US Army, Air Force Evolving on Transgenders?
The US Air Force announced last week that, while there was no policy change on “transgenders” serving in the US military, it now requires headquarters-level approval to actually discharge someone for being transgender. This mimics a similar decision recently made by the Army.
Air Force leaders announced June 4 a change to the decision authority for involuntary separations for enlisted Airmen diagnosed with gender dysphoria or who identify themselves as transgender.
“Though the Air Force policy regarding involuntary separation of gender dysphoric Airmen has not changed, the elevation of decision authority to the director, Air Force Review Boards Agency, ensures the ability to consistently apply the existing policy,” said Daniel Sitterly, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
The official announcement made a point of saying “self-identification as transgender” does not automatically result in discharge, contrary to the general public understanding that transgender individuals are prohibited from serving in the US military:
A recommendation for discharge because of gender dysphoria must be supported by a report of evaluation by a psychiatrist or Ph.D.-level clinical psychologist. In addition, after consultation with medical professionals, there must be a commander determination that the condition interferes with duty requirements — including potential deployment — or duty performance.
While this may come as a surprise to a great many people (including the New York Times as recently as last week), the Palm Center — an activist organization that has conducted “studies” to support its calls for sexual liberty — noted the change in policy last October. Apparently, the DoD quietly rescinded DODI 1332.38, Physical Disability Evaluation, and replaced it with DODI 1332.18, Disability Evaluation System (DES). The old policy specifically listed “sexual gender and identity disorders” as disqualifying for continued service. The new policy makes no such conclusion; further, it requires the services to determine if such medical conditions actually affect fitness for duty, rather than simply assuming that being transgender is unfit for duty.
Elevation of discharge authority was a sequential step in the repeal of the policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” as well, as was a moratorium on discharges altogether. Transgender activists have called on the Secretary of Defense to issue just such a moratorium.
In a timing coincident with “gay pride” month and the very public saga of the former Bruce Jenner, these policy changes have been viewed as a coup by some advocates — particularly those who have discovered the efficacy of using the US military as a tool for social change. (If nothing else, groups have learned that adding “Soldier” to an affront, or portraying someone as dying in a military service that does not accept them for “who they are” and “who they love” is a veritable shortcut to social acceptance.) By contrast, many of those who have supported traditional values (of both marriage and sexuality) have foreseen this “slippery slope” becoming a foregone conclusion for some time.
The Family Research Council noted these policy changes have caused gender identity issues to transition from an objective medical evaluation to a subjective personal decision, thus “politicizing” it:
By putting the decision in commanders’ laps, the entire process becomes more politicized — where before, it was a simple medical determination. And you can bet that in a sexually-charged environment like the Obama military, the pressure to keep people with gender disorders will be enormous. It will be far tougher for commanders to discharge transgender troops, particularly when the head of your branch is an open advocate for keeping them.
The social rise of sexual liberty — even above religious liberty, according to some — has also caused an increasing acceptance of hostility toward those who do not affirm these newfound sexual freedoms. This has simmered to the point that some speak openly of Christianity being labeled “hate” — and, of course, some believe that which is “hate” can legitimately, and lawfully, be restricted. Attempts at protecting religious liberty have arisen at both the state and federal levels, including laws passed by Congress requiring the US military to accommodate religious expressions, even if such expression might not support the changing sexual norms.
The effectiveness of those laws has yet to be borne out, as the DoD has generally focused its support for “expression” on uniform wear, while it appears US troops continue to be targeted for their explicitly religious expressions, particularly those that support traditional marriage and sexuality.
Ultimately, the moral decline of society should not be unexpected, and it is increasingly the world in which Christians find themselves trying to live as salt and light.
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Also at Military.com, the Washington Post.
ADVERTISEMENT