+
upworthy
More

The big argument defending the trans military ban just got debunked ... by the military.

None of the reasons hold up to even a little scrutiny.

Among its latest reasons for attempting to ban transgender people from the military (again), the Trump administration points to potential disruptions to something called "unit cohesion" — basically, how well members of a troop work together.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis wrote that allowing trans people to serve in the military "could undermine readiness, disrupt unit cohesion, and impose an unreasonable burden on the  military that is not conducive to military effectiveness and lethality."

Using that memo, Trump announced that trans people would be "disqualified from military service except under certain limited circumstances." The entire process was clearly just a way to reverse-engineer a rationale for implementing his impulsive July 2017 tweets on the subject.


Yet while the ban remains tied up in courts, trans people continue to serve openly in the military — which means we can see how those claims hold up in the real world. Let's take a look at the three most important ones.

President Donald Trump addresses members of the Air Force in September 2017. Photo by Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images.

1. Is that unit cohesion narrative legit?

Over the past several weeks, chiefs of staff for the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard have all weighed in — offering a surprising, and pretty much unanimous, answer.

Testifying before the Senate on April 12, Gen. Mark Milley, the Army's chief of staff, was asked by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), "Are you aware of any problems with unit cohesion arising? ... Have you [heard] anything, how transgender service members are harming unit cohesion?"

"No, not at all. ... We have a finite number [of trans service members]," he replied. "We know who they are, and it is monitored very closely because, you know, I'm concerned about that and want to make sure that they are in fact treated with dignity and respect. And no, I have received precisely zero reports of issues of cohesion, discipline, morale, and all those sorts of things. No."

[rebelmouse-image 19476564 dam="1" original_size="500x261" caption="GIF via Political News/YouTube" expand=1]GIF via Political News/YouTube

Five days later, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), asked Vice Adm. Karl Schultz, the incoming Coat Guard commandant, the same question. He replied, "I am not aware of any disciplinary or unit cohesion issues resulting from the opening of the Coast Guard to transgender individuals."

On April 19, Gillibrand asked Adm. Jon Richardson, the Navy's chief naval officer, and Gen. Robert Neller, the Marine Corps commandant, whether they were aware of any issues resulting from open service.

"We treat every one of those sailors, regardless, with dignity and respect that is warranted by wearing the uniform of the United States Navy. By virtue of that approach, I am not aware of any issues," replied Richardson.

[rebelmouse-image 19476565 dam="1" original_size="500x278" caption="GIF from CSPAN." expand=1]GIF from CSPAN.

"There's 27 Marines that have identified as transgender ... . I am not aware of any issues in those areas," said Neller.

Finally, on April 23, Gillibrand asked Air Force Chief of Staff, General David Goldfein, whether he was aware of any "issues of morale or discipline resulting from open transgender service." He responded, "The way you present the question, I have not."

[rebelmouse-image 19476566 dam="1" original_size="500x278" caption="GIF from CSPAN." expand=1]GIF from CSPAN.

2. How about that popular argument put forward by Trump about transgender troops' "tremendous medical costs"?

"After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military," Trump tweeted on the morning of July 26, 2017. "Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you."

Of course, pretty much none of this is accurate. A study commissioned by the Defense Department found that the total added cost of allowing trans people to service and access health care would amount to somewhere between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually. To put that in perspective, the military spends as much as ten times that amount annually on erectile dysfunction medication. That same study found no basis in cost, cohesion, or medical status to prevent trans people from serving in the military.

People protest the trans military ban outside of the White House on July 26, 2017. Photo by Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images.

3. Then there are those who say trans people simply aren't fit to serve, medically. Is that true?

In a letter on April 3 addressed to Mattis, American Medical Association CEO Dr. James Madara wrote, "There is no medically valid reason — including a diagnosis of gender dysphoria — to exclude transgender individuals from military service.  Transgender individuals have served, and continue to serve, our country with honor, and we believe they should be allowed to continue doing so."

On March 26, the American Psychological Association slammed the administration for its "misuse of psychological science to stigmatize transgender Americans and justify limiting their ability to serve in uniform and access medically necessary health care," adding, "Substantial psychological research shows that gender dysphoria is a treatable condition, and does not, by itself, limit the ability of individuals to function well and excel in their work, including in military service."

Dr. Joycelyn Elders testifies before the Senate during her confirmation hearings in July 1993. Photo by Kort Duce/AFP/Getty Images.

Former Surgeons General Joycelyn Elders (who served under Bill Clinton) and David Satcher (who served under Clinton and George W. Bush) came out with a joint statement on the issue, writing, "We are troubled that the Defense Department’s report on transgender military service has mischaracterized the robust body of peer-reviewed research on the effectiveness of transgender medical care as demonstrating 'considerable scientific uncertainty.' In fact, there is a global medical consensus that such care is reliable, safe, and effective."

Sure, that's what a bunch of experts say. But a small group of anti-LGBTQ activists and a famously anti-LGBTQ vice president have a few thoughts, too.

Though the White House has been extremely reluctant to divulge how they arrived at the decision to try and ban trans service members and who was involved in those conversations, Slate's Mark Joseph Stern landed on a bit of a scoop:

"According to multiple sources, Vice President Mike Pence played a leading role in the creation of this report, along with Ryan Anderson, an anti-trans activist, and Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, an anti-LGBTQ lobbying group. Mattis actually supports open transgender service, but he was effectively overruled by Pence, and chose not to spend his limited political capital further defending trans troops. In a memo released on Friday, Mattis encouraged Trump to ban transgender people from enlisting in the military, and to discharge those service members who wish to transition. Trump has now formally adopted these suggestions."

Here's hoping that the courts, while ever increasing in their Trumpiness, stand on the side of expertise, science, and facts over anti-LGBTQ culture warriors. The arguments being made here, especially ones about unit cohesion, are the same ones used to keep people of color, women, and gays, lesbians, and bisexuals out of the military — this just just the latest hurdle.

The Trump administration has taken aim at trans people during these first 15 months in office. Whether it's banning trans people from the military, giving doctors the green light to refuse trans people medical treatment, reversing course on a policy intended to protect trans students, argued that trans people aren't covered by employment non-discrimination laws, and more. It's an obsession that goes beyond the military, which is why it's so important to fight back against bigotry, starting here.

Image from YouTube video.

An emotional and strong Matt Diaz.


Matt Diaz has worked extremely hard to lose 270 pounds over the past six years.

But his proudest moment came in March 2015 when he decided to film himself with his shirt off to prove an important point about body positivity and self-love.

Keep ReadingShow less
Community

Man uses social media to teach others ASL so kids don't experience what he did as a child

Every child should be able to communicate in a way that works best for them.

Man teaches people ASL so no child experiences what he did

People start communicating from the moment they enter the world usually through cries, faces, grunts and squeals. Once infants move into the toddler phase the combine all of their previous communication skills with pointing and saying a few frequently used words like "milk," "mama," "dada" and "eat."

Children who are born without the ability to hear often still go through those same stages with the exception of their frequently used words being in sign language. But not all hearing parents know sign language, which can stunt the language skills of their non-hearing child. Ronnie McKenzie is an American Sign Language advocate that uses social media to teach others how to sign so deaf and nonverbal kids don't feel left out.

"But seriously i felt so isolated 50% of my life especially being outside of school i had NONE to sign ASL with. Imagine being restricted from your own language," McKenzie writes in his caption.

Keep ReadingShow less
Family

Wife says husband's last name is so awful she can't give it to her kids. Is she right?

"I totally get we can’t shield kids from everything, and I understand the whole family ties thing, but c’mon."

A wife pleads with her husband to change their child's name.

Even though it’s 2023 and schools are much more concerned with protecting children from bullying than in the past, parents still have to be aware that kids will be kids, and having a child with a funny name is bound to cause them trouble.

A mother on Reddit is concerned that her future children will have the unfortunate last name of “Butt,” so she asked people on the namenerds forum to help her convince her husband to name their child something different.

(Note: We’re assuming that the person who wrote the post is a woman because their husband is interested in perpetuating the family name, and if it were a same-sex relationship, a husband probably wouldn’t automatically make that assumption.)

"My husband’s last name is Butt. Can someone please help me illuminate to him why this last name is less than ideal,” she asked the forum. “I totally get we can’t shield kids from everything and I understand the whole family ties thing, but c'mon. Am I being unreasonable by suggesting our future kid either take my name, a hybrid, or a new one altogether?"

Keep ReadingShow less
Joy

Bus driver comes to the rescue for boy who didn't have an outfit for school's Pajamas Day

“It hurt me so bad…I wanted him to have a good day. No child should have to miss out on something as small as pajama day.”

Representative Image from Canva

One thoughtful act can completely turn someone's day around.

On the morning just before Valentine’s Day, school bus driver Larry Farrish Jr. noticed something amiss with Levi, one of his first grade passengers, on route to Engelhard Elementary, part of Jefferson County Public School (JCPS) in Louisville, Kentucky.

On any other day, the boy would greet Farrish with a smile and a wave. But today, nothing. Levi sat down by himself, eyes downcast, no shining grin to be seen. Farrish knew something was up, and decided to inquire.

With a “face full of tears,” as described on the JCPS website, Levi told Farrish that today was “Pajama Day” at school, but he didn’t have any pajamas to wear for the special occasion.
Keep ReadingShow less
via Imgur

Memories of testing like this gets people fired up.

It doesn't take much to cause everyone on the internet to go a little crazy, so it's not completely surprising that an incorrect answer on a child's math test is the latest event to get people fired up.

The test in question asked kids to solve "5 x 3" using repeated addition. Under this method, the correct answer is "5 groups of 3," not "3 groups of 5." The question is typical of Common Core but has many questioning this type of standardized testing and how it affects learning.

Keep ReadingShow less
Joy

There are over 30 years between these amazing before-and-after photos.

"It's important for me for my photography to make people smile."

All photos by Chris Porsz/REX/Shutterstock.

Before and after photos separated by 30 years.


Chris Porsz was tired of studying sociology.

As a university student in the 1970s, he found the talk of economics and statistics completely mind-numbing. So instead, he says, he roamed the streets of his hometown of Peterborough, England, with a camera in hand, snapping pictures of the people he met and listening to their stories. To him, it was a far better way to understand the world.

He always looked for the most eccentric people he could find, anyone who stood out from the crowd. Sometimes he'd snap a single picture of that person and walk away. Other times he'd have lengthy conversations with these strangers.

Keep ReadingShow less