As various strands of wokeness continue to be infused throughout military training, issues of gender identity have come to the fore. American taxpayers can rightly ask why the US armed forces think they must defer to every minority notion that bubbles up in the civilian community.
Why Is America Moving to a Transgender Military?
In building an armed force, shouldn’t the Defense Department require in its soldiers the capacity for sharp judgment and decision-making that will prevent deadly consequences for other warfighters? That does not seem to matter, as The Wall Street Journal editorial staff observed in its opinion piece “The US Government’s Woke Training.” The article described information delivered under the rubric of “diversity training,” using scenarios a US Army soldier might encounter:
“Notable is a series of vignettes that cover pronoun usage, urinalysis observation (one can only imagine what this means), and a serviceman who wants ‘to discuss his newly confirmed pregnancy.’ With respect to showers, schedules can be adjusted, or curtains installed. But a soldier’s gender in the Army’s system governs which facilities are used. Accommodating only a transgender soldier is prohibited.”
In other words, the US Army cannot have facilities for transgender people only. The scenario where the “serviceman” wants to discuss “his newly confirmed pregnancy” brings to mind an observation Eric Metaxas, acclaimed biographer of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther, made during a speech: “Roosters don’t lay eggs.” Men don’t get pregnant. So, why does the US Army believe it must train its soldiers to adopt such thinking? This question is particularly apt when, “[a]ccording to the Williams Institute, 1.4 million adults identify as transgender in the United States. About 0.5% of adults 18-24 identify as transgender, and 0.3% of adults 65 and older identify as transgender,” explained the World Population Review.
When Did the Gender Identity Issue Begin?
(Photo by Leonardo Munoz/VIEWpress)
On April 26, 2021, the American Medical Association (AMA) got into the act with a letter to the National Governors Association, stating that “trans and non-binary gender identities are normal variations of human identity and expression.” Voilà — problem solved. What AMA described as “normal” – which had been a disorder just a few short years ago – became part of the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) campaign.
The issue remains, however, the definition of “normal.” When between 99.5% to 99.7% of any population must succumb to the pressure of a small minority, something is amiss. The standard for any accommodation must be: Does it allow the US Army to fight better — more efficiently, more strategically, more capably — in confronting America’s fiercest and most determined enemies?
Americans are, by their nature, willing to be accommodating. The folks pushing the transgender military agenda claim it’s about diversity, inclusiveness, and fairness. But those are terms to be used in the civilian world, not the military. There is nothing fair about war. But when faced with the tyranny of so few over so many, it’s time to ask: Where is the warfighter value?
The views expressed are those of the author and not of any other affiliation.
