I almost did not read this great report by Toshio Meronek. I half-thought there was nothing new to hear from the opponents of trans-inclusion in the military. But I read on and I found new voices and new views. By the end of the article I was cheering for peace.
Armies kill people and destroy things.
I wondered what your original perspective was: for or against inclusion?
My original perspective was (and is) for full inclusion in all facets of society. An out, gender non-conforming person who wants to volunteer for military service should be able to do so. But I now disagree with making open trans inclusion in the military a major part of a trans rights “platform”.
I have not heard military proponents describe how open military service can stop the rampant violence against trans women of color. How will open military service end poverty or improve access to health care for trans folks?
In my opinion, participation in the military creates more societal challenges (violence, poverty, health) than benefits. There are individual examples of success, but a lot of broken people come back from war. There should be more focus and resources spent on making these vets whole again than on creating new, open trans vets.
In the UK, some soldiers have transitioned. Initially, they were invalided out of the Army, but no longer I understand. The issue is not whether trans folk can join, as whether we can stay; whether transition means the loss of job/career.
Others may campaign on whatever they like, but I would not make army inclusion my first priority. Homelessness and violence are more important.
A report from 1999: the BBC’s language makes me cringe-