Transgender Individuals Should Be Allowed To Serve Openly In The Military.

Pro although making a solid case is also pointedly avoiding the reality of the issue here: Stratification of applicants to field the highest quality force possible. Argument #1Con = Transgender Disorder (TDO) vs. Transsexual The first problem is right there. We are mixing rather than being clear on what the issue is: http://www.webmd.com... Other mental issues, whether pre or post entrance are disqualifying. http://usmilitary.about.com... The exposure to combat and deployment are likely to heighten any underlying mental heath issues and make the process and treatment MUCH worse. A person’s desire to serve vs. likely effect on combat. Stratify. The problem with TDO is two fold – one, with counseling, it may work itself out (it often does). Once someone makes the decision that he or she actually desires to be another sex? The only remedy is a sex change – an expensive operation that the DoD does not and will not cover. Which does the military treat? Return to born gender or the surgery? Either way it gets slammed doesn’t it? The worst part is that, even with all the treatments out there: “…but identity problems may continue after this treatment. Diagnosing and treating this disorder early can reduce the chances of depression, emotional distress, and suicide.” http://www.nytimes.com... The military is struggling with suicides, and, in an effort to reduce that burden has placed increased scrutiny on ALL mental health issues. Lastly, cons position about ‘prescription drugs’ is wide of the mark. That 33% includes guys taking prescription ibuprofen for strained muscles. The rational here, that someone else takes a pill should mean that we ignore a mental health issues, increased risks of suicide, and requires chemistry altering hormone/counseling … is well wide of the mark. We simply cannot ignore: “in another study 129 Dutch psychiatrists reported on 225 patients with GID. The report noted that 79% had personality disorders, 26% had mood disorders and 24% had psychotic disorders.” http://www.childhealing.com... The question that must be asked is why TDO should be graded any differently than any other medical issue? No case is presented. Stratification was ignored. Argument #2 Finite resources and quality of recruits. Stratification. Con ignored stratification in 15% granted waivers. Where would you take risk? Someone who had a thyroid disorder? Tattoo that was removed? Missing the tip of his pinky finger? Smoked marijuana when he was 12? All require waivers. Why is TDO less risk? There are millions of qualified applicants with less resource intensive requirements. Again, those with pre-existing mental health issues are at SEVERE risk of developing far worse conditions in combat. Even the most well adjusted individuals struggle with it, and with those with pre-existing MH issues the effects are measureable. http://www.dtic.mil... Groups like the PALM Center, whose sole goal it to incorporate transgender Soldiers into the military must be taken with a grain of salt. The conditions, as pro sites are anecdotal, ONE person serving a medical ship is not mixing it up with the Taliban. Claims that ‘our nearest allies’ have decided its OK, ignores that many of our ‘nearest allies’ also vehemently disagree. In each anecdotal case provided, all the ‘successful’ TDO individuals were post transition. Those in the midst of the disorder are at grave disadvantages, as we will see when we examine Chelsea Manning. How many Manning’s has the Palm Center likewise ignored? Argument #3 Troops and policy changes. Con over simplifying here. The military will do whatever it is told, including painting our tanks pink if told to. The question here is whether this is a good change for combat operations? Discrimination based on skin color? That one is a no brainer. When it comes to the admittedly inexact science of mental health the question is about where to draw the line. Schizophrenia is treatable with meds, should we let them fix bayonets? Bereavement is also a mental health disorder, the death of loved one can create catastrophic consequences, and that too can be treated, should the military take the risk that close combat and the death of friends will not precipitate another adverse reaction? The US military sees grave risk here, and in terms of policy; blindly following the lemmings for political sensitivity is not compelling enough reason to assume risk. Con lists SSG Bales, yet fails to note that he had pre-existing mental health issues that the military now says we should avoid. The military sees a risk that the TDO community wants us to ignore. We can’t. I have worked with many foreign military’s (as have our generals who advise on policy issues) and the pressure cooker of stress in the US Military with its global requirement is many times more substantial. The anecdotal nature of con’s deference to our allies offer no basis of comparison. Argument #4 - Chelsea Manning. That Manning passed secrets is NOT the issue. Whether she did the right thing or not is a subject for another debate entirely. Con simply ignored the following: “[CPT Wosely] said [Manning] had little to no support base.” http://dekerivers.wordpress.com... Change is not a magic wand. People, particularly those trapped in TDO, are under incredible stress. Deployments, even those away from front line combat, like an intelligence analyst, still require long and arduous hours in isolated environments. Manning struggled with emotional outbursts and even fisticuffs during his descent. Its debatable about whether this contributed to his manipulation by Assange. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Tell me, what anyone do when you have guys engaged 18 hours a day in pouring over intelligence seeking out bad guys, figuring out what they are doing, and how to exploit them and suddenly … someone emails you a picture of them dressed in a wig and says, “I have a problem.”Well, now you are deployed, and everyone has a problem, and the military has elected to simply say, “Thank you for applying at this time,” and not take that risk. The risk is not that a TDO individual is untrustworthy, the risk here is that the effects of the disorder are disruptive to military operations. Other than pandering to political sentiment or not to offend anyone, there is simply no compelling reason for the military to take the risks associated with the individuals who are, through no fault of their own, stuck in this disorder. There is a life worth living outside the military. Every one of us who serves deals with that reality at some point. In the stratification of applicants, the risks of transgender integration simply are not worth the costs at this point. As we compare individuals seeking service, only so many will be allowed to serve and there must be a process that grades them from perfect all the way down to just shy of dead but can hold a rifle … sort of. Just like any organization, the military will establish a cut line in that stratification process, and some simply will not make it. There is no compelling reason to adjust the cut line. On the contrary, there are serious risks, risks military leaders fully understand now when it comes to mental health – the lack of admitting that has lead to a crisis in the military for mental health and suicides. We would be hard pressed to convince leaders that we need to take any additional risk in this area. Anecdotal incidents are not hard data, and the down sizing military has no compelling reason, other than not hurting feelings, to make this change. Yet the cut line remains. There must be stratification of applicants, and no matter how those standards are drawn, someone is going to be offended. Freedom from offense is not operational success.