A variety of religious and liberty groups have called on Congress to reverse the military’s decision to allow transgender service, saying:<\/p>\n
This [policy] is an affront to the American people and is certain to undermine readiness, recruitment, and retention in the military. Thus, we urge you to halt the implementation…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell took an act of Congress because the ban<\/em> on homosexual service\u00a0was part of US law. (Many forget that DADT was the policy<\/em> used\u00a0to avoid\u00a0enforcing the law<\/em> banning homosexuals from the US military.) The military could not change its policy<\/em> without Congress changing the law<\/em>.<\/p>\n
But the ban on transgenderism was more basic. It was simply one of a variety of things the military determined were disqualifying for admission into the military. While many bans still remain, the military unilaterally decided gender issues were no longer a bar to service and reversed the policy, requiring no public debate or congressional oversight.<\/p>\n
One of the reasons the groups called for Congress to intervene:<\/p>\n
Studies have shown that people who attempt to transition from one gender to the other experience high rates of suicide ideation, depression, and other mental health risks.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Bradley “Chelsea” Manning<\/a>, anyone?<\/p>\n
Further:<\/p>\n
Religious freedom and matters of conscience are also a serious concern. The [policy] failed to ensure people of faith would be able to exercise their consciences by diagnosing, counseling, or otherwise affirming a member\u2019s gender identity dysphoria. In fact, the [policy] is silent on the issue of how the freedom to believe is implicated and undermined by the [policy].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The groups called on Congress to use the NDAA to reverse the military’s decision. Given how far along the NDAA process is, it seems unlikely at this point that such a write-in will occur.<\/p>\n
Ironically, while the decision to allow gender-confused individuals to serve in the military has been lauded as a major event by\u00a0neo-sexual advocates, it actually benefits very<\/em> few people.\u00a0 To wit,\u00a0some complained\u00a0this policy change would elevate DoD medical costs in a fiscally-constrained environment.\u00a0 It turns out\u00a0a DoD-commissioned study by RAND<\/a> found the opposite<\/em>.\u00a0Why?\u00a0There are\u00a0very<\/em>\u00a0few transgenders in the military.<\/p>\n
RAND estimated transgendered individuals comprised approximately 0.3% of the US military, or less than 3,000 people in a population of 1.3 million.<\/p>\n
In other words, the massive social upheaval within the culture and within the military — everything from bathroom bills to mixed-genitalia shower policies<\/a> —\u00a0has been for the benefit of\u00a0an extraordinarily small group of people, and at the expense<\/em> of a very large group of people.<\/p>\n
That hardly engages a\u00a0‘vast recruiting pool,’ as some have implied, and it endangers a very\u00a0substantial<\/em> recruiting pool.<\/p>\n
How can that possibly make sense?<\/p>\n