CMR Policy Analysis Examines Consequences of New Transgender Policy
The Obama Administration has announced final plans to impose on the military the President’s most extreme social experiment yet: a policy regarding transgenders in the military that orders all personnel to deny scientific facts regarding human biology.
Pentagon officials appear to have no idea what they are doing, and unrealistic guidelines for implementation will be of little help to local commanders trying to make sense out of nonsense.
The Center for Military Readiness has examined Defense Department Instructions, Fact Sheets, Handbooks, and Directives, and prepared a comprehensive, 16-page CMR Policy Analysis that describes how far the administration is prepared to go in implementing LGBT law in our military:
In essence, the Defense Department has decided to treat confusion about one’s sexual identity as a “civil rights” issue. Henceforth, sexual minorities will enjoy special rights that reflect LGBT fantasies and ideology, not tangible reality.
Indications of just how far the Pentagon intends to go with this appear in a section of the Handbook presenting 19 “scenarios,” which are supposed to help local commanders figure out how to implement the new transgender policies. Some of these stories are simply bizarre.
For example, a military commander may have to deal with a transgendered man who announces that he is “pregnant.” Another scenario suggests that military women who don’t want to shower with biological males should rely on a curtain to protect their privacy.
A man undergoing “feminizing” hormone therapy may not be able to meet physical requirements for his job. And two scenarios explain what commanders should do when a person undergoing transition wants to live a double life – sometimes male and sometimes female. All of these scenarios pretend that “communication” will solve all problems.
The tiny minority of people who are confused about their sexual identity are not the real problem. Political leaders and appointees who indulge LGBT activists, including single-minded contractors, consultants, and politically-motivated civilian appointees, are the real source of controversies and social tensions that hurt morale and readiness.
Full implementation of the administration’s policies will require a host of policy changes affecting far more people that the transgender minority. These will include mandatory indoctrination in unscientific theories about gender in all Department of Defense schools and academies, infringements on personal privacy in conditions of forced intimacy, demoralizing pressures on military doctors and nurses to violate religious convictions or medical ethics, erosion of trust in leadership, and diversion of scarce time and resources in pursuit of social agendas that are not consistent with core values in the military.
Unnecessary policies that create all these problems and more will not benefit or strengthen the armed forces in any way.
Retired Army Colonel William J. Gregor, who has written extensively on the subject, notes that LGBT directives turn sound priorities upside down. Instead of putting the needs of the military first, officials are promoting recruitment and retention of a small cohort of persons suffering from gender dysphoria.
Under LGBT law, it doesn’t matter that the condition requires major, long-term medical treatment with uncertain results, often resulting in higher rates of depression and suicide. The new transgender policy has turned the military into just another “equal opportunity employer.”
Policies that put political correctness and individual desires above the needs of the military are a radical change that will weaken the selfless culture of the All-Volunteer Force. No one has explained how the recruitment of psychologically troubled individuals will improve military readiness.
This issue does not center on the few people who suffer from gender dysphoria, a psychological condition that makes them vulnerable to emotional harm. All transgenders deserve compassion and competent medical care, not substandard care in a politicized military health system.
Issues such as this distract attention from what must be done to strengthen our military and its readiness to defend the country. In the next administration, the Department of Defense must conduct a full, objective review of the consequences of social engineering in the military, issuing new orders that put military readiness first.
* * * * * *