CHECK DESCRIPTION FOR STYLE, 4 Pages Double Spaced, Ethics in leadership, due in 33 hours

As the opening tweet makes clear, President Trump attempted to give cover to his transgender ban by claiming that the order had come after “consultation” with military authorities. Not surprisingly, Trump refers to strategic command as “my Generals,” an appellation that reveals how he assumes ownership over the military. Additionally, mentioning his consultation implies that the desire to exclude transgendered individuals from service is widely held by top military brass. In effect, Trump is both denying that he has come to this decision on his own and asserting that everyone agrees entirely with him. Following this initial set up, Trump proposes two reasons why the ban is necessary: the burdensome medical costs that transgendered service people generate and the “disruption” to the efficient functioning of the military machinery they cause. As evidence that this claim is absurd, we need only compare the amount of money the military actually spends on transgendered medical needs. As Christopher Ingram has reported, the military spends $41.6 billion a year on Viagra, a number that is five times as much as the medical costs attributable to all transgendered service people combined [1].

In ethical terms, the Trump administration adheres to a strictly deontological model of ethics. This model focus on the action that is being committed, without regard for the outcome or intention of that action. From a deontological perspective, violating the rigid codes of gender—or using tax payer money to support such a violation—is inherently wrong. Because of this status, the outcomes that follow on being transgendered, such as serving admirably in the military, cannot compensate for the initial ethical infraction. The pretense to avoiding “disruption” firmly establishes the deontological basis of this decision, because it maintains that the military is capable of functioning under only one set of norms. Any change would, according to this position, immediately detract from the military’s ability. A separate view of gender, one that see gender categories as historically created, would assume that any institution could adapt to changing social realities, just as the military once adapted to the inclusion of African American soldiers and women.

The refusal to allow transgendered servicemen violates a larger ethical mandate. The standards that should govern the policy decisions of the administration require an outlook that considers the rights of everyone, not simply the rights of (socially) conservative and evangelical voters. Their world view is normative/prescriptive because it argues how the world should be. In this case, the world should follow guidelines provided by religious authority. However, this same ethical framework has been used to support slavery and the disenfranchisement of women. Further evidence of the fact that the Trump administration is arguing its case from a normative belief in the immorality of homosexuality and transgenderism can be seen in other policy decisions it has taken, including the role-back of Obama-era protections for both of these groups.

Opponents of the transgender ban rely on a separate ethical standard. Throughout the course of American history, there have been three great citizenship struggles: African Americans, women, and immigrants. As Douglas Baynton has argued, each of these groups has had their rights removed on the basis of ascribed and imagined disabilities [2]. The fight to secure the rights of these groups was supported by a Natural Rights theory of ethics. Emerging from the work of Hobbes and Locke, foundational philosophers in the establishment of the Enlightenment principles that supported the founding of The United States, all people, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, are imbued with a set of inalienable rights.

The American view of transgenderism is not uniform. As might be expected, differences of opinion track along religious lines. According to the Pew Research Center, 65% of American Christians regard gender as determined by biological sex, while 62% of those who identify as atheist or agnostic believe gender and biological sex are not coterminous [3]. This discrepancy helps explain the Trump administration’s position, given the extent to which his coalition is heavily supported by Jerry Falwell Jr. and the evangelical movement. His base is likewise composed of social/political conservatives who argue that American culture is being disrupted (to refer back to the language of the ban) by the influx of immigrants and the openness of progressive policies. This reactionary politics—which sees the straight white male as inherently in danger from the rising voices of African Americans (particularly the BLM movement), immigrants (legal or otherwise), and others—is staking its claim to authority through measures that restrict access to the country and its institutions. Harsher public laws around voting rights, gay rights, and transgendered rights reveal the true concern that the Trump administration shares and caters to. In effect, the transgendered ban is important because it marks a moment in which the culture is shifting. Demographics and more progressive attitudes are challenging traditional institutional models. The backlash that we see in this and other policies is evidence of a rising ethical need to support and fight for the rights of everyone to be included under the essential protections of the Constitution. My personal feeling is that most of Trump’s policies, especially those related to minorities and immigrants, are ethically flawed. I believe that he is fighting to retain a notion of America that was good for the few but that did not acknowledge the inherent rights and dignity of all.

Sources: