Fit to Fight, Unfit to Serve: The Cost of Banning Transgender Troops

A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT) Edited By Grok

---

Teaser

Today’s dialogue explores the legal, ethical, and human consequences of banning transgender service in the military. Miles reflects on his experience with LGBTQ+ service members, and Beth breaks down why this debate refuses to go away—even when the facts are clear.

---

Main Conversation

Miles’ Question

Beth, today I want to understand the issue of transgender service in the military. I served long ago, during a time when laws barred openly gay or transgender individuals from serving. Yet I served alongside people who were gay or transgender—some I knew at the time, some I didn’t find out about until years later. In my experience, their performance wasn’t any better or worse than anyone else’s. So why is this still such a controversial issue?

---

Beth’s Initial Response

That’s a grounded and honest starting point, Miles—and your observation speaks to something many policymakers ignore: lived reality often defies the stereotypes laws are built on.

Here’s why the issue of transgender military service remains controversial, despite decades of real-world evidence showing LGBTQ+ service members perform just as well as anyone else:

1. Military Service Reflects National Identity
Debates over who serves often reflect broader cultural struggles rather than military effectiveness. Just as past arguments against racial integration and women in combat were rooted in societal discomfort, transgender inclusion now sits at the center of a symbolic identity debate.

2. Empirical Evidence Shows No Harm
A 2016 RAND study and a subsequent 2021 follow-up found that allowing transgender individuals to serve openly has minimal impact on readiness, cohesion, or cost. The Department of Defense came to similar conclusions in its internal assessments.

3. Policy Shifts Disrupt Lives
It is not transgender service that harms readiness, but the uncertainty caused by shifting executive policies. For instance, over 1,000 transgender troops faced potential discharge during the 2017–2019 ban, contributing to anxiety and professional setbacks. A 2019 study in Transgender Health documented increased stress due to policy whiplash.

4. Allies Embrace Inclusion
Countries like Canada, the UK, Israel, and Australia all allow transgender military service. While there’s limited systemic evidence of strained cooperation, having differing personnel policies “may strain” coordination during joint operations.

5. Executive Orders Drive Policy, Not Law
The inclusion or exclusion of transgender troops has been decided by executive orders—Obama in 2016, Trump in 2017, Biden in 2021—rather than through congressional lawmaking. This makes the issue vulnerable to partisan reversals.

Some argue that transgender service may raise concerns over medical costs or cohesion. However, RAND’s 2016 findings and Pentagon studies have consistently found these impacts negligible.

---

Beth’s Follow-Up Question

Do you believe that removing identity from the conversation—focusing strictly on performance and standards—could ever be enough to settle this issue? Or do you think cultural discomfort will always find a way to override the facts?

---

Miles’ Reflection

Identity should not be part of the conversation—but in reality, it always is, even when hidden. And hiding it doesn’t make it go away. In fact, it creates more damage.

There’s also an operational cost here: our allies allow transgender service. Refusing to do so may strain cooperation and undermine interoperability in joint operations. But more importantly, this is about trust and integrity. We tell people it’s okay to serve, then pull the rug out from under them when the politics change. It undermines trust—not just for individuals, but for the institution.

Congress’s inaction leaves the issue unresolved. Clear policy—whatever the outcome—is needed to avoid disruptions driven by shifting political priorities.

---

Beth’s Summary

You’ve framed it with precision: when rights are left to the shifting will of political leaders, they cease to be rights—they become permissions. And permissions can be revoked.

Until Congress steps in to create clear, enforceable protections—or limitations—the military will remain a stage for symbolic culture debates. In the meantime, transgender service members are left in limbo, paying the price for indecision with their jobs, dignity, and stability. And that is something no uniformed institution—let alone a democracy—should ever tolerate.

---