Factoid Friday

Aaron metal encountererFactoid FridayPaper 3/5/2018Donald outperforms presidency has brought a lot of argumentation with it. His constant tweeting, his blunt statements, and his act-now-think- latishr mentality produce earned him some(prenominal) extolment and comment since the moment he announced he would run for join States electric chair. One act that has stirred up a lot of mingled emotions is President Trumps announcement of a criminalize that would prevent transgender individuals from religious assistant in the armament.This banishishment, which was first announced via President Trumps twitter account in late July, will everywhereride an Obama-era plan that was previously in place specific every last(predicate)y to entirelyow transgender individuals to serve in the host (Davis, 2017). Perhaps what is the most prevent development of this ban for m any(prenominal) people is the fact that it was revealed shortly afterward President Trump decl atomic number 18 d his great respect for members of the LGBT community and in xtions to nurture their individual rights and immunitys during his presidential campaign. mend many have cited distinction as the reason behind this act, President Trump and his staff have ensured the domain that this ban is purely for national security reasons, and he wanted to gibe the LGBT community that this is not a betrayal (Cooper, 2017). This ban has been a hotly debated topic for quite a firearm.While both the Trump administration, expecters of the ban, and those remote to the ban all have valid arguments, anyone who is willing to fight and give-up the ghost for his or her country and its freedoms should have the opportunity to do so. This statement holds peculiarly true for Ameri masss because the United States was founded on this very principle.While the legions shouldnt cover for gender reassignment surgeries and treatments, recruitment options should be open to all Americans, including transgender individuals. There atomic number 18 many reasons why this is acceptable, including the fact that transgender people are already serving in the military, transgender individuals provide diminutive to no breach of military activities, and the transgender ban is currently be scrutinized in court for its constitutionality.Taking all of this into consideration, its voteless to see a reason why transgender individuals shouldnt be allowed to fight for the freedom our country provides. Its serious to argue that transgender individuals shouldnt be allowed in the military plain because on that point are already transgender people serving in the military today. In fact, as of 2016, there are an estimated 6,630 actively serving transgender individuals in the military and anywhere from 2,030 to 7,160 individuals serving in reserves.Along with these numbers, an estimated 150,000 transgender individuals have served since the socio-economic class 2012, which is ab let out 21% of all tra nsgender adults in the United States according to UCLA researchers. In contrast, tho 10% of the general non-transgender population has served (Hamblin, 2017).The fact that a higher(prenominal) percentage of transgender individuals has served in the United States military compared to those who do not make as transgender should serve as an eye-opener to many. After all, active military service poses many risks, especially during times of conflict or war. In fact, some(prenominal) American and British armed forces members in Afghanistan were asked close to the threats that they faced.The statistics, which are be by the above image, are quite shocking. Roughly half of all individuals interviewed verbalise that they saw at least one person killed speckle actively serving. One in every six people witnessed a close friend being injured or killed. One in four were injured by an IED, three in four experienced long-range attacks with rockets or mortars, and half had been attacked at cl ose range with automobile 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 decision to serve in the United States phalanx should be view regardless of any drama created by gender.Along with the fact that transgender Americans have already proved that they are willing to make the same sacrifices as their military comrades, a magnanimous majority of transgender individuals cause little to no disruption of military activity while serving. In fact, as outlying(prenominal) as disruption of military activity is concerned, transgender individuals who could possibly be disrupting military activity by getting reassignment surgery account for less than 1% of all available members.The actual number of all individuals estimated to have working(a) treatments wh ile actively serving was between 25 and 130 individuals just enough to cause any meaningful checkout to military activities (PBS, 2017).In regards to this same issue of military disruption, eighteen other countries were examined in a assume to determine if transgender service members cause any noticeable problems.Overall, the study didnt fancy any readiness or cohesion implications involving transgender individuals. Many countries revealed concerns about blustery issues at one point, but it was later determined that simple polity changes were able to deal with this issue (PBS, 2017). If other countries are able to work around the minor difficulties that transgender individuals may pose, then why cant the United States as well?Surely if this situation is able to work for other countries, it can for Americans as well. Along with this information, President Trumps proposed ban has received legal criticism as well. There are concerns that this ban would violate the Constitutional rights of those individuals alter by the ban. One example of the legal obstacles that this ban has faced occurred in August of 2017.Two gay rights groups filed a lawsuit to ban the ban ahead it could be indeclared. This lawsuit was filed on behalf of five transgender women who are openly and actively serving in the military, for they feel strongly 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 pro tempore victory in late October, for the ban was temporarily blocked in court by a federal try (Kheel, 2017).This same enounce responsible for the blockage was quoted saying that the ban does not appear to be supported by any facts. Along with this, another federal pronounce reviewed this ban in court and halted the ban altogether (Marimow, 2017). He stated that active-duty transgender service men and women already suffer harmful consequences because of the presi dents policy.Some examples of said consequences include being set apart as inherently unfit, confront the threat of discharge, the inability to move ahead with long-term medical plans, and the inability to commission as an officer.Due to these two federal court rulings, it is crystallise that there is much to be concerned about regarding the legality of the ban.A deuce-ace court case was carried out with the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NLCR) and the GLBTQ effective Advocates Defenders (GLAD) as the plaintiffs. They argued that the ban violates the 5th Amendment rights of all transgender service members, and they pushed for the removal of the ban on funds for gender reassignment surgery (which accompanied the transgender ban).Judge Colleen Kollar-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 Co urt.The fact that this ban has been heavily criticized, and in some cases acted upon, by not one, not two, but three passing-esteemed resolve only 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 exculpation is still being pressured to produce a plan for both carrying out the ban and dealing with currently enlisted transgender individuals. Although President Trump is still move for action to be taken, the ban is still being processed through with(predicate) the courts as an appeal is being sought after due to the decisions do from past cases (Lopez, 2017).Although there are many arguments out there that support the idea of a United States Military with a transgender ban, they lack positive evidence, and the evidence that is presented is remote from accurate in most cases. President Trumps two main reasons for the ban, disruption of military service and health and medical be, are easily discredited when all of the facts are lined out.In regards to disruption of services, its clear to see why this isnt a legitimate issue for the United States Military. starting time 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 abide 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 less 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 extremely insignificant fraction of all mil itary members would be unable(predicate) 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 potential costs. The President and his staff worry that the medical treatments and surgeries that transgender individuals require is an expensive and supernumerary 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 they are proven medically inevitable on a case-by-case basis.Along with this information, a study in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2015 found that the total costs for these surgeries and treatments wo uld amount to somewhere between 4.2-5.6 million dollars, or roughly ten percent of the annual military healthcare budget. For those that think this is a large amount of money, the annual amount of taxpayer dollars worn-out(a) on medication 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, some(prenominal) 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 sense.President Trump has made a lot of changes since he was elected into Presidency. While his decisions usually at least make some sense, the transgender military ban makes no sense at all. His two main reasons for this ban, which were potential disruption of military activity and medical costs, are backed by little to no evide nce, 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.All of this effort for a ban that isnt necessary should be spent on something more useful to America.BibliographyBlake, Aaron. Jim Mattis didnt undermine President Trumps transgender military ban. Trump already had. The Washington Post. kick the bucket change August 30, 2017. Accessed September 20, 2017.http//www.washingtonpost.com/ countersign/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. give out modify Augu st 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 begin within 6 months, memo says. New York Times. Last modified August 23, 2017.Accessed October 12, 2017. http//www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/us/politics/trump-military-transgender-ban.html. column Board. Editorial making way for transgender troops. Chicago Tribune. Last modified celestial latitude 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/archive/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.wa shingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/federal-judge-in-dc-blocks-part-of-trumps-transgender-military-ban/2017/10/30. Kheel, Rebecca. Court partially 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 haul 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 Septemb er 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.