Further Thoughts

They say you should never read the comments on social media. Sometimes I do anyway, because I’m curious to hear what people are thinking about issues. As I’ve read comments on a couple articles related to Drumpf’s pronouncement on Wednesday excluding transgender people from military service, I’ve come away with some disturbing conclusions.

The issue here isn’t fundamentally about military service at all. On a personal level, I couldn’t care less whether I can serve in the military and can’t understand why anyone would want to, but that’s a different post for a different time. On a societal level, the issues at stake in this debate go beyond the specific question of military service.

First of all, I’ve read the argument that military service is not a right. Ok, on a simple level, I agree. Neither is shopping at a store of your choosing, or being able to use a public restroom, or even driving a motor vehicle. But having the opportunity to engage in those activities, to join clubs, to volunteer in your community, to serve in the military – these are all central freedoms that we enjoy as members of our society. When someone says that a person should be excluded from the military simply because they do not conform to an arbitrary standard to gender identity, how is that different than saying that someone cannot serve because their skin color or religion don’t meet a certain expectation? And if you can exclude transgender people from the military on that basis, what’s to stop you from making the same argument in other public domains? Where does it end?

I understood from some of the arguments I read that far too many people still do not view being transgender as a fundamental identity issue. They believe it is a choice. Therefore, someone who makes that choice must live with the consequences of it, even if those consequences include reduction of freedoms or rights. But transgender people do not choose to be transgender, any more than someone who is black or Hispanic chooses to be so. It is a fundamental part of their identity. How they choose to embrace and express that varies from one individual to another, but the core identity remains regardless. We have made some (albeit limited) progress in this country on reducing legal discrimination in public accommodations based on ethnicity, skin color and such. Gender identity falls into the same category.

Secondly, and corollary to the issue of whether being transgender is a core identity or a choice, I have read many arguments that the public should not have to pay the cost for transgender people to receive the medical care they need. When I read this, I inevitably detect an underlying current of “This is a choice, so the medical care concurrent with that choice is not essential, but optional.” With this mentality, the treatment some transgender people need to live whole lives becomes a luxury, a cosmetic convenience. And why should society pay for someone’s cosmetic luxuries?

If it were a luxury, I’d agree. But it’s not. Transgender people face legitimate medical needs just like many other people in our society. In trying to align our bodies with our identities, we pursue the medical care that is necessary and appropriate to us, just as anyone with a fundamental health issue would. Should society help pay for these needs? Well, that’s the nature of collective insurance. We all contribute so that each of us can have our needs met as they arise. We don’t get to choose whether Tommy should get the medication for his asthma, or Sally should get the eczema treatment she needs. That’s not our decision, just as it is not Tommy or Sally’s decision whether you should be subsidized in your allergy medications, or your thyroid pills, or whatever treatment you may need. When we look at the specific issue of transgender care in the military, we have to recognize and admit that the military pays for all sorts of medical care for its personnel, medical care that we may or may not consider legitimate. Should the military subsidize Viagra so male soldiers can get better erections? Hardly seems to be an essential need in my mind. But I’m not going to protest it, even though I think Viagra is more of a luxury than basic care for transgender people is.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by this attitude toward healthcare. After all, our representatives in Washington seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of collective insurance. That doesn’t make them right, any more than someone’s objections to their taxes subsidizing care for transgender service personnel are valid. If we’re going to start protesting all the things our taxes support, allow me to submit my list right now. Again, we’re a collective society, which means we all contribute to meet the needs of one another, even when we don’t always agree whether they are truly needed.

Reading the comments the past couple days has shaken my belief in the goodness of people. It has reminded me that I am fortunate to be surrounded by people who recognize and affirm the inherent worth, value and dignity of all people. Because of this I can sometimes forget that there are lots of people in this country who don’t think this way. If those voices prevail, I fear for the future of this country, and of our world. But I will hold on to my hope and confidence that inclusion will prevail, even through the dark night of the current climate.