The High Cost of Transgender Persons in the Military - And It Isn't What You Think

Yesterday, Trump announced via tweet that he was reinstating a ban on transgender people serving in the United States military. This is a reversal of an almost last minute policy President Obama made on his way out the Oval Office door.

“Effective immediately, transgender Americans may serve openly,” then Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced, on June 30, 2016. “They can no longer be discharged or otherwise separated from the military just for being transgender.”

He said that the Pentagon would cover the medical costs of those in uniform who wished to undergo gender transition, and that it would begin a yearlong training program for service members on the changes.

I can't help but wonder if that yearlong training program for service members was included in the Pentagon's predicted policy-change cost of $4.2 million dollars a year.

Even though I am the mother of an army soldier, which gives me a specific perspective on military current events, I am no military expert. Claiming to be an expert on the grounds that my son is active duty military would be like giving advice to brain surgeons because my uncle is a brain surgeon. That would be stupid. (Although I did read American Sniper and even saw Lone Survivor in the movie theater, so I am obviously more qualified than most, right?)

Anyway, please be advised to take my opinions with a grain of salt. Certainly not more than several grains of salt. And maybe some tequila and lime. It will be more interesting that way.

It didn't take long for lines to be drawn and sides taken over this policy announcement. As news of Trump's transgender ban hit the internet's social media shit fan, people either joined in a virtual standing ovation or started screaming fits about taking away transgender rights.

First, I would like to remind everyone that the avatars you are insulting are actual human beings. Sure they may not think like you, and maybe they didn't vote like you, but they are in fact people. Most of them get up each morning, drink a cup of coffee, drop their kids off at school, and worry about how they are going to pay the bills.

Even people who are different than you deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Isn't that the whole concept behind LGBTQ rights? I'm talking to you here, Liberal Left. You shouldn't have to belong to some trumped up marginalized group in order to be treated with at least basic common courtesy.

And to the Right... this isn't a sporting event. And even if it were, taunting the opposition when you score is really, REALLY poor form.

But here's the deal:

No one has taken away anyone else's rights.

Military service isn't a "right".

Nowhere in the Constitution is "military service" listed as an inalienable human right.

You see, you don't get to join the military just because you want to. It isn't some summer recreational activity you just waltz into the local YMCA and sign up for. It isn't a summer soccer league or swim class. The United States military is one of the most selective organizations on the face of the planet.

Everyday, Uncle Sam discriminates on the basis of age, intelligence, education, fitness level, body composition, drug use, medical history, and mental health. The United States military can deny your enlistment for anything from ingrown toenails to low scores on the ASVAB ( Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery).

According to the Pentagon, approximately 71% of the 34 million 17-to-24-year-olds in the U.S. do not qualify for military service.

The vast majority of those who want to serve are denied. Currently, the U.S. military only takes about 20% of the eager applicants who walk through the door of their local recruiting office.

The number of citizens serving in the military is a very small slice of the American pie. Military personnel make up LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of the total U.S. population.

That's not very fair, is it? Well, war isn't exactly fair, either.

Uncle Sam is not an Equal Opportunity Employer, and military service isn't a right. It's a privilege.

A privilege is something enjoyed by a group of individuals beyond what is available to others. It is something often regarded as an honor, although in today's culture the word "privilege" is almost a dirty word. In spite of that, not everyone who wants to serve in the armed forces actually makes it past the aptitude tests, physical assessments, and psychological screenings required for service.

It's like this: You may have a right to use the bathroom, but you don't have permission to use this particular bathroom. Individuals may have the right to employment, but that doesn't mean he/she/they have to be employed by the U.S military. (And yes, I'm using the bathroom analogy on purpose.)

When the United States military claims to have an elite fighting force, they really mean it.

The reason there are so many screenings and tests and evaluations and hoops to jump through is important. Military service is a privilege only given to those best equipped to defend us against those who wish to do us harm.

There are barbarian and savage forces knocking at our door, bent on our destruction. Even if it may be true that we're worthy of their ire. They don't want to hug it out. We can't keep them at bay with good intentions, inclusiveness, political correctness, or fluttering rainbow flags.

No, what keeps those forces from busting down our door is an elite fighting force. And it needs to remain elite to be effective. The card-carrying members of our armed forces should be mentally and physically capable of beating back the wolves at our doorstep. The more selective, the better in my book, because I enjoy sleeping soundly at night.

But before you send me hate mail bitching about how bigoted I am or call me awful names because I'm condoning the dehumanization of a subset of the population, let me clarify something.

I don't care if you claim gender dysphoria. I don't care what you do to your body. I don't care if you play with your own hormone levels, or undergo gender reassignment surgery. I don't care whether you float from identifying as a boy to a girl to a frickin' toaster on a day-to-day basis. I just don't care. I won't think you are less of a person because you may slap a "Transgender" label on yourself. I will treat you with all of the respect and dignity I can muster. I am Southern, after all. I'll hold the door for you, smile and comment about the weather, and even "bless your heart." That's just common human decency.

However, I don't think thrusting individuals with gender dysphoria into the military is a wise idea, and it has nothing to do with treatment costs, social stigma, or backwards bigotry.

It is common knowledge that people with gender dysphoria have higher rates of mental health conditions. Some estimates say that at least 71% of people with gender dysphoria will have a mental health diagnosis in their lifetime. That includes mood disorders, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, depression, substance abuse, eating disorders, and suicidal tendencies.

Whatever the causes of these often traumatic mental issues is immaterial. Will acceptance cure these mental issues? Maybe. But we shouldn't be gambling on it by tossing these individuals into an environment riddled with its own epidemic of mental health issues.

According to a 2014 study published in JAMA Psychiatry, nearly one in four active duty military members show signs of a mental health condition. With rates of depression five times higher than non-military populations, and suicide rates almost three times those in the civilian world, military life is obviously mentally stressful.

Why would we want to thrust someone with a potential predisposition for depression and suicide into a situation that breeds depression and suicide? That, my friends, is a recipe for disaster. For everyone involved.

This isn't just about what is politically correct. It isn't just about military morale, either. Perhaps the military isn't the safest place for transgender individuals.

I suppose if that makes me a bigot, I'll just have to wear the label. I'd rather be a logic-driven bigot than a blind idealist if it saves the life of even one fragile person.

And there's way more on the line here than the lives of these "marginalized"people. Because in comparison to the barbarians lurking at the door, we're all pretty fragile.

Don't March for Me, Marge and Tina.

(If you sang that title to a tune from Evita, we should be friends.)

I knew I was going to upset a lot of people when I posted that "I Have a Uterus and My Rights are Just Fine." It's why my finger hovered nervously over the mouse before I finally clicked the post button and sent it out for all the world to see.

I knew there would be backlash. I knew that people were going to leave nasty comments and send me hateful messages. That's not really what made me nervous, though. I knew that I was going to upset some people that I actually care about. (Yes, I actually care about some people. Not many, but a few. I'm not entirely evil.)

I understand that passions are running high. People don't just march on Washington in droves unless they really, REALLY feel strongly about something. I knew there would be some panties in wads. And I was right. The hate mail and personal attacks have come flying in. But in the spirit of open discourse (Sorry to all of the people who unfriended, unfollowed, or unsubscribed. You didn't give me the chance to prove points or explain. I suppose it's easier to ignore dissenting opinions than to ponder them.), I thought I would clarify just a few points.

First: I never said I was ungrateful to the women who marched for my right to vote. In fact, I am incredibly and eternally grateful for the protests and arrests and hunger strikes. So grateful that I regularly exercise that hard-won right, probably far more frequently than the average apathetic American. So, please don't assume I need a history lesson.

Second: Don't shut down my opinion because of my perceived "privilege." I know that I am just a "college-educated, middle-class, white woman," but I am still entitled to form opinions, even when they disagree with yours. Also, you shouldn't assume my background, because you are probably wrong. I grew up in poverty, with no electricity or hot water, and I've experienced poverty as an adult, too. As a child, I watched my father punch holes in the drywall inches from my mother's face. As a teenager, I lived in a neighborhood that was infested with crime and drugs and gang violence. And I've worked at a job where it was "okay" for rich men to grab my butt and ask me if I was on the dessert menu. How's that for "privilege?"

But isn't that how we shut down dissenting opinions, now? By pointing out the other person's "privilege?" Oh, that's right ... I'm just a woman. I'm not supposed to have an independent thought. I'm not allowed to think for myself...unless that thinking for myself brings me to the proper conclusions.

Third: While so many of you have promised to "march for me anyway," ...Don't.

Because we apparently have very different ideas about what basic rights are.

The Women's March and its collective demands for equality and women's rights left me scratching my head wondering "What more rights do we need?" Because, in the United States, women have the right to vote, hold public office, pursue higher education, and own property. We can marry or divorce, have children or not. We have access to birth control (although perhaps too freely and without acknowledging the dangers and risks of long-time use) and other forms of reproductive care. There are laws against sexual assault and female genital mutilation.

But you answered the question. You marched for free birth control and easy unregulated abortions and mandatory maternity leave. You marched for single mothers living in poverty and for government health care.

I know this still makes me the enemy, but I don't think the government needs to swoop in and solve all of our First World problems. In fact, the more power we give "them," even in areas we think are good and noble and beneficial, the less power we have for ourselves. That's how we become victims.

It surprises me that so many people fear a Donald Trump brand of fascism, a form of government power run amok, and yet we just saw hundreds of thousands of women march down the streets of our nation's capitol asking government to do something (whatever form they expect that "something" to take)...No, demanding that government do something. Government control is government control... even when it takes a form you agree with. And once you hand over control to government, it is nearly impossible to get it back.

And fourth: Just because I don't think government intervention is the solution, doesn't mean I don't feel empathy for those women who are struggling.

I do realize that this country isn't quite where it needs to be, that sexism is alive and well, and that women aren't always treated with the respect they deserve. I realize the scarring effects of sexual assault. But all of the legislating and politicking in the world won't solve those problems... because they aren't political problems... they are cultural problems.

So in that sense, I'm glad that the women who marched felt feelings of love and unity and solidarity. There is far too little of that in the world. And I admire that so many people joined voices and demanded to be heard. However, that doesn't mean I need to think like them. I don't agree with all of their platforms (for many reasons) or demands or concepts of fundamental rights.

So Ladies, go ahead and march for yourselves.

Don't march for me.

I Am Responsible For The Gender Wage Gap

That raging monster, The Gender Wage Gap (a snarling, filthy, highly unfair beast to be sure) is probably the major rallying topic for modern, third wave feminists. They emerge from the woodwork with their pithy signs and Twitter hashtags and righteous indignation making futile attempts to slay this foul creature.

They shout, "Sure women have the right to vote, but we still make an average of 77 cents to a man's dollar."

Which is actually horrible. Who wouldn't want to arm themselves and attack such a glaring injustice to half the population?

Except it isn't exactly true.

The mythical beastly Gender Wage Gap does contain at least a grain of truth (just like most myths). Well-meaning feminist activists wage battles based on a study that compared both men's and women's workforce pay and found that men are making at least 25% more than their female counterparts. But just wait a minute before you pull out your righteous indignation.

If we drop our pithy signs for just a moment and listen to actual economists (instead of just the emotional shouting of those who feel they've been wronged), a very different picture begins to emerge.

Professor Steven Horowitz (don't hold it against him because he's a man) of Saint Lawrence University breaks it down nicely in his talk, "Do Women Earn Less Than Men?"

"If you add up all the incomes of women and divide by the number of women in the labor force, then do the same thing for men, what you'll find is, on average, women do make about 75% of what men do."

*Cue internet feminist shouts of "I told you so!"

But wait! Dr Horowitz goes on to clarify, "What's happening here is not discrimination in the labor market, but differences in the choices men and women make... that lead to them getting paid different salaries."

Hold off on the chants of "Equal Pay For Equal Work!" Because that anger inducing study isn't comparing apples to apples at all. It's not comparing equal work at all, only the total summation of both men's and women's combined earnings - regardless of educational background or field of employment, or job experience.

Women typically pursue education in fields like education, humanities, nursing, etc., statistically lower-paying career fields. While men tend to pursue careers in science, engineering, and other STEM fields, statistically where the big bucks roll in. Add in the fact that women's careers tend to be more frequently interrupted for family reasons and that women also choose part-time employment (again with the pesky family obligations) more often, and you start to see why women aren't generally at the top of the income scale.

Interestingly, when women and men with similar educational backgrounds, in similar fields, with similar levels of experience are compared, that Gender Wage Gap virtually disappears. Poof! Like the mythical dragon that it actually is.

Here is where I issue my public apology, an apology for my hand in creating this controversial issue of feminist angst.

I am sorry.

I am sorry that even though as a high school student, I showed great promise in the fields of science and math, even though I passed AP Calculus as a senior in high school, had an outstanding GPA, and a much higher than average SAT score, I did not pursue higher education in a STEM field. Instead I chose Music. I placed a higher value on personal fulfillment and creativity than on income. For that I am truly sorry, my sisters.

I'm also sorry that when baby #1 came along, instead of chugging through in pursuit of career advancement, instead of attempting to smash through the glass ceiling, I removed myself from the workforce. I chose to focus my time and talents and energy on raising a family. I'm sorry that I put the needs of my family above earning a significant income. I'm sorry that I once again chose personal and family fulfillment, as well as peace of mind and a focus on the more spiritual aspects of life over career success and a respectable income.

And I'm sorry that when I returned to the workforce more than ten years later, I didn't jump feet first into a high-paced and stressful career track. Instead I chose part-time employment that was flexible enough to keep me home with the kids during the day. I hope my fellow women can find it in their hearts to forgive me.

Even now, I'm sorry that instead of returning to school and pursuing a higher level degree in a fast-paced high-paying field, I instead choose to continue in part-time work while trying to eke out some personal fulfillment in pursuit of a writing career. Shame on me. Where are my priorities?

I am responsible for the gender wage gap. And so are all of the other women that make choices that ultimately lower their income earning potential.

So, Ladies, if you really want to do something to slay the Gender Wage Gap, it's going to take more than hashtags and internet ire or even legislative lobbying. If you want to do something about the Gender Wage Gap, go into a STEM field. Become a doctor or lawyer or engineer. Don't major in art history, or womyn's studies, or music. That's not going to make you any money. Screw job fulfillment. Screw doing what you love. Screw making a difference. Screw being there for your kids. All that matters here is money (and that's the area where men have set the bar rather high).

And while you're at it, you should be encouraging your sons and husbands and boyfriends to pursue careers in those lower-paying typically female jobs like teaching, and social work, and nursing. Because if that Wage Gap is going to be closed, both sides are going to have to meet in the middle. Everyone is going to have to make sacrifices.

What bothers me most about this whole wage inequality bull crap is that society is still holding men up as the gold standard. Men are making more money than women and that's just not fair. But what if we consider for just a moment that maybe women (in a very general sense) have figured something else out? What if there is more to life, more to success, more to happiness than money? Maybe women have been faster to figure out things like career satisfaction, the value of time and personal relationships, well-being, and that foggy third metric of success. If men are lacking those things in their work, then perhaps they are the ones suffering the greatest of inequalities. Maybe men should be the ones taking up arms.

And boy are they going to need a lot of hashtags and pithy signs.

In the meantime, I'll just be over here laughing and playing with my kids... maybe writing some poetry or making music... even though nobody is paying me to do it. I'm such a slacker.

The Irony of Black History Month

February is Black History Month.  It's a short month, but for its 28 days, America's school children are exposed to great historical figures like Crispus Attucks (first casualty of the American Revolution), Harriet Tubman (famous conductor of the Underground Railroad), and Martin Luther King, Jr. (prominent leader of the American Civil Rights Movement).

I don't like it.

I think Black History Month is a pox on our educational system.  Call me crazy (or racist if you want to), but I just can't fathom why school children can't learn about these prominent black figures in context with the rest of history.  Surely we can squeeze ol' Crispus Attucks right in there with all the other dates and names and places of the Revolutionary War that must be memorized for some useless standardized test.  And just as easily, Harriet Tubman fits into discussions of inter-state tensions leading up to The War Between the States.  And even though Martin Luther King, Jr. already garners his own holiday, we might be able to squeeze him into History class when the American Civil Rights Movement comes up in the horribly limiting text book.

History in context.  What a novel idea?

I guess I think more like Morgan Freeman (call him a racist, too if you feel like it).  In a 2005 interview for 60 Minutes, the Academy Award-winning actor said, "I don't want a Black History month.  Black History is American History."

I applaud you Mister Freeman!  For all the Americans who marched and protested and sat at lunch counters and refused to move to the back of the bus, Black History Month seems like a great big giant slap in the face.  To all of those school children that were escorted by armed troops to formerly white-only schools because we realized that separate could not be equal, a national Black History Month must appear as a gross regression into segregation.

Black History Month forces great American heroes to be pulled out of their historical context and singled out because of their race.  They become BLACK leaders and BLACK politicians and BLACK scientists and BLACK entertainers.  (Notice the emphasis on the word 'black"?)  It's kind of like a virtual lynch mob only it's the schools (and blacks themselves) singling out these individuals from the crowd of history's great achievers because of their race.  By segregating black history from American History at large, doesn't it kind of relegate separated black history to the same standard as the less-than-standard water fountains that were common during the Jim Crow era of segregation?

I say leave them where they are.  Surely Harriet Tubman's heroism isn't any more or less spectacular because of her race...because what she did was pretty freakin' heroic.

Morgan Freeman went on in his 60 Minutes interview to explain how he thought we could end racism.  "Stop talking about it.  I'm going to stop calling you a white man.  And I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man..."

Because shouldn't someone be successful because they are successful?  Shouldn't they be influential or powerful or intelligent because they are influential or powerful or intelligent?  Race has nothing to do with those qualities.  The more we emphasize people's differences and the more we make those differences an issue, the more of an issue they become.  If we want our society to be "colorblind", if we want that our children "not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character", then we need to stop defining people by their color.

My daughter's school-sponsored a Black History Month shindig last week.  It included a motivating speech by a successful (black) graduate of the school, several presentations on historic black figures, and a performance by an African rhythm and dance troop...and a group singing of "The Black National Anthem".

No kidding.  The entire staff and student body were asked to stand and sing together.

I didn't even know there was such a thing as a "Black National Anthem," so I guess it was an educational experience.  But the concept makes me twitchy.  We do after all, have a National Anthem, one meant for all Americans.  But referring to a song as the "Black National Anthem" can create a lot of confusion and tension, especially here in the rural South where race relations can sometimes be tenuous.

I find it thoroughly ironic that the given title of this so-called "Black National Anthem" is "Lift Every Voice and Sing".  Every voice.  Not just black voices, but EVERY voice...which would include...well, EVERYONE. Interesting that the hymn emphasizes unity.   And it is a beautiful hymn which sings of very American virtues and struggles, like liberty and hope and faith, about learning from history's mistakes.  This is a song for all Americans, not just those with darker skin pigmentation.

Programs like the one at my daughter's school, and referring to hymns as "The Black National Anthem," and Black History Month in general, create a separation of the black experience from the American experience. And to me, this is the real tragedy...and the real failing of Black History Month being so emphasized in our public schools.  Because the black experience, the entire black experience...slavery and struggle and freedom and struggle for equality...are a very real part of the American experience (the entire American experience, not just the African American experience).  It's part of you and part of me and part of every naturalized or native citizen of this (sometimes) wondrous country of ours.  It should not be swept under a rug or devalued by segregation.

So maybe we should just toss the "black anthem" label...and toss black history month out with it.  Perhaps we can then focus more on our similarities than on our differences.  Perhaps we can focus on unity and brotherhood.  Perhaps we can strive towards a more cohesive society where our outward appearances are not as important as our integrity and our character.

At least that's what I want for my children.