After President Trump pulled off the plug on transgender military recruitment by introducing a ban that repeals Obama’s legacy, many wondered if this was the correct step forward towards the bright future of America.
To prove that, a Q&A segment was initiated, asking military servants and veterans about what their opinion is on the matter:
“Only two things matter: Survivability and lethality,” stated Army Sgt. Darian Browning. He served in the 82nd Airborne. “Anything other than that is a distraction. We have budget problems, also, already.”
“The stated purpose of the Army is to ‘fight and win the Nation’s land wars,’” continued Browning. “Any decisions or budget fixes should be centered around that and that alone.”
“The military is a machine that doesn’t breakdown for politics,” said Marine Sgt. Sean Conner, Iraq veteran, and MARSOC Raider. “I can assure you that the reasoning for this decision is for the benefit of the whole system.”
“Considering less than 1 percent identify as transgender in the military, it would be a major burden, and the cost benefit analysis would be in the favor of not allowing this policy to go through,” Conner explained. “The amount of change, cost and redirection would not outweigh the very small pros, if any.”
“The military had it right before with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, or else things get complicated real quick,” he added. “The rules were there before Trump came around and for good reason. I empathize if they want to serve, but just do it without having to announce your sexual orientation — it’s pretty simple.”
Deployment or full-time jobs are not allowed for transgender individuals that are undergoing a hormonal therapy. This is of course, for the sake of the country.
Marine Staff Sgt. Josh Ghering, who served in Afghanistan and Iraq and as a drill instructor shared his opinion as well:
“We need to be focused on how to improve our warfighting ability, period,” he said.
“If transgendered individuals are being taken out for these procedures and treatments, they are not being trained properly,” he continued. “Before we go to war, we train for over a year on ranges and with regimen after regimen. So then we take these individuals out of training to get their surgery. But what good are they if we are over in a war zone and they aren’t able to contribute to the fight because they’re going through therapy or recovering from said surgery?”
He explained that “the military is not a social experiment. Its objective is to fight wars. That’s where its sole focus should be.”
“I believe that the infantry and combat arms should stay male. (male: being born with male genitalia),” stated wounded Iraq veteran and Army Sgt. Jay Strobino. “In the military, your roles, positions, and tasks are very clear and outlined. And I have nothing against transgendered people or homosexuals, but it’ll start confusing those roles.”
“It’s not the ability so much of the individual, because yes there are plenty of females that can out lift me, out run me and so on,” explained Strobino. “But it’s a lower average as a whole, just due to body limitations. And you can’t have two sets of standards for the same group. It just won’t work.”
Strobino then added that indulging people who, honestly, have disabilities, is absurd:
“If you’re under the standard then you either train and improve, or you’re not in combat arms,” he said. “There’s no middle ground.”
According to the survey, some veterans disapproved of Trump’s decision:
“I don’t like that he just ran with it. He should have had a policy ready to go and Mattis should have rolled it out,” noted Army sniper Gregory Diacogiannis, who served in Iraq. War veteran.
“The military is here to destroy the enemy. It’s not a social experiment. We shouldn’t be using the military as a petri dish to push progressive ideas,” he continued. “They are a killing machine. People are denied service for all kinds of reasons. Why should we treat people with gender dysphoria differently?”
“You will ‘other’ them because they will become a protected class. In combat everyone is equal, it doesn’t matter if you are black, white, gay, straight, man, or woman,” he added. “But if you let other people live by a different standard you crush morale. Also, we are talking about 0.1 percent of the population not being able to serve.”
In the end, Afghanistan veteran and Army Ranger Zac Oja joined in on the debate, saying “I’m curious to see how this will be implemented. Will the openly transgendered individuals currently serving be forced out of the military? Will they be forced to ‘identify’ with what their birth certificate says for gender?”
“This, in my opinion, is going to do nothing markedly positive but will open the flood gate to the left for open dissent against this new policy,” he pointed out.
Oja assured that we do need time to adapt to the changes:
“I will say that I have heard nothing but good things from dear friends that have served with openly transgender soldiers,” he finished.
We cannot expect the media to cover the basis of everyone’s opinions, thus it will be more likely to see a partial truth on this story.
Although opinions may vary, the crucial thing is that Obama never did this for his country’s sake- he did it out of spite for Republicans, not thinking about the factual situation. And it seems as though Trump is to blame for that? How pitiful.