Don't we have transgender people in the army without a problem? It appears the US has as well.
I don't know where the 'billion dollars' comes from. According to this it's much less:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ldiers/534945/
Quote:
The military has not historically covered gender-transition surgeries, though President Barack Obama did announce plans for it to begin doing so. That cost would be between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually for transition-related costs, according to a RAND analysis commissioned by the Department of Defense. The group estimated there are between 1,320 and 6,630 active-duty transgender servicepeople currently. A study in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2015 put the number at 12,800 people and $4.2 million to $5.6 million, concluding that “doctors agree that such care is medically necessary.”
This would be a military health-care spending increase of 0.04 to 0.13 percent. Even in the most extreme case, it is one tenth of the annual $84 million that the military spends on medication for erectile dysfunction.
|
But if that is such an outrageous cost then don't cover it in the army but still allow transgender members to serve. People have already pointed out the irony that a man who repeatedly dodged the draft gets to tell others they can't serve.
Trump might well succeed but the policy will fail in the long run. Every ban on minority groups in the army eventually does. First it was ethnic minorities, then it was homosexuals and if Trump wants to extend that to transgender servicemen then that will only get overturned later.