Submitted by Gregory L. Alderete.
Removing transgender service members from the military not only undermines the effectiveness of the armed forces but also violates basic principles of human decency. Military readiness depends on the ability to recruit and retain the best and most qualified personnel, regardless of gender identity. Excluding transgender individuals deprives the military of a valuable pool of trained and experienced service members, which directly impacts overall readiness. Many transgender service members have already undergone extensive training and have proven themselves as capable and dedicated professionals. Forcing them out wastes the time, effort, and resources spent on their development, weakening the military’s ability to meet its mission requirements.
Beyond the issue of readiness, the exclusion of transgender individuals is a clear violation of human decency. The military should be a place where individuals are judged based on their abilities and commitment, not on their gender identity. Discriminating against transgender people sends a harmful message of exclusion and devaluation, undermining the core values of equality and fairness that the military represents. Transgender service members have the same desire to serve and protect their country as any other individual, and denying them the right to serve is an affront to their dignity and basic human rights.
Inclusion, not exclusion, strengthens the military. Embracing diversity, including gender diversity, enhances unit cohesion and morale, fostering a more resilient and effective fighting force. The military must reject discriminatory policies and honor the contributions of all service members, regardless of gender identity.
Gads.
Pathetic
I agree completely!
I am in total agreement and we all, as Americans, should be ashamed that this is even an issue. Because a few men with low self-esteem feel the need to put down others to make themselves feel “manly” our entire country must suffer.
“Inclusion, not exclusion, strengthens the military. Embracing diversity, including gender diversity, enhances unit cohesion and morale, fostering a more resilient and effective fighting force.”
Has this article’s author ever served in the military? I have (Private to Major, US Army (R), 1967-1988)
Nothing could be further from the truth! Did the author ever serve in the military?
The military is not a social experiment.
Military success requires a singularity of purpose.
The military is a stressful calling.
People who have issues with their “gender” are already under stress and of questionable mental stability.
The military requires as few outside issues “de jour” from what is going on in the civilian world.
The military is conservative for good reason.
“Transgenderism” is controversial at best; an unnecessary distraction and detriment to military readiness at worst.
“Transgenderism” is a mental condition.
The military is selective physically and mentally in its qualification requirements.
The military should not be embracing “progressive” DEI.
Instead the military embraces “unity, equality and individualism”
Couldn’t have said it better. There was a day when you were washed out for inability to hold your temper, refusal to finish PT, or just a “not in the mood attitude”. People do not understand unity of purpose without diversion.
Get back to me when we mandate women on football teams, or lawyers to mandate what Esprit d Corps consists of.
On top of that, openly homosexual males and females in the military are contrary to privacy of the rest. Get back to “drumming out the “proud boys and girls” for simply being deviant.
I served in the military for close to six years rising to the lofty rank of Staff Sergeant. During my service back in the 1960s and 1970s, militarists were vetted for mental stability.
We were expected to recognize the need for discipline by responding to our superiors with “Yes, Sir!”, or “No Sir”. “Yes Mam, or “No Mam.”
If the newly exposed mental condition, commonly referred to as transgender takes over the military, will we have to respond to superiors with “Yes, They”, “Yes Them” or “Yes Their”?
Interestingly enough, I started working with a guy who was and is a highly effective vendor in a big box store. This guy changed into a transgender with female-style hair, facial makeup, fingernails, feminine clothing and a new female name.
I have chosen not to increase the trauma this person is already suffering from by refusing to use the new name or by refusing to do business with the vendor.
Conversely, I was paying attention in school related to pro-noun usage. I refused to call him, she, they, them, their. I call him by his chosen name only. I use no pronouns of either version. I do not share my thoughts regarding his mental illness. We have a good working relationship.
While I make room for this guy to live out his fantasy, I do not allow him to force me into sounding ignorant by violating the linguistical rules of grammar.
If, while in the military, I refused to be dictated to regarding my pronoun management, I would probably be court-marshalled and thrown out of the military.
Hey, that’s it. Maybe we should exclude all men and women who lack mental illness and staff the military with 100% transgenders.
Joe Boyle
No, being transgender is not considered a mental illness. In the past, being transgender was incorrectly labeled as a disorder, but experts now understand that it’s a part of human diversity. The condition sometimes called “gender dysphoria” is when someone feels distress because their gender identity doesn’t match their sex assigned at birth. This distress is the issue, not being transgender itself. Calling transgender identity a mental illness is flawed because it misrepresents who transgender people are. It also ignores that with proper support, many transgender people lead happy, healthy lives, just like anyone else
So much for what “experts” think. Common sense biology disagrees with them. So should the military. Tiny percentage of population has this mental disorder and most of them are developing children 13-17 who haven’t yet reached biological or mental capacity or stability. Indeed it is a form of child abuse to subject them to societal and often parental support of this fallacy. The military doesn’t need more people with issues to affect its effectiveness but I’m sure the left can find more exceptions to the rule in the future to thoroughly fracture society and the military.
What John Arbeeny says is correct. Emotional responses in support or not in support of transgender people are just that. The fact is that to be transgender is to be deviant and it is a mental illness. It is wrong to hate or to discriminate againt anyone for any reason. Love is the correct feeling. Acceptance is loving. Equal employment and acceptance outside of the military is appropiate. Inside the military it is not. A military that is made up of mentaly and physically sound people who also identify with their natural biological identity is the best and strongest military.
Being transgender is simply a part of human diversity. It’s not an “abnormal” or “deviant” behavior. People have the right to identify with the gender that aligns with their true sense of self, and this is a natural variation of human experience. The medical community, including the American Psychological Association and the World Health Organization, no longer classifies being transgender as a disorder. Mr. Mason statement reflects outdated and harmful stereotypes. His views perpetuate stigma and can harm transgender people by reinforcing discrimination.
I suggest you take a look at a bell curve of human behaviors and see where “normal” and “abnormal” behaviors lay. Any behavior that is less than 1% lies way out on the edge of the curve and qualifies by definition as abnormal.
And liberals/progressive extreemists continue to wonder why the majority of US voters selected Trump. Biology doesn’t lie, nor does reality.
I’d also note that talking down to people as reflected in the 4th comment above, to wit: ‘Because a few men with low self-esteem feel the need to put down others to make themselves feel “manly” our entire country must suffer.” is why the “trans” ideology is finally being seen for what it is and is being rejected. How condescending to assert the writer knows how men “feel” and that excluding “trans folks” from the military causes the “entire country to suffer.” Really???
As a 30 year Army veteran and citizen, I have compassion for those with mental problems, but for reasons already noted above, that compassion extends only for appropriate psychological care, not further weakening our military in these perilous times.
The argument that the integration of transgender individuals into the military will harm morale, much like the arguments made against the integration of racial minorities, is based on several flawed premises. Here’s why:
Historical Precedent:
Integration of African Americans: In 1948, President Harry Truman issued an executive order desegregating the U.S. military. Opponents at the time argued that this would lower morale and combat effectiveness, citing concerns about racial tensions. However, the military’s experience shows that integration did not hurt morale in the long term. Over time, diverse units not only functioned effectively, but they also helped set the stage for broader social integration across American society.
Transgender Inclusion: Similarly, when the military lifted the ban on openly transgender service members (under the Obama administration) and later reinstated protections for them (under the Biden administration), concerns about morale and cohesion have proven largely unfounded. Service members’ morale tends to be driven more by leadership, discipline, and mission success rather than the gender identity of their peers.
Morale is Built on Teamwork and Mission: Morale within any military unit is largely influenced by shared goals, effective leadership, and the ability to work together under stress. Cohesion and trust are developed through shared experiences, training, and the pursuit of a common mission. Gender identity is irrelevant to a soldier’s ability to contribute to these aspects. Military success depends on competence, teamwork, and respect for one another, not on whether someone is cisgender, transgender, or from any particular racial group.
The Impact of Diversity: Studies show that diversity can strengthen teams. When properly managed, diversity—including diversity in gender, race, and background—can enhance problem-solving, creativity, and adaptability. The military, like any organization, benefits from having a broad spectrum of individuals who bring different perspectives and experiences. This diversity also mirrors the society the military serves and protects, making it more representative and strengthening its connection to the nation.
Transgender Service Members Are Professionals: Transgender service members are motivated by the same desire to serve and defend the country as their peers. The assumption that they would negatively impact military morale is rooted in prejudice and a lack of understanding. There is no evidence to suggest that transgender individuals are any less capable or committed to their military duties. The focus should be on training, skills, and discipline, not on irrelevant characteristics such as gender identity.
The Argument Is Based on Fear, Not Fact: The fear-based arguments about transgender service members causing disruptions or lowering morale are often rooted in misconceptions or ignorance about transgender people. When people are given the opportunity to work together in inclusive environments, prejudice and fear tend to diminish, especially when supported by education and clear leadership.
Human Rights and Equality: Lastly, it’s important to remember that the military is part of a broader society that values equality and nondiscrimination. Denying people the opportunity to serve based on their gender identity is inconsistent with these values. It’s also legally problematic, as the U.S. military and many other institutions have increasingly recognized that discrimination based on gender identity is a violation of rights.
In summary, the arguments against transgender service members causing harm to military morale parallel those made against racial integration in the past and are similarly misguided. When leadership focuses on professionalism, training, and respect for individual service members, these concerns tend to fade away, and cohesion and mission effectiveness remain intact.
The military’s greatest concern should be preparing for modern warfare, where technology—like drones, cyber capabilities, and advanced weapons—plays a central role. In the age of high-tech combat, the focus should be on training soldiers to operate complex systems, work in joint-force environments, and adapt to rapidly changing battle conditions.
Prejudices, including those against transgender individuals, distract from the real mission: ensuring that the military is effective, agile, and capable of defending national security. A soldier’s gender identity, whether transgender or not, has no bearing on their ability to contribute to these goals. The military’s strength comes from unity, skill, and professionalism, not from exclusion or discrimination. Transgender personnel will continue to serve but in in secrecy.
“The military’s greatest concern should be preparing for modern warfare” not tolerating, cajoling, accepting, adapting, supporting, or accommdating the latest leftist societal invention. Service members don’t need to be reprogrammed every few years to adopt the latest fads going round in society be it DEI, CRT, pronouns, cancel culture, sexual perversion or gender confusion. The military lives by a different set of rules than society out of necessity. They even have their own legal code: the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) the purpose of which is to promote justice, discipline, and efficiency in the military, and to strengthen national security . Their mission has been the same for over 250 years. Any distraction whatsoever does indeed have an absolute bearing on the military’s ability to accomplish its mission.