Mills: The real motive behind Trump's transgender order

As our nation continues a heated debate about health care — who should have access to it and at what cost — one group of people who are particularly vulnerable to the whims of those in power have taken yet another unnecessary hit.

Trump took to his usual public platform on Twitter earlier this week to suddenly announce an outright ban on transgender military service. If implemented, this would fully reverse the Obama era order to allow transgender people to serve openly (they’re already serving, and have been since the beginning).

Even the Pentagon seemed to have been taken off guard by the pronouncement since a study about how lifting the ban would impact the military’s “lethality” was not due until December. It seems Trump jumped the gun yet again, though I strongly suspect this was the end goal of the new administration all along.

What’s especially galling about Trump’s reasoning, however, is that he claims the costs associated with providing transition-related care to transgender service members was too great, and that was the sole reason for banning them. There are a few things deeply wrong with that.

First, the military currently spends five times as much on Viagra each year than it would on transition-related care if and when the ban was lifted. The numbers come from an exhaustive, Defense Department-commissioned report by the Rand Corp. just last year. It estimated that costs for transgender-related medical care would range from $2.4 million to $8.4 million annually. A Military Times analysis, meanwhile, found that the military spends $84 million annually on erectile dysfunction medicines.

Even at the highest end, transgender specific health care would account for just a thousandth of 1% of the Defense Department’s annual budget. It’s a drop in the bucket.

If those costs were truly the only reason for the ban, however, I could understand at least having a discussion about altering that part of the order. Completely banning transgender people from serving, however, signals that this is about much more. It is, first and foremost, an immoral and cruel move on the part of the Trump administration. An estimated 1,100 transgender people are currently on active duty, with an untold number in the Reserves and on military contracts. They serve honorably, and have done so since the beginning of the military (well before we had the word “transgender”).

I have complicated feelings about how our military is run and utilized by those in charge, but I absolutely believe that anyone should be allowed to serve, as their true selves, without fear that their own people will harass and/or commit violence against them.

This is absolutely part of the larger discussion about how we, as a country, want to support one another’s medical needs. It also is part of how we treat our service members, both active and retired, transgender or not. We do not currently have a very good track record when it comes to taking care of their physical and mental health needs. And if we can’t take care of the people who sacrifice so much to protect and serve, I suppose it’s no surprise that too many of us feel it’s unnecessary to band together to take care of our neighbors generally.

Still, this is an attack against a particularly vulnerable group and for no reason other than to score political points with Trump’s extremist base.

My transgender friends show more courage when they leave their houses each day than Trump has shown in his entire life. If they wish to serve their country in the armed forces, then I support it. Providing necessary transition-related care seems a very small (and relatively affordable) thing for the military to provide in return for that service.

Emily Mills is a freelance writer who lives in Madison. Twitter: @millbot; Email: emily.mills@outlook.com