Trans

Military Announces Its Own Transition Plan to Allow Transgender Troops

Yes they can now serve openly, but the regulations will be complicated.

|

troops
Department of Defense/Sipa USA/Newscom

As leaked earlier in the week, today Defense Secretary Ash Carter formally announced that the United States military is ending its blanket ban on transgender people serving in the forces.

As of today, transgender troops will no longer be discharged from the military or denied reenlistment "solely for being transgender individuals." That use of "solely" as a modifier there is important because it's an acknowledgement of both the pro and con arguments: There's nothing inherent about being transgender that should disqualify someone for military service; but the totality of that person's experience and their ability to adjust to both what's going on within them and the military's need for conformity requires analysis.

There are a whole bunch of "next steps" in the Department of Defense's fact sheet about this transition. In three months, military handbooks will be updated to acknowledge transgender troops, medical "guidance" on transition care will be hammered out, and service members will be able to officially change their gender on their personnel records. More steps deal with the complexities of gender transitions will be rolled out over the next year.

Beyond that, it's important to note that military does not appear to be buying into any sort of "gender is just a construct" or "gender fluidity" dynamic. Transgender troops will be expected to identify as male or female, just like everybody else. There's nothing to suggest that there will be new pronouns, nobody will be able to declare themselves "non-binary," and nobody will be able to demand to be called "they." A transgender person will be expected to live and conform with the appearance and guidelines of the gender they've become. This doesn't necessarily mandate reassignment surgery but will require living as the chosen sex permanently.

USA Today notes that as part of the research before implementing these changes, the military did evaluate the likely impact on readiness as well as costs to the military to pay for medical treatment, based calculations of the number of likely transgender troops:

There are between 1,320 and 6,630 transgender troops in the active-duty force of 1.3 million, according to Agnes Schaefer, the lead author of a RAND Corp. study commissioned by the Pentagon on the issue. Of those troops, RAND estimates that between 30 and 140 would seek hormone treatment, and 25 to 130 would seek surgery. The estimated annual price tag: $2.4 million to $8.4 million, per year.

The effect on readiness to fight, or deploy, is anticipated to be small, Schaefer said. Transgender troops would be unavailable to deploy between 8 and 43 man years annually, a measure of military readiness. The military overall has 1.2 million man years. The Army has about 5,300 non-deployable man years.

"The bottom line is that we think it will be minimal," Schaefer said of the effect on military readiness of lifting the ban.

For some context, America's annual defense budget is around $600 billion.

A source gave Dominic Holden at BuzzFeed some indications of what some of these new policies might entail for transgender citizens who want to join the military. Much of the policy developments happening right now focus on transgender people already serving. Of note, if his info is accurate, an openly transgender person who wants to join the military may be expected to complete the transition before joining. There's little foundation to suggest that transgender people will go running to join the military in order to get free treatment or that such behavior would be permitted.

On the other hand, if they did, is that any different than people who join the military for any other economic reason? How is that different from joining the military to pay for college? As long as they're still expected to conform to military policy and perform up to the same standards as their nontransgender peers, there really shouldn't be a problem. And if it turns out a transgender military member is emotionally or mentally unfit for service in other ways, that's still no different from other men and women who end up washing out for being unable to adapt or conform.

NEXT: Military Transgender Ban Ending, Indiana Abortion Restriction Blocked, Possible House Gun Bill Coming: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I wonder if this will cause recruitment problems?

  2. (Grabs Popcorn)

  3. There’s nothing to suggest that there will be no new pronouns…

    DOUBLE NEGATIVE! I knew it! There will be new pronouns troops will have to learn. R. Lee Ermey is rolling over in his grave.

      1. Now you’ve made me look THE FOOL!

  4. “openly transgender person who wants to join the military may be expected to complete the transition before joining”

    Makes sense. You probably should wait until your body finishes changing before doing a career that requires you to do lots of physical activity.

  5. In three months, military handbooks will be updated to acknowledge transgender troops…

    I double knew it! This whole thing has been orchestrated by Big Printer.

  6. “There’s nothing to suggest that there will be no new pronouns” should be more like “There’s nothing to suggest that there will be new pronouns,” leaving out the “no”.

  7. “As long as they’re still expected to conform to military policy and perform up to the same standards as their nontransgender peers, there really shouldn’t be a problem.” Except transitioning is a years long process, during which you would absolutely be unable to perform your duties.

    1. So you skipped the part where they talked about how many folks they anticipated to seek medical transitions? And even then, surgery might put you out for a few weeks, but nothing else would really mean you couldn’t work.

      1. And who’s paying for the surgery?

        1. The infrastructure bank.

      2. Maternity leave is a right. It only puts you out for a few weeks.

        1. Nondeployable I’m the army for 15 months.

  8. Man, Klinger is ganna be pissed.

  9. So which one is their rifle and which one is their gun?

    1. They keep their rifle in the gun closet, and their gun in a glass jar. Duh.

  10. How is that different from joining the military to pay for college?

    Seriously? WTHF Shackford?

    1. Seriously? WTHF mad.casual?
      See the context

    2. Socially liberal. Fiscally convenient.

  11. Robby is in charge of the links again. Apparently he wasn’t mocked enough after the 5/17 fiasco.

    1. I missed them.

  12. We cannot have a transgender gap!

    Thigh gap, however…

  13. Hmmm. Another government agency trying to register the transgenders in some sort of database…

  14. Cool, so a group that apparently commits suicide at a higher than normal rate will now be issued firearms and put into extremely stressful circumstances.

    I see no downsides.

    1. They commit suicide because of hatred and aggression by hatred-spewing assholes and bigots. THOSE stressful situations. Now they’ll be armed. Do the math.

      1. 1) If only they weren’t hated, they’d have no psychological problems? Bullshit.
        2) How, exactly, does this help the military serve its core function?

        1. If only they weren’t hated, they’d have no psychological problems? Bullshit.

          The bullshit is yours. Do you have any more wackiness for us?
          Umm, they wouldn’t have near as many psychological problems … from hate-spewing fascists?

          2) How, exactly, does this help the military serve its core function?

          Why exactly should your contempt for equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights matter anywhere in America?
          In which branch of the military did you serve ?
          Our soldiers risk their lives to defend America’s freedom. NOW do you get it?

  15. Cool, so a group that apparently commits suicide at a higher than normal rate will now be issued firearms and put into extremely stressful circumstances.

    I see no downsides.

    1. The squirrels agree, apparently.

  16. There are between 1,320 and 6,630 transgender troops in the active-duty force of 1.3 million, according to Agnes Schaefer…

    At this time there are zero troops or other humans who have changed gender. There are some amphibious creatures who do so and a very small number of humans with mixed DNA at birth, but we’re way off into oddities here.

    1. A range that wide is code for “we have no fucking idea”.

      1. R C Dean
        A range that wide is code for “we have no fucking idea”.

        You’re semi-correct for calling out widget’s lie. Then you go bonkers by insanely exaggerating what wide range shows. You MAY be suffering severe denial. Are you also a Birther?

    2. At this time there are zero troops or other humans who have changed gender.

      If we ignore birth certificates. In most cases, they clarify a confused gender identity, body versus soul.

  17. I’m going to do transgendered people the utmost respect by not giving a damned and ignoring it.

    I’m roasting a turkey today. Carved off the breasts*, seasoned with a wet baste of bacon grease, smoked paprika and garlic. Gravy, colcannon, a spinach-and-strawberry salad. Somethingsomething else, haven’t decided what yet.

    *Roasted white meat is a waste. I’ll use it another day.

    Watcha eating?

    1. I’m going to do transgendered people the utmost respect by not giving a damned and ignoring it.

      The transgendered people I don’t generally/specifically have a problem with. The motherfucking useful fucking idiots who spout shit like ‘getting a college education is the moral and/or economic equivalent of getting your gender switched’ are the ones who really piss me off. Especially the ones knowingly writing as such for Reason.

      1. mad.casual
        ‘getting a college education is the moral and/or economic equivalent of getting your gender switched’ are the ones who really piss me off.

        It’s pathetic fucking liars and bigots like you who piss ME off.

        That’s the second time mad.causual has shamefully lied about that context. But the first time (so far) that he lied about the actual words, in quotes. Here’s the words he lied about,

        There’s little foundation to suggest that transgender people will go running to join the military in order to get free treatment or that such behavior would be permitted.

        On the other hand, if they did, is that any different than people who join the military for any other economic reason? How is that different from joining the military to pay for college?

        No, it would be no different at all.
        Shame on you.

        1. Sounds a bit dry. Have you tried soaking it in wine?

          1. Don’t reply to that fucking idiot.

            1. MacDaddy81
              Don’t reply to that fucking idiot.

              Yes, you could wind up making a public jackass of yourself. like MacDddy81 did here:

              https://reason.com/blog/2016/06…..nt_6234326

              Is there a connection? All liars are bullies. All bullies are liars.
              Authoritarians shouting down all who don’t conform to their dictates Like the Nazis.

    2. So, did you just turn Jenny into Tom by that surgery?

    3. Sounds like a pretty awesome meal.

  18. RAND estimates that between 30 and 140 would seek hormone treatment, and 25 to 130 would seek surgery. The estimated annual price tag: $2.4 million to $8.4 million, per year.

    Which expenditure will do absolutely nothing, best case scenario, to improve the ability of the military to do its job.

    1. Much of the military’s job since January 2009 has been social engineering, Ensuring full military participation in the national freak show is a major part of the social engineering.

    2. Putting a few women on steroids would make some difference

      1. Which expenditure will do absolutely nothing, best case scenario, to improve the ability of the military to do its job

        Neither would an appendectomy … or any other procedures.
        Think of all the money we could save by laying off all the military surgeons!!!

      2. Which expenditure will do absolutely nothing, best case scenario, to improve the ability of the military to do its job

        Neither would an appendectomy … or any other procedures.
        Think of all the money we could save by laying off all the military surgeons!!!

  19. Beyond that, it’s important to note that military does not appear to be buying into any sort of “gender is just a construct” or “gender fluidity” dynamic. Transgender troops will be expected to identify as male or female, just like everybody else. There’s nothing to suggest that there will be new pronouns, nobody will be able to declare themselves “non-binary,” and nobody will be able to demand to be called “they.” A transgender person will be expected to live and conform with the appearance and guidelines of the gender they’ve become. This doesn’t necessarily mandate reassignment surgery but will require living as the chosen sex permanently.

    Of course they’re not. They’re going to have a much, much more narrow view of ‘gender’ than does the Twittersphere.

    1. I feel I should add that from what I read of the Military’s policy, once this hard declaration is made, you’re not “transgender” or recognized as such. You’re now the sex you declared at paperwork time. You identify as male? *stamp slamming down on paperwork*

      You’re male. You WILL use the men’s bathroom, you WILL use the men’s showers, and no fucking takebacks.

      1. Why can’t someone be a trans-trans? They could have layers of gender within gender within gender that they have to peel away over a lifetime in order to uncover their true identity. Who are we to judge?

        1. Don’t give them any ideas.

          1. Yeah, too many nutjobs think that’s already the case.
            Few are easier to manipulate than the bigots, who are eager for it.

      2. You’re male. You WILL use the men’s bathroom, you WILL use the men’s showers, and no fucking takebacks.

        Like all the other males!
        Trannies neither want no need takebacks. Ignore the goobers who believe trannies are that way by choice or whim/ The same ones who believe homosexuality is a choice, even after Reagan’s energetic ridicule of the fallacy.

  20. As long as they’re still expected to conform to military policy and perform up to the same standards as their nontransgender peers, there really shouldn’t be a problem. And if it turns out a transgender military member is emotionally or mentally unfit for service in other ways, that’s still no different from other men and women who end up washing out for being unable to adapt or conform.

    This is absolutely true. However, it could be argued that it creates an environment which makes it easier to claim “discrimination” if you’re booted for under-performing in your new social construct. But that’s an unknowable.

    1. But that’s an unknowable infallibly predictable from all previous experience with grievance groups.

      FTFY

  21. “There’s nothing inherent about being transgender that should disqualify someone for military service;”

    Indeed , the Constitution does not direct the Secretary of War to display either reasonable taste or a a decent respect for the opinion of mankind.

    1. We even allow retards to be citizens!!!

  22. “There’s nothing inherent about being transgender that should disqualify someone for military service;”

    I dunno, being crazy enough to think you can overrule biological facts by wishing them away would make me leery of putting trannies in military roles.

    1. I dunno, being crazy enough to think you can overrule biological facts by wishing them away would make me leery of putting trannies in military roles.

      I’d be leery of enlisting anyone so eager to be brainwashed/.

  23. “…. but the regulations will be complicated”

    I think that could probably be appended to everything in the news.

    Re: TransForce5 – my estwhile dream of an all Transgender Special Ops Unit….

    i just think we live in a fucked up world when you get front page headlines about the fact that “a few hundred minority-people” can now sort-of-kind-of take jobs working in the armed forces, and that’s like a wunderbar thing which should give everyone a warm-fuzzy…. ?

    …when at the same time, the actual *stuff those armed forces are doing* hardly even merits a mention in the daily list of things to “give a shit about”.

    its like = congratulations! the next time anyone will care about you is when you get killed in some politically awkward circumstances.

    1. a few hundred minority-people”

      FUCK individual rights!!!! MINORITIES aren’t eligible. Civil rights for “negroes” was national tragedy.

      So how many must there be to qualify for constitutional rights in your gulag?
      We libertarians have always celebrated the inclusion of even a single individual into the defense of individual liberties … despite your protected class.

      See, this is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The tiniest minority is …. wait for it ….
      an individual! See how it all connects? They’re ALL sacred.

  24. There are between 1,320 and 6,630 transgender troops in the active-duty force of 1.3 million, according to Agnes Schaefer, the lead author of a RAND Corp. study commissioned by the Pentagon on the issue. Of those troops, RAND estimates that between 30 and 140 would seek hormone treatment, and 25 to 130 would seek surgery. The estimated annual price tag: $2.4 million to $8.4 million, per year.

    Is this the same RAND that was so accurate at estimating obamacare enrollments?

    1. Umm, Sparky I’ll go slowly for ya

      Your own link makes you a liar. The original .estimate said only 1/3 of enrollees were uninsured. But the final report was not 33%, it was 36% (gasp)

      And (laughing hysterically) the comparison was between two RAND numbers RAND vs RAND
      (laughing harder) The original RAND number was 2.3 million uninsured. The detailed report said 1.4 million … an even bigger failure for Obamacare!.

      I’ll simplify it. Your link says the original RAND estimate was that Obamacare was a FAILURE at reducing the uninsured … the full report (also by RAND!) was a BIGGER failure for Obamacare … so you lie about it to “support” your second bigoted comment here. (shudder)

    2. There are between 1,320 and 6,630 transgender troops in the active-duty force of 1.3 million

      Looking at the report itself, this barely rises to the level of SWAG

      “”To date, there have been no systematic studies of the number of transgender individuals in the U.S. general population or in the U.S. military. Current studies rely on clinical samples of health care service utilizers, nonrepresentative samples assembled in ways that are difficult to replicate, and self-reported survey data from a small number of states… The transgender prevalence in the U.S. general population is thought to be significantly less than 1 percent (Gates, 2011, p. 6; APA, 2013, p. 454). However, there have been no rigorous epidemiological studies in the general U.S. population that confirm this estimate. Our subsequent estimates must be qualified, therefore, as some-what speculative””

      they could easily have conducted a few sample-surveys at low cost. Its the @#*(&$ military. And its easier & cheaper to survey a specific population (the military) than a general one. The fact that they don’t even try is (in my number-monkey opinion) a political decision. If they wanted better data, they’d get it. IMO they want to keep it vague. in the end its still just “between 0.1-0.5%”

      1. Looking at the report itself, this barely rises to the level of SWAG

        Oh.
        The number may be wrong.
        The huge range, 1,320-6,630 should give you a clue.

        in the end its still just “between 0.1-0.5%

        Relevance?
        Do you know the concept of equal, unalienable and/or God-given INDIVIDUAL rights?
        This a libertarians website. Every single life is precious. We don’t count first. That’ss what make us America.

        “Group rights” was invented by your fellow progs.

  25. Paging Corporal Klinger. please pick up the pink courtesy phone.

    1. No, Klinger wore dresses to get OUT of the Army.

      1. So THAT’S why he was a corporal!

  26. On the other hand, if they did, is that any different than people who join the military for any other economic reason? How is that different from joining the military to pay for college?

    College graduates don’t collectively have a ~40% “suicide attempt” rate?

    1. COLLIGE BOY NEED 110% SUICIDE FINUSH

    2. College graduates don’t collectively have a ~40% “suicide attempt” rate?

      College grads, as a group,a ren’t subject to constant bigotry and hatred by assholes.
      This from page one of your own freaking link

      Respondents who experienced rejection by family and
      friends, discrimination, victimization, or violence had
      elevated prevalence of suicide attempts, such as those
      who experienced the following:
      ? Family chose not to speak/spend time with them: 57%
      ? Discrimination, victimization, or violence at school,
      at work, and when accessing health care
      ? Harassed or bullied at school (any level): 50-54%
      ? Experienced discrimination or harassment at
      work: 50-59%
      ? Doctor or health care provider refused to treat
      them: 60%
      ? Suffered physical or sexual violence:
      ? At work: 64-65%
      ? At school (any level): 63-78%
      ? Discrimination, victimization, or violence by law
      enforcement
      ? Disrespected or harassed by law enforcement
      officers: 57-61%
      ? Suffered physical or sexual violence: By law
      enforcement officers: 60-70
      ? Experienced homelessness: 69%

      Umm, college graduates don’t experience anything even remotely close to that abuse from hate-spewing bigots.
      One faces great risk posting links they’ve neither read nor understood.. The risk of making a public fool of one’s self

  27. Please stop replying to Hahn. The derp is getting out of hand.

    1. Or Hihn. Either/or.

    2. Anyone crazy enough to swallow MacDddy81’s bullshit? His hissy fit because I documented his fellow bigot as a liar. Now it’s his turn!
      Here’s the FIRST liar’s link. Are the following words on page one. The issue is why suicide rates so high for transgenders … for anyone stupid enough to need it!

      Respondents who experienced rejection by family and
      friends, discrimination, victimization, or violence had
      elevated prevalence of suicide attempts, such as those
      who experienced the following:
      ? Family chose not to speak/spend time with them: 57%
      ? Discrimination, victimization, or violence at school,
      at work, and when accessing health care
      ? Harassed or bullied at school (any level): 50-54%
      ? Experienced discrimination or harassment at
      work: 50-59%
      ? Doctor or health care provider refused to treat
      them: 60%
      ? Suffered physical or sexual violence:
      ? At work: 64-65%
      ? At school (any level): 63-78%
      ? Discrimination, victimization, or violence by law
      enforcement
      ? Disrespected or harassed by law enforcement
      officers: 57-61%
      ? Suffered physical or sexual violence: By law
      enforcement officers: 60-70
      ? Experienced homelessness: 69%

      We’ve now exposed TWO bulllies and bigots (for now). Their ilk doesn’t mind making asses of themselves, as long as they can launch more aggression. Thugs are like that.

      1. How was the transition from Mary to Michael? Was there surgery? New meds you won’t take?

          1. Off your meds for long?

  28. Long time lurker … I registered just to express my disgust at this Benny Hinn character. He’s even more insufferable than y*n*o*T. Lefty-style argumentation including sarcastic use of (gasp) and (shudder). Lefty tactic of confusing individual rights with “equality.”

    Transexuals’ psychological problems are caused by society, and not by their own war against biological reality? Check.

    Joining the military is a fundamental human right, and actual military concerns like mental health and bodily integrity should be dismissed as bigotry? Check.

    A sex-change operation is just like any other life-saving medical treatment, and should be provided free by the government? Check.

    Yeah, he’s a founding father of libertarianism and he’s here to school us. My ass. He’s the kind of leftist wacko who gave libertarianism a bad name back in the “big tent” era.

      1. I don’t know. I’ve been a longtime lurker too. ‘Michael Hihn’ is usually pretty sensible on a lot of issues. It’s just that apparently on this specific topic, he’ll brook no backsass. And, maybe he just had a really bad day yesterday. Or maybe he started drinking by 8 pm.

        1. Says someone who celebrates feeding humans into woodchippers

        2. maybe he just had a really bad day yesterday. Or maybe he started drinking by 8 pm.

          When I marched and protested for equal rights in the 1950s, bigots like you were a literal threat to my life. So I can easily yawn at cyber-bullies. Imagine how many troops have died defending individual rights over 200 years.

          (You must now make another childishly crude comment, now on my age, to satisfy your fellow tribesmen)

          1. You and your wacko ilk make me even more glad to have a DD214.

    1. Believes that only a lefty would defend equal rights on a libertarian website.
      (snicker)

    2. I missed the blatant fascism the first time:

      Lefty tactic of confusing individual rights with “equality.”

      Now in the lead for stupidest statememt of the decade!

  29. If a 90 pound woman identifies as a man, can she (or he) join the marines and get involved in field action?

    If you’re pushing buttons somewhere or flying drones or helicopters, no one would care. But in the battlefield the practical / biological difference between men and women will be stark. The feminists can scream and moan all they want, but men will generally LAST longer in heat of battle compared to women. physically and mentally. Joan of Arc did not actually fight in any battles.

    A gay soldier will be surrounded by straights who won’t feel anything for him. A transgender man still have boobs and shaped like a woman. Who knows how lonely soldiers in desperate times might react.

    What happens if a an average NBA center plays for the WNBA? If you’re biologically a woman and you want to be part of a male unit, reality mandates you defer certain roles to men in certain situations.

    1. Who knows how lonely soldiers in desperate times might react.

      Hates trannies in uniform. Celebrates rapists in uniform. Would rape a trannie before he’d rape a woman.

      When our son graduated Army basic training, like many parents, we spent the day walking around the base seeing various types of rigorous training. It was the first Army basic class to include women, 21 years ago.
      Hate-mongers are always in the wrong century.

    2. What happens if an average NBA center plays for the WNBA?

      The NBA is a private organization. The constitutional restricts only government to equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights. I’m guessing you don’t have many female friends.

      Women fought alongside men in the Civil War.
      American women are already eligible for combat roles, 40 years after most major countries began doing so,
      Feminists are hardly the only ones who honor our Constitution — which was written and ratified by men. Nobody considers the Israeli military as a bunch of wusses. It seems the world may have passed you by.
      Forty years ago.

  30. “equal rights” instead of individual rights
    “rapists in uniform”
    “hate-mongers”
    “celebrates feeding humans into woodchippers”

    If we take advice from SJW’s and drop all the icky anti-government stuff, maybe they’ll like us.

    1. Yeah, pro-liberty is far more effective. But one must first know the benefits of liberty to everyone.
      Anti-gummint goobers REALLY believe the best salesmen attack their competitors instead of selling the benefits. Wven 17-year-old minimum-wage workers are smarter than that.

      Liberty lovers are fighting for every possible advance in individual liberty, inch-by-inch if necessary. They CREATE liberty.
      Gummint haters create nothing. Their sole function is destruction, (and their IQ is too low to know the difference). They are the greatest obstacle to individual liberty, as they shout down the liberty lovers because only total assholes are REALLY committed. Thus, Cato’s survey found the libertarian brand is rejected .by 91% of libertarians

      Eric Hoffer nailed it in his seminal book on zealots and fanatics.
      “Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers.”
      -Eric Hoffer, “The True Believers” (1951)

      Or stated as:
      Throughout human history, the worst abuses have been committed by those who BELIEVE they are defending some “greater good” — the Collective, the State, the Master Race, the Party or a God. Zealots and fanatics. The militant self-righteous.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.