Trans Folks In The Military- I Need Help Countering Arguments- And Fast

Great Debates
1

To sum up- I support transgender people in the military. My friend does not. I already got him to concede that there is a biological basis for being trans. He countered with ‘The military won’t let you in with bad teeth. Why should it pay for therapy, hormones, and surgery?’ He was a Marine. So he obviously knows the military better than I. Still, I could swear that argument was brought up and countered here. But, my Google Fu sucks.

I posted this in GD as I anticipate some posters will want to respond from the ‘No trans folks in the military’ side.
Thanks in advance for your help

2

A different Marine seems to have no problem with transgender troops serving their country. When you get someone like that saying that being transgender is compatible with national service, I tend not to sweat too much about the details of how every little thing works with respect to any medical care that may be needed.

3

What if a trans person has already transitioned and has a medical regimen that is no more complicated or expensive than a cis-woman’s birth control pills?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

4

I’d answer this is all making a mountain out of a molehill.

There are 1,281,900 people in the US military.

Current estimates have people who identify as transgendered in the US at about 0.6% of the population.

If we assume that the military has the same percentage of trans people as the population then about 7,700 people in the military identify as transgendered. How many of them want sex re-assignment surgery? I do not know but we do know not all transgendered people want to surgically transition. As for hormone therapy it is not hugely expensive (something like $1500 over two years) and surgical transition is around $20,000.

I would submit that the military has nowhere near a 0.6% transgendered population. The military is kind of a hostile place for transgendered people and I would not think many would choose it. Some do, certainly, but I’d be surprised if it was the same as the population at-large.

But let’s pretend there are 7,700 trandgendered people in the military and they all want $20,000 sex reassignment surgery. That would come out to about $154 million or about 0.02% of the US military budget (and that assumes you do it all on one year…the reality is some few would come in each year and do it and be nowhere close to that number).

$154 million is less than the cost of two F-35 fighter jets.

But remember, the real number would be nowhere near that (whatever it is). That is the worst case scenario those opposed to this can come up with.

In the end, of all the issues facing the US and its budget and whatnot, this barely registers. I suppose you could argue it on some philosophical grounds if you want as the principle of the thing but even then it is so remote and abstract a thing for Joe Citizen to get worried about I cannot see it is worth the effort to argue about.

For me, if a transgendered person wants to serve the country and part of us paying for that service is helping them get gender reassignment treatments then fine.

5

You’re actually wrong here. The trans community serves at a higher rate than the cisgendered population.

6

Leaving the costs aside, the “bad teeth” comment is a non-sequitur. Here’s where I’m totally guessing, but having bad teeth can lead to unfitness to serve – you may be in pain all the time, you can get infections, etc. The military doesn’t ban people with bad teeth because of the cost of dental care, but because people with bad teeth are considered unfit for duty.

So, this is irrelevant to any argument against trans soldiers.

7

If it were about money for medical procedures, then the military could stipulate that it wouldn’t pay for certain procedures. Lots of trans people don’t need any more medical procedures than cis people.

But it’s not about money for medical procedures – it’s about hatred of trans people. There are plenty of trans veterans who have no extra medical needs, and forcing them out of the military is weakening our military and our national security. Further, turning the military into an explicitly bigoted and hateful organization will greatly harm recruiting, since lots of young Americans have no interest in joining a hateful organization.

It’s doing great harm to our national security, and benefiting no one but anti-trans bigots.

I was in the Navy and there are plenty of other veterans who are against this bigoted policy.

8

Maybe I mis-remember, but wasn’t the top brass fine with trans folk in the military? I thought they were resisting the President’s order, uh, tweet. If that’s the case, doesn’t your friend think that the top military brass know what’s better for the military and military readiness than a president who never served and used a bogus excuse not to?

They’re not being kicked out on the recommendation of the generals, it’s so the president can appeal to his base. That’s no way to run a military.

9

Well, that’s disputed. You link to one study which reached that conclusion, but which did not do so by actually surveying or counting members of the military who are transexual. A more recent study commissioned by the Pentagon had a much lower estimate of the number.

10

The debate is still ongoing, but you’ve all been very helpful.

11

Please don’t use this as any sort of argument.

12

I saw on The View that the military spends over ten times the amount of money supplying troops with Viagra than it does spending on people with trans type stuff going on. I am trying to find the exact figure that they used.

I mean if the Pentagon can cough up millions for boner pills, then whats the problem? Obviously its not the money that is the problem. I mean I’m not sure that swinging a thick rod has anything to do with foxholes and stuff like that.

13

Ah here it is. Sorry for the double post.

14

Long term damage to our military’s recruiting capability is long term damage to our national security.

15

Sure. But a simple counter to that argument is “What evidence do you have that not allowing trans folks into the military damages our military’s long term recruiting capability?”

That’s why I suggest you use other, better arguments instead of this one.

16

I made several arguments, including ones with statistical backing. At some point someone will do opinion polling on young people’s perceptions of the military and this issue, and then there might be statistical backing for this one too. Further, the assertion that booting qualified and experienced servicemen and women for no good reason harms national security seems so self-explanatory and obvious as to not require additional evidence.

But how do you feel? Do you have any opinions on this, or do you just want to poke at arguments you may not even disagree with?

17

How do I feel? Trans folks should have the same opportunity to join the military as everyone else, of course.

But if some bad policy bans them, it doesn’t affect National Security, it’s just bad policy. That’s my point. There are other, better arguments than “It harms National Security” because you can’t actually show that it harms National Security.

18

It does harm national security. Kicking out good people for no good reason harms national security. Feel free to pretend that we have an unlimited amount of good people to rely on, but we don’t, and getting rid of good people harms national security. Just like sending them to their deaths for no good reason.

What’s the point of challenging this notion that seems about as obvious as possible?

19

Because I thought we were talking about recruitment and not “kicking people out”. And you saying “It harms National Security” does not actually prove that it harms National Security.

Use all the other, better arguments, just don’t use “Harms National Security” is all I’m saying.

20

Okay, so you don’t think kicking out good people for no reason harms national security (and this was indeed part of my original argument, if you go back and read it).

That seems incredibly, mind-blowingly obvious to me, but you’re free to disagree. We don’t need to go on and on about this.