Trump’s Transgender Military Ban Stirs Disagreement Among GOP: A Key to Understanding Both Sides

Trump erupted social media on Wednesday when he tweeted his intent to ban transgender Americans from the military. If implemented, the ban would reverse the Obama administration’s decision to allow transgender individuals to “serve openly”. Although earning the Left’s usual accusations of bigotry and divisiveness, Trump also received mixed signals from his own camp.

John McCain, who has never shied away from bashing Trump, announced his criticism early Wednesday morning. “The Department of Defense has already decided to allow currently-serving transgender individuals to stay in the military, and many are serving honorably today,” McCain stated. “Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving…We should all be guided by the principle that any American who wants to serve our country and is able to meet the standards should have the opportunity to do so–and should be treated as the patriots they are.”

Many Republicans agree with McCain, arguing that sexual orientation should not prevent a person from serving our country and that such a ban constitutes discrimination. Those in opposition include Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Alaska), and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina).

Although generating significant kickback, Trump’s military ban was also praised by many on the Right for attempting to curb military spending and ensure mental and physical readiness among all servicemen.

Under the Obama administration’s executive ruling, the military would have been responsible for funding sex reassignment surgeries expected to cost taxpayers an upwards of $1 billion over the next ten years. Many proponents argue that taxpayers should not be forced to pay for such surgeries and that the money could be better spent helping servicemen with critical needs. One alternative, of course, is to simply ban such funding, while continuing to allow transgender individuals to serve. Such a proposition was debated and ultimately shut down by the House earlier this month.

The military also demands that every member upholds rigorous physical and mental requirements; all individuals displaying suicidal tendencies are, for example, disqualified. According to The Trevor Project, roughly 40% of transgender adults have attempted suicide, an astronomical number especially when compared to the national average among other population groups. Dr. Ryan Anderson reported similar figures when he noted that transgender individuals who have undergone gender reassignment surgery are 19 times more likely to die from suicide. Such statistics pose a serious dilemma as to whether the military (and your tax dollars) should fund programs to offset these tendencies and whether additional screenings are necessary to ensure that transgender servicemen meet the mental requirements.

Anderson also argues that servicemen may be called to combat at any time, a risk threatening to interfere with the follow-ups and hormone treatments required after sex reassignment surgeries.

The Pentagon has yet to enforce Trump’s military ban. In the meantime, Trump’s tweet continues to stir heated debate both along party lines and within the GOP.


6 thoughts on “Trump’s Transgender Military Ban Stirs Disagreement Among GOP: A Key to Understanding Both Sides

    1. Hi Daniel. I read your blog and here are my thoughts.
      1) Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to pay for sex reassignment surgeries especially when hundreds and thousands of troops are currently receiving inadequate care for critical conditions. I want to make sure that our military is as strong as possible, not as politically correct as possible and all funding should directly coincide with programs that ensure our safety not gender sensitivity.
      2) I don’t think healthcare, national security, tax reform and economic growth, the major platforms Trump ran on, are “silly social issues.” If anything, gender neutral bathrooms, feminists marches, and sensitivity initiatives are.
      3) Interesting point about Trump not being a president for all and only those who voted for him. Here are my thoughts: Trump ran a campaign in which he outlined key promises that drew a particular pool of voters. Given the divisive nature of this election, those who voted for him favored his platform, whereas those who didn’t are opposed. Trump’s rulings (which align with his campaign promises) naturally appeal to his voters and are most likely opposed by those who didn’t, which is where I am guessing you can conclude that Trump is not a president for all. Either way, the fact that the stock market hit an all time high, illegal immigration is at a low and jobs are being created at a record number should be supported across both parties as they are directly benefiting all Americans.

      Liked by 1 person

  1. Thanks for taking a look at my site.
    1. I never said taxpayers should be forced to pay for selective surgeries. Given the rash way Trump announced this ban (not informing his military advisors and leaving many in the dark), I saw it as a distraction from the looming Russian investigation and his inability to immediately deliver healthcare repeal as he promised.
    2. Healthcare, national security, tax reform and economic growth are NOT silly. Conservatives use social issues to their advantage, just as liberals do. At times “gender neutral bathrooms, feminists marches, and sensitivity initiatives” are silly compared to more important issues. But, what is the use of a constant battle to fight gender neutral bathrooms? I’d rather focus on tax reform, healthcare, and modernizing our military. You should checkout my post today on the dangers of PC culture.
    3. I do not think Trump is only a president for a few. Large groups in America feel left behind and marginalized by our president. While the media is partially to blame and some are probably too sensitive, I think we can agree that the president has some duty to create unity among Americans. Trump should be willing to make compromises with the other side to appeal to those who did not vote for him for his own sake.

    I look forward to your future posts, and hope you continue to check mine and leave your thoughts.


    1. 1. My comment about funding was merely me creating a clean slate so as to state my opinion and was not a direct response to your article.
      2) I agree that focusing on such issues should be a priority. (I will say that the issue of gender neutral bathrooms triggers concerns for many women that might not be shared with men). Unfortunately, I think most liberals and even a large chunk of the GOP establishment are so narrow-minded in obstructing Trump that we can’t pull together on issues that should be of shared interest. There’s something wrong and rather baseless about being so bent on championing resistance that we cannot work towards the betterment of America together.

      I enjoyed this conversation. Thanks for the insight and well thought out/articulated responses.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. One closing point, I find it most concerning that both parties seem bent on ‘resistance’. During the Obama years, the GOP seemed kind of petty at times in their opposition. All the while, the Dems bashed the GOP for 8 years anytime and every time they disagreed with Obama. And now the Dems are high on their own pompous crusade ‘resisting’ every POTUS tweet and declaring Trump Hitler when he sneezes. The polarization of politics is really concerning, but I don’t know if it is worse than political apathy. That is all. Rant over.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s