Running head: LET THEM SERVE

Let Them Serve

Emily Rose Perkins

Brigham Young University-Idaho

LET THEM SERVE 2

Abstract

Emily Rose Perkins is a junior at Brigham Young University-Idaho, majoring in Organizational

Advocacy and Public Relations. Perkins grew up an “Air Force Brat,” and her family has deep

military roots. In analyzing the article “LGBTQ Rights and Military Service,” from Opposing

Viewpoints, Perkins comes to the conclusion that transgender individuals should be allowed to

serve openly in the United States Military.

LET THEM SERVE 3

Let Them Serve

There are more than 1.4 million individuals serving in the United States Army, Navy,

Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard. At least 2,500 of them are transgender men and

women currently serving active duty. However, last July, President Donald J. Trump took to

Twitter to announce his intention to reinstate a ban on transgender service members, explaining

that he and unnamed military experts were concerned about both the financial burden and the

impact on the service’s effectiveness through such military personnel. But what is the impact of

transgender people on the military? Does it really affect America in the way our president

claims? How much of a financial burden is it, truly?

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer, commonly referred to as LGBTQ,

individuals have served in the United States military forces since the Revolutionary War. In fact,

the military didn’t have a formal ban on LGBTQ individuals from serving until 1941, when

“homosexual proclivities” became a disqualifier in the US Selective Service System Screening.

The led to the Department of Defense banning anyone LGBTQ from any military branch in

1949.

During Bill Clinton’s presidency, he hoped to lift the complete ban on lesbian, gay, and

bisexual service members, but did not find enough support in Congress. This led to the birth of

the 1993 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which forbade military members from asking about

another service members sexuality and disclosing their own sexual orientation to another. It also

condemned the discrimination and harassment of military personnel based on their perceived

sexuality. In spite of this promise, over 14,000 lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members were

discharged during the eighteen years this policy was official.

LET THEM SERVE 4

By 2011, 60% of Americans supported open service for LQBTQ personnel, and the

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was repealed. When the changes were implemented, service

members were able to discuss their sexuality openly at their wishes, and spouses in same-sex

marriages were able to receive the same benefits heterosexual couples did. In 2015, history was

made as same-sex marriage was finally made legal nationally via a Supreme Court case, and in

2016, President Barack Obama lifted the ban on transgender service members (LGBTQ Rights,

2017, n.p.).

On July 26, 2017, President Trump published a series of tweets, (seen above) which were

turned into formal policy by August, banning transgender individuals from serving in the

military in “any capacity” (Trump, 2017, n.p.). The American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU,

sued him and his administration immediately, seeking for an injunction to block the ban. On their

website, they state, “beginning on March 23, 2018, transgender individuals already serving our

country and meeting the rigorous fitness standards to do so, would be subject to discharge just

because they are transgender” (Strangio, November 2017, n.p.).

President Trump claims that allowing transgender people to serve in the military will

burden our country with tremendous medical costs and cause disruption within the forces.
LET THEM SERVE 5

However, both studies and real-world experience prove otherwise. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

of Washington, D.C. determined that “all of the reasons proffered by the President for excluding

transgender individuals from the military in this case were not merely unsupported, but were

actually contradicted by the studies, conclusions, and judgement of the military itself” (Strangio,

November 2017, n.p.).

The Rand Corporation issued a report in 2016, which assessed the impact openly-serving

transgender troops had on the military. They found that, generally, there wouldn’t be an impact

(Schaefer et al., 2016, n.p.).

The study identified the health care needs of the transgender population, specifically

transgender service members, as well as transition-related treatment costs, and looked into the

experiences of foreign militaries which allow open service of transgender personnel. Using

various data sets, they estimated that there are 2,450 active serving transgender personnel, as

well as 1,510 additional individuals serving in the reserves. Although there are as many as 6,630

transgender service members, only a small portion of them will receive gender transition-related

treatments. Anywhere from 29 to 129 transgender active duty military personnel will seek that

care.

The study also concludes that insurance coverage of gender transition-related health care

would increase by anywhere between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually – which only

contributes to a 0.04 to 0.13 percent increase in expenses. For perspective, less than 0.1 percent

of the total forces would seek gender transition care that could disrupt their deployment abilities.

According to National Priorities, the United States government spent $598.5 billion on

the military – over 50 percent of its annual federal discretionary spending. A few million dollars

wouldn’t impact the budget with any substance, especially considering the relatively small
LET THEM SERVE 6

number of transgender forces that would actually seek gender transition treatments and

resources.

Although research on other foreign military policies is limited, it indicates little to no

impact on the cohesion, effectiveness, and readiness of the military. Eighteen countries allow

transgender personnel to serve openly in their militaries. For example, Canada, Australia, Israel,

and the United Kingdom have had success in allowing openly-serving transgender personnel. In

fact, “commanders report that transgender personnel perform their military duties and contribute

to their units effectively” and “increases in diversity had led to increases in readiness and

performance” (Schaefer et al., 2016, p. 184-185).

The military has many requirements for its members, including both physical and mental

conditions. Some argue that transgender individuals aren’t mentally, emotionally, or

psychologically stable enough to function. Jennifer Sims, a captain in the U.S. Army, proves

otherwise. She never felt right as a boy while growing up and tried to act as masculine as

possible – which included following the footsteps of her family by joining the army. A year after

committing to an R.O.T.C. scholarship, Sims came to the conclusion that she was transgender.

“My choices were simple, yet complex:” she says, “serve the nation or serve myself.”

Sims couldn’t resist the call to serve and, in choosing to do so, repressed her true identity

for four years. “Living a lie left me utterly exhausted, but the worst part was never being able to

talk to anyone about what I was feeling. I had served in Afghanistan, Indonesia and Germany,

and my mental health was deteriorating.” Sims was depressed and found little enjoyment in life –

until the Department of Defense announced it would begin study on open transgender service.

She felt it was her duty to ensure she came out in the right way, so as to keep her unit successful.

After coming out, her mental health improved, and she felt better than before. Her unit didn’t
LET THEM SERVE 7

have any disruptions, and Sims truly does feel that openly serving strengthens the military.

“Enabling soldiers to pursue their gender identity allows them to feel a part of the Army’s team

and empowers them to be all they can be. Every soldier deserves to have that experience,

including the thousands who are transgender” (Sims, 2017, n.p.)

As seen in the above chart, a large portion of US voters believe that transgender

individuals should be allowed to serve in the military – primarily Democrats and independents,

but even a third of Republicans agree (Attitudes, 2017, n.p.). Senator John McCain said, “There

is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train, and deploy to leave the

military – regardless of their gender identity” (Baltimore Sun Editorial Board, 2018, n.p.).

Chase Strangio, Staff Attorney with the ACLU’s LGBT and AIDS project, wrote, “while

the president’s ban stigmatizes and threatens transgender service members every day, these brave
LET THEM SERVE 8

individuals are continuing to fight for their careers, their fellow service members, and for the

constitution” (November 2017, n.p.). If we are truly a country of opportunity, why not allow any

man or woman who is mentally and physically fit the access to fight and protect our land, and

our people?

Transgender individuals are no different than anyone else – they just want to be accepted

for who they are, and to live their lives transparently. The community as a whole is small and too

often the subject of abuse and shame. Allowing them to serve openly has no perceivable negative

impact on the finances or effectiveness of our military – so why ban them? There is no proven

reason to do so. The entire LGBTQ community should be allowed to serve openly in the United

States military, so long as they are found physically and mentally fit.
LET THEM SERVE 9

References

Attitudes toward LGBTQ military service and employment discrimination among US registered

voters, … (2017). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. (Reprinted from U.S. Voters say 68 –

27 % let transgender people serve, Quinnipiac University, 2017, August 3). Retrieved

from https://www.gale.com/c/opposing-viewpoints-in-context

Baltimore Sun Editorial Board. (2018). Trump’s ban on transgender servicemembers hurts an

already vulnerable population. Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. (Reprinted from

Trump’s transgender military ban: Wrong on politics, policy, and principle, Baltimore

Sun, 2017, July 26). Retrieved from https://www.gale.com/c/opposing-viewpoints-in-

context

LGBTQ rights and military service. (2017). Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Retrieved

from https://www.gale.com/c/opposing-viewpoints-in-context

Military spending in the united states. National Priorities Project. Retrieved from

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/

Schaefer, A. G., Iyengar, R., Kadiyala, S., Kavanagh, J., Engel, C. C., Williams, K. M., Kress, A.

M. (2016). Assessing the implications of allowing transgender personnel to serve openly.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1530.html

Sims, J. (2017, July 28). I am a transgender U.S. Army officer. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.

(Originally printed in The New York Times, p. A27). Retrieved from

https://www.gale.com/c/opposing-viewpoints-in-context

Strangio, C. (2017, December 15). The fight for open transgender military service is only

beginning. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved from

LET THEM SERVE 10

https://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights/transgender-rights/fight-open-transgender-military-

service-only-beginning

Strangio, C. (2017, November 9). Our fight to defeat the transgender military ban enters a new

phase. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-

rights/transgender-rights/our-fight-defeat-transgender-military-ban-enters-new-phase

Trump, D. (2017, July 26). After consultation… [Tweet]. Retrieved from

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump