service Members can serve effectively versus should these Service Members serve their country at all due to their life choices and decisions. Foreign militaries are organized differently in comparison to America’s all volunteer force and utilize a service obligation beginning around the age of seventeen and lasting two to three years (Contact CIA, 2012-2015) . In accommodating transgendered personnel based on service obligations, foreign militaries have found that military effectiveness remains strong – they continue to kill a lot of people and break a lot of things – the mission is being executed (Gross, 2015).
While intention regarding implementation of this policy is good, obstacles regarding progression and implementation of this policy at all levels must be noted. “For some people, the application of gender transition policies in the military have fallen short of expectations — primarily by creating a vacuum for prejudice to manifest through vaguely certain worded protocols. This vacuum is prone to exploitation by commanders who may harbor prejudice. Per existing policies, such commanders could stall the progress of a subordinate at many different stages of transition by denying care based on “minimizing impacts to the mission.”” (Inside the Military’s Working, 2016)
This behavior is seen often; while, it has lessened over the years due to Commanders and Leaders working diligently to assure that all career positions and opportunities present equality, prejudice still exists and remains an obstacle for transgendered personnel that will directly affect what types of job assignments would be available to them, security clearance denial or revocation, and potential waivers that may be leveraged by transphobic Commanders and Leaders.
Another obstacle that will affect all service members is the revolving door of social change in the military with the introduction of transgendered openness, some may view this policy as yet another component of social experimentation.

Historically, this has been seen with desegregation of African Americans and Civil Rights, workplace equality for men and women, the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy, it is a safe impression that introducing transgendered openness will face some of the same challenges – hostility, anger, avoidance and isolation, ignorance, superiority, entitlement from individuals and/or groups of

people.
Overall, the possible outcome to opening the door to transgendered personnel may prove to be positive as the United States military is not cutting itself short by excluding any category of personnel by implementing this policy – the policy supports the strength of our force, families, mission capability, and the attitude of our country that everyone, regardless of race, religion, color, gender, or national origin will have the ability to exercise opportunity if they are mentally and physically fit to do so.
Countering this positive conversation, there are many questions regarding how to implement this situation into every day military life – “Much of the opposition centers on questions of where transgender troops would be housed, what berthing they would have on ships, which bathrooms they would use and whether their presence would affect the ability of small units to work well together. There are also questions about whether the military would conduct or pay for the medical treatment and costs associated with any gender transition, as well as which physical training standards the troops would be required to meet. The military has dealt with similar questions as it has integrated the ranks by race, gender and sexual orientation. In
many cases comparable worries have been raised, including whether the changes would hinder small units that often must work together in remote, confined locations for long periods of time.”
(Military Leaders Express Concerns, 2015).
While it is necessary to now accommodate transgendered personnel and the above instances are fixable, resources and support will be made available; these are minor details in comparison to the huge social shift that will take place in our military culture. Introducing a third gender, if you will, in a stage of such infancy in and outside of the military, will be faced with huge opposition challenges behind closed doors. To mitigate this, the Department of Defense has released an implementation handbook, Transgender Service in the U.S. Military: An Implementation Handbook, as a guide to assist Commanders and Leaders with transgendered personnel covering such topics as how a transgendered person should inform comrades in their units, scenarios that transgendered personnel, Commanders, and Leaders will be faced with, Health Care issues, Harassment and Bullying, and Recruiting just to name a few.
In addition to the concerns just discussed another negative perspective that may be taken regarding this situation is character and judgment of transgendered personnel. The example that will be used here is PVT Chelsea Manning, formerly PFC Bradley Manning. PVT Chelsea Manning was a former Military Intelligence Analyst that released thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks and was found guilty of theft, espionage, and computer fraud and is currently serving a thirty-five year sentence at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (Manning, 2017). She is currently receiving hormone treatments supporting her gender transition from male-to-female which is being supported by the policies put in place in 2016. President Barack
Obama commuted Manning's remaining prison sentence, and she will be freed on May 17, 2017(Manning, 2017).
Being that this is the first impression of a new dynamic in our military environment, it suggests that having questionable judgment and character will be excused even though the cost
could potentially be the safety and security of our country, lives, and mission success. Ultimately, the offender and the behavior is addressed, but will not be severely punished because it also gives the impression that the military is discriminating against an individual, in this case, that happens to be transgendered – this is not the picture that our Armed Forces intends to paint, but has now become a collateral cost. PVT Chelsea Manning received a pardon because the military now acknowledges openness of transgendered personnel to serve without emphasizing the severity of her behavior militarily at the time – PVT Manning claims her intent of the release was to stir conversation and debate of the information (Manning, 2017). The impression is that she used her questionable state of gender as part of the justification for her behavior; historically PVT Manning suffered behavioral issues such as attacking an officer and being of harm to herself (Manning, 2017).
The example of PVT Manning would be justified if she had served her sentence regardless of the fact that she is transgendered – taking responsibility and serving with honor in the face of adversity would have sent a much larger message to the military community, the transgendered community, and our country. What some would view as a large setback for a community of people, could be reduced to lack of life experience and bad decision making – again, character and judgment.
In conclusion, it has been discussed that removing the ban on transgendered personnel is a positive move forward because America is not limiting itself with regard to those who are allowed to defend the country regardless of race, religion, color, gender, or national origin and supporting the standard regarding military support of military families. It has also been discussed that the challenges faced regarding implementation of the transgender policy with regard to how Commanders, Leaders, and military personnel will respond to these challenges. In discussion of the support of the argument regarding the concerns with the implementation of the transgendered policy, measures regarding housing and how well small units will work together in remote and austere environments. Lastly, PVT Manning was given an opportunity to uplift her community, both military and transgender, by serving her sentence with honor and dignity for putting America at risk. The military community may remain convicted in opposition for transgendered personnel serving in the military based upon lack of good judgment and character to begin with while this new policy remains in its infancy.