The student paper of Baylor University, which identifies itself as a Christian university, recently posted an editorial advocating that the US military accept “transgender” individuals into the service. Noting first that Baylor prohibits students from participating in groups that advocate sexuality “contrary to biblical teaching,” the editors of the Baylor Lariat then proceed to advocate for transgenders:

While the Lariat editorial board does not condone this lifestyle, we support any American’s right to serve in the military as long as they are qualified…

The editorial follows a spate of other public advocates of transexuality, including an editorial at the LA Times in July.  The Baylor Lariat may be well-intentioned, but the editorial appears to be based more on social emotion than a fundamental understanding of either transexuality or the military. To that point, despite citing military qualifications as the ultimate standard, the editorial never describes what does qualify one for military service or how transexuality might affect those qualifications.

What the editorial omits is that even some transexuals who have served in the military question whether the US military should be open to transgender servicemembers — including one who indicated it ‘shattered his life’ and his duty performance suffered. There are physical, mental, hormonal, and even social issues with Baylor’s declaration.

The Baylor Lariat, though, dismisses those complexities.

The editorial cites as objective fact the findings of an unnamed “independent commission.” The reports to which the editorial apparently refer were those funded by the Palm Center — an organization that has long advocated for “LGBT rights” in the US military. The Palm Center published one of those reports last month and reported others in March and May, which likely inspired the editorial.  Another late last year said much the same thing.  An advocacy group providing funding for a series of reports that all come to the same conclusion — the one it wants — can hardly be called “independent.”

Like other advocates for the transgender movement, the editorial reads much like the movement for homosexuals did a few years ago.  The column essentially says transgendered individuals are oppressed and thus deserve the right to serve openly [emphasis added]:

The 15,000 service members who currently serve have to hide their identities and are not afforded access to vital health care specific to their needs, such as hormone therapy. If the military discovers these service members are transgender, they are discharged from the military and lose all access to benefits, even if they had served a long and honorable career.

Again, the editors find the entire situation is “trivial”:

Other questions have been raised about which service uniform they should wear or which billeting they would live in, male or female.

These questions obviously need to be answered, but are very trivial compared to the big picture. The transgender service member should wear the uniform of the sex they identify with, and keep the grooming standards of that sex.

What barracks they should live in could also be decided by the sex they identify with. The military already has homosexual personnel living with heterosexual service members.

It is true the US military has prohibited segregation by sexuality, meaning heterosexuals are required to live with homosexuals. That such a requirement exists does not automatically justify levying a similar requirement regarding other sexualities. More entertaining, however, was the editorial board’s next sentence:

These are professional adults and can be trusted to handle these types of living conditions.

In a military in which living arrangements are still segregated by gender, and which has, for more than the past year, faced withering criticism for its “epidemic” of sexual assault, that single statement summarizes the naivete of the entire editorial.  According to some (including some in Congress), the military can’t be “trusted” to appropriately handle or control sexual assaults in its current environment, which includes living arrangements segregated by gender and, until recently, a ban on homosexuality.  Further, the DoD’s own statistics reveal many of these sexual assaults are reportedly homosexual.  How can the Baylor Lariat board believe adding a third sexuality into the mix — including forcing it into military living quarters — would improve this situation?

To be clear, however, the practical or logistical issues upon which the editorial focuses are ultimately irrelevant. The real issue is moral.

Many critics have already said the US military has no moral authority over its troops’ sexuality, which was one of the leading arguments in the fight to allow homosexuals to openly serve. If it has no moral authority over sexuality in that case, then how can the military have authority over sexuality in any other?

By contrast, the Christian faith (to which Baylor ascribes) adheres to an absolute standard: sexual behavior is intended only for one lifelong marriage between one man and one woman.  That does not mean Christians (or the Jews and Muslims who share similar beliefs about marriage) are required to criminalize other sexual behaviors — nor does it mean they are required to advocate for those who ascribe to those behaviors.  The Baylor Lariat board is certainly entitled to express its opinion, but it is nothing more than that: an opinion apparently based more on emotion than fact, morality, or even a clear understanding of the societal role of their own professed faith.

Still, the line has long since been crossed in society, meaning the Baylor students may be advocating for a foregone conclusion.

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---