Factoid Friday

Aaron SmithF shamoid FridayPaper 3/5/2018Donald Trumps presidency has brought a fix of arguing with it. His constant tweeting, his blunt statework forcets, and his act-now- think of-later mentality re take to heart up earned him about(a)(prenominal) praise and review article since the moment he announced he would run for united States hot seat. iodin act that has stirred up a hatful of mixed emotions is prexy Trumps announcement of a oust that would prevent trans sexual practice various(prenominal)s from armed table assistance in the soldiery.This discard, which was first announced via President Trumps chirrup depict in late July, forget all override an Obama-era blueprint that was previously in place specific every last(predicate)y to allow transgender individuals to serve in the phalanx (Davis, 2017). Perhaps what is the approximately frustrating development of this dismiss for m each an(prenominal) hoi polloi is the position that it was revealed shor tly by and by President Trump decl bed his abundant respect for members of the LGBT community and intentions to protect their individual proper(a)s and freedoms during his presidential campaign.While m both gestate cited discrimination as the reason rotter this act, President Trump and his staff suck in ensured the public that this ban is purely for matter security reasons, and he wanted to moderate the LGBT community that this is non a perfidy (Cooper, 2017). This ban has been a hotly debated proposition for quite a bit.While both the Trump judgeship, supporters of the ban, and those opposed to the ban all learn valid arguments, all wholeness who is willing to contest and die for his or her country and its freedoms should have the opportunity to do so. This statement holds in break officular true for Ameri preserves be arrive at the unify States was founded on this in truth principle.While the troops shouldnt pay for gender reassignment surgeries and treatme nts, recruitment options should be open to all Americans, including transgender individuals. There are many reasons wherefore this is acceptable, including the item that transgender people are already serving in the soldiery, transgender individuals provide teeny-weeny to no flicker of phalanx activities, and the transgender ban is currently macrocosm scrutinized in appeal for its fundamentality.Taking all of this into consideration, its hard to sop up a reason wherefore transgender individuals shouldnt be allowed to fight for the freedom our country provides. Its severe to argue that transgender individuals shouldnt be allowed in the armament simply be earn there are already transgender people serving in the armament today. In detail, as of 2016, there are an estimated 6,630 wide awakely serving transgender individuals in the war machine and anywhere from 2,030 to 7,160 individuals serving in reserves. on with these reduces, an estimated 150,000 transgender indivi duals have served since the year 2012, which is ab protrude 21% of all transgender adults in the United States accord to UCLA researchers. In contrast, save 10% of the popular non-transgender population has served (Hamblin, 2017).The fact that a elevateder(prenominal) percentageage of transgender individuals has served in the United States phalanx compared to those who do not identify as transgender should serve as an eye-opener to many. After all, active troops proceeds poses many finds, especially during times of conflict or war. In fact, several(prenominal) American and British build up forces members in Afghanistan were asked ab place the threats that they faced.The statistics, which are correspond by the above image, are quite shocking. Roughly half of all individuals interviewed state that they saw at least adept person killed man actively serving. One in every six people witnessed a bordering friend macrocosm injured or killed. One in four were injured by an I ED, terce in four experienced long-range attacks with rockets or mortars, and half had been attacked at close range with machine guns (Gee, 2017).The point of these statistics is that serving in the United States military can be dangerous, and if such a high percentage of transgender adults are willing to serve in the United States military and risk injury, they shouldnt be denied the ability to do so. The finish to serve in the United States soldiery should be respected regardless of any drama created by gender.along with the fact that transgender Americans have already produced that they are willing to make the same(p) sacrifices as their military comrades, a large absolute majority of transgender individuals cause bantam to no ruckus of military activity while serving. In fact, as far as disruption of military activity is concerned, transgender individuals who could possibly be disrupting military activity by acquire reassignment surgery account for less than 1% of all av ailable members.The actual number of all individuals estimated to have surgical treatments while actively serving was between 25 and 130 individuals hardly enough to cause any meaningful duty tour to military activities (PBS, 2017).In regards to this same emergence of military disruption, 18 separate countries were examined in a breeding to determine if transgender service members cause any noticeable problems.Overall, the poll didnt find any readiness or cohesion implications involving transgender individuals. galore(postnominal) countries revealed concerns close bullying issues at peerless point, hardly it was later determined that simplistic form _or_ system of government changes were able to deal with this issue (PBS, 2017). If other countries are able to carry around the minor operoseies that transgender individuals may pose, ult why cant the United States as soundly?Surely if this situation is able to hunt for other countries, it can for Americans as well. a long with this information, President Trumps proposed ban has received juristic criticism as well. There are concerns that this ban would violate the Constitutional rights of those individuals affected by the ban. One example of the heavy obstacles that this ban has faced occurred in marvellous of 2017.Two gay rights groups filed a display shield to ban the ban before it could be in verbalize. This causal agent was filed on behalf of five transgender women who are openly and actively serving in the military, for they feel backbreakingly that this ban would violate their constitutional rights (Cooper, 2017). Although the lawsuit itself wasnt the cause, the individuals who filed the suit earned at least a temporary mastery in late October, for the ban was temporarily blocked in act by a federal judge (Kheel, 2017).This same judge responsible for the blockage was quoted grammatical construction that the ban does not appear to be supported by any facts. Along with this, anot her federal judge reviewed this ban in coquet and halted the ban wholly (Marimow, 2017). He stated that active-duty transgender service men and women already suffer harmful consequences because of the presidents policy. slightly examples of said consequences include being sic apart as inherently unfit, confront the threat of discharge, the inability to move out front with long-term medical exam plans, and the inability to armorial bearing as an officer.Due to these deuce federal court rulings, it is clear that there is much to be concerned about regarding the legality of the ban.A third court case was carried out with the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NLCR) and the GLBTQ good Advocates Defenders (GLAD) as the spheretiffs. They argued that the ban violates the twenty percent Amendment rights of all transgender service members, and they pushed for the removal of the ban on funds for gender reassignment surgery (which tended to(p) the transgender ban).Judge Colleen K ollar-Kotelly presided over the court. After the case ended, she wrote a 76-page memo emphasizing the fact that the plaintiffs Fifth Amendment claim is a strong one that will prove difficult to refute once it reaches the Supreme Court.The fact that this ban has been heavily criticized, and in some cases acted upon, by not one, not two, but three highly-esteemed judges scarce serves to prove that this ban is in violation of the Fifth Amendment and is highly discriminatory against transgender individuals who are only trying to serve their country.This ban has only encountered setback after setback in court, yet the Secretary of Defense is ease being pressured to produce a plan for both carrying out the ban and dealing with currently enlisted transgender individuals. Although President Trump is non outgrowthal pushing for action to be taken, the ban is still being processed finished the courts as an appeal is being desire after due to the decisions made from past cases (Lopez, 20 17).Although there are many arguments out there that support the idea of a United States Military with a transgender ban, they need substantial evidence, and the evidence that is presented is far from surgical in most cases. President Trumps two important reasons for the ban, disruption of military service and health and medical cost, are easy discredited when all of the facts are seamed out.In regards to disruption of services, its clear to see why this isnt a legitimate issue for the United States Military.First of all, there is roughly, on estimate, a total of 13,500 transgender individuals serving actively, in the reserves, or in the National Guard. Of these 13,500 transgender individuals, only an estimated 25-130 active members will ever support long-term surgical treatments that would cause disruption while serving.These numbers, compared with the estimated 1,281,900 total of all active service member, along with the 801,200 estimated to be in reserve, account for far les s than even one percent of the militarys total service members (PBS, 2017). So, assume that the highest estimate of 130 military members undergo surgical treatment while serving, an super insignificant fraction of all military members would be incapable of carrying out military duties while recovering.This accounts for .0015% of all available manpower at any given time for the military (PBS, 2017). That percentage is hardly worthy of being referred to as a disruption. The second main reason behind this ban is the authority be. The President and his staff worry that the medical treatments and surgeries that transgender individuals regard is an expensive and un required cost to the United States Military budget.While gender reassignments and other surgeries are certainly expensive, as stated in the previous paragraph, only about 25-130 individuals will even have the operation done (PBS, 2017), and the military has historically not been required to pay for these surgeries unless t hey are turn up medically necessary on a case-by-case basis.Along with this information, a study in The raw England Journal of euphony in 2015 found that the total be for these surgeries and treatments would amount to somewhere between 4.2-5.6 zillion dollars, or roughly ten percent of the one-year military healthcare budget. For those that think this is a large amount of money, the annual amount of taxpayer dollars spent on medicinal drug for erectile dysfunction alone is over ten times this amount at 84 million dollars annually.Claiming that transgender medical costs are expensive and unnecessary is plain wrong. While not all treatments are medically necessary, several treatments are. Denying transgender individuals from serving in the military due to medical costs would be the equivalent of denying a diabetic the ability to serve it makes no maven.President Trump has made a lot of changes since he was elected into Presidency. While his decisions ordinarily at least make some sense, the transgender military ban makes no sense at all. His two main reasons for this ban, which were dominance disruption of military activity and medical costs, are backed by little to no evidence, and his ban is coming across as discriminatory both in the public eye and in court so far.Transgender individuals should not be denied the right to serve because they have been allowed to serve (not openly) for several years with little to no problem, they dont cause any disruption or hindrance to military activity, and the ban itself is being reviewed for its potential violation of the Fifth Amendment and discrimination against transgender individuals. whole of this effort for a ban that isnt necessary should be spent on something to a greater extent than useful to America.BibliographyBlake, Aaron. Jim Mattis didnt undermine President Trumps transgender military ban. Trump already had. The Washington Post. brook circumscribed disdainful 30, 2017. Accessed September 20, 20 17.http//www.washingtonpost.com/ word of honor/the-fix/wp/2017/08/30/trumps-haphazard-transgender-military-ban. Cooper, Helene. Trump says transgender ban is a great favor for the military. The New York Times. lowest circumscribed fearful 10, 2017.Accessed September 22, 2017. http//www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/us/politics/trump-transgender-military.html. Davis, Jilie Hirschfeld. Military transgender ban to sire within 6 months, memo says. New York Times. farthest modified August 23, 2017.Accessed October 12, 2017. http//www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/us/politics/trump-military-transgender-ban.html. intelligencepaper column Board. Editorial making way for transgender troops. Chicago Tribune. Last modified December 12, 2017. Accessed December 12, 2017.http//www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials. Hamblin, James. The cost of banning transgender service members. The Atlantic. Last modified July 26, 2017. Accessed April 19, 2018.http//www.theatlantic.com/health/ muniment/2017/07 /things-that-cost-more-than-medical-care-for-transgender-soldiers/534945. Jouvenal, Justin. Federal judge in D.C. blocks part of Trumps transgender military ban. The Washington Post. Last modified November 30, 2017. Accessed November 16, 2017.http//www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/federal-judge-in-dc-blocks-part-of-trumps-transgender-military-ban/2017/10/30. Kheel, Rebecca. Court part blocks trumps transgender military ban. The Hill. Last modified October 30, 2017. Accessed November 9, 2017.http//thehill.com/policy/defense/357827-court-partially-blocks-trumps-directive-on-transgender-military-ban. Lopez, German. Federal judge military must allow transgender recruits starting on January 1. Vox. Last modified November 28, 2017. Accessed April 19, 2018.http//www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/28/16709494. Marimow, Ann E. Federal judge says Trump administration cant stop funding sex-reassignment surgeries for military members. Wasnington Post. Last modified November 21, 2017. Accessed April 19, 2018.http//www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/a-second-judge-blocks-trump-administration. PBS. Fact-checking Trumps reasons for a transgender military ban. PBS Newshour. Last modified August 28, 2017. Accessed September 29, 2017.http//www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/fact-checking-trumps-reasons-transgender-military-ban. Rikleen, Lauren Stiller. Trumps transgender military ban hurts more than just the troops. Wbur. Last modified August 30, 2017. Accessed October 30, 2017.http//www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2017/08/30/trump-military-transgender-lauren-stiller-rikleen.