Skip to main content

Stage 7 : Trump's proposed transgender military ban is hurtful to the American society



   On July 26, President Trump caught everyone by surprise, when he tweeted his intentions of banning transgender people from serving the military. Trump's reasoning for his decision was that it was too expensive to pay for transgender troops' healthcare and the potential disruptions it might cause. While I do understand the President's concern, I feel that his actions will bring about greater harm compared to the benefit of reducing the cost of the military spending.

President Trump reasoned that the cost of  transition related treatment will be "tremendous." A study done by the Rand Corporation shows that the costs of such treatment will add between 2.4 million and 8.4 million dollars to the military's annual budget. While the number may seem high, this will only increase the military spending by 0.017%.  This cost is pretty insignificant compared to the potential cost of retraining troops to replace transgender troops. Furthermore, some trans gendered members of the military may have valuable experiences that are simply priceless. For example, ex-SEAL Kristin Beck , who had been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Her experience on the field will be extremely valuable to future soldiers. By preventing someone like her from serving or contributing to the military, a lot of such knowledge is lost.

Another reason why I think that the ban is hurtful to the American society, is because it sets precedent of alienating communities that are integral to the American society . Even though, we are only talking about banning transgender people from serving, this can create a slippery slope for the government to enact policies that discriminate and exclude groups. This in turn can create a lot of mistrust and dissatisfaction with the government, which makes it difficult for the government to work with these communities. I believe that it is essential that a government works closely with its people to improve society. Therefore as the United States is made up of many different communities, all of which are equally important, it is vital that the government do not take actions that alienates them.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Stage 3 : New York Times commentary

  Ariel Davis    On July 18 2017, the New York Times published an opinion piece written by Farhana Khera and Jonathan J.Smith. The title of this piece is How Trump is stealthily carrying out his Muslim Ban. The writers' argument was that while Trump has not explicitly enacted a Muslim ban, he is trying to do so subtly by issuing orders that targeted Muslims. These orders, as pointed out by the writers,include increasing administrative hurdles and cementing or even expanding the current travel restrictions that are not under review in court. The writes of this piece are members of Muslim Advocates, a civil rights organization group. As the organization name indicates, it most likely focuses on the welfare of Muslims. Therefore the writers are probably trying to draw attention to the plight of Muslims trying to travel to the United States. By writing this article on the huge platform like the New York Times,  I feel that the writers also want readers to be aware...
Post a Comment
Read more

Stage 5: Should the government continue to fund Planned Parenthood

                                           On April 13 2017, the New York Times reported that President Trump signed legislation aimed at cutting of federal funding to Planned Parenthood and other organizations that performed abortions. This move was welcomed by several conservatives who wanted to impose curbs on reproductive rights. I do not agree with this move as I believe defunding such organizations will bring about more problems. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization that provides reproductive health services in the United States and internationally. In 2014, federal and state governments provided the organization with $528 million in funding (40% of its annual budget). The majority of this funding comes from Medicaid which subsidizes reproductive healthcare for low-income women. Abortions account for about 3 percent of the services ...
1 comment
Read more