Why Conservatives Oppose Transgender Inclusion in the Military

Introduction to the Debate

The ongoing debate over transgender inclusion in the military has seen a impassioned stance from conservatives. The idea of 'the other' has been heavily referenced, comparing the LGBTQ community to other marginalized groups like African Americans and gays. This sentiment often fuels opposition from those who wish to preserve traditional values and policies.

Historical Context and Policy Changes

Transgender individuals have been serving their country honorably for decades. After thorough investigations and discussions with the military, President Obama introduced the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy, which allowed transgender service members to serve openly. This move was met with criticism and attempts to overturn it; most notably, President Trump's controversial decision to ban transgender individuals from serving openly. However, under President Biden, the military has once again embraced open and honorable service by transgender members.

Complaining and Entitlement

One critique often pointed out by conservatives is that transgender individuals are perceived as self-centered, entitled, and always engaged in social justice campaigns. They argue that in the military, where the emphasis is on teamwork and mission over personal grievances, such attitudes are not conducive to effective service. The military is a place where individuals must put the broader mission ahead of personal discomfort or grievances.

Military Experimentation and Mental Health Concerns

Another viewpoint raised is the potential for experimentation and mental health concerns. Conservatives argue that the military should not be a venue for social or medical experiments, especially regarding gender dysmorphia, which is viewed as a mental illness. Instead, they suggest that if such experimentation is deemed necessary, it should be conducted in the National Guard, where the impact would be limited. They also argue that the military healthcare system is already stretched thin and should not have to bear the additional cost of ‘gender affirming care’.

Deployment and Readiness Issues

The potential for transgender individuals to face readiness issues is a significant concern for conservatives. They argue that those undergoing gender affirming care may not be deployable, and the military should not recruit such individuals who will inherently be undeployable. Additionally, there are privacy and safety concerns about transgender individuals serving in traditionally gender-segregated areas, such as latrines and showers.

Conclusion: The Military’s Best Interest

Conservatives argue that decisions about who can serve in the military must prioritize what is best for the military as an organization. Currently, they see no evidence that having transgender individuals in the military enhances its effectiveness as a fighting force. They believe the focus should be on recruiting individuals who can contribute meaningfully to the mission and protect the values of their country.

Key Arguments Against Transgender Inclusion in the Military

Social Justice Campaigns vs. Teamwork: Trans individuals are seen as too focused on social campaigns rather than the broader mission of protecting the nation. Experimentation and Mental Health Concerns: The military should not be used for social or medical experiments, especially those that involve mental illness. Cost and Healthcare Burden: The additional cost of providing gender-affirming care is seen as too much for the military's healthcare system to bear. Deployability and Readiness: Individuals undergoing gender affirming care may not be deployable, making the military unfit to recruit such individuals. Privacy and Safety Concerns: The need to maintain traditional gender-segregated spaces in the military for safety and privacy.

The debate over transgender inclusion in the military continues to be complex, involving considerations of personal rights, social values, and military effectiveness. Understanding these viewpoints is crucial for policymakers and the public to engage in informed discussions.