Mon 31 Jul 2017
Marchant ’20 in the Washington Post
Posted by David Dudley Field '25 under Alumni at 7:19 am
Landon Marchant ’20 (hat tip to Professor Sarah Jacobson) writes in the Washington Post:
Growing up, no one explicitly told me military service meant respect. They didn’t have to.
American flags flew in countless yards, including my own. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited each morning. Military recruiters knew my high school classmates by name and asked us about athletics and classes. Sporting events began with the national anthem. Military veterans had gainful employment. My evangelical upbringing stressed the importance of selfless service, of setting aside personal desires for the sake of a greater cause.
…
I am a veteran of the U.S. Air Force. I am transgender. My story is not unique.
The U.S. military employs as many as 15,500 active duty, National Guard and National Reserve transgender troops, according to a Williams Institute study, which could make it the largest employer of transgender Americans. The research institute also estimated there are 134,000 transgender veterans. Transgender people face higher rates of homelessness, unemployment and health-care discrimination than the average civilian population, and military service can offer economic stability and a sense of purpose.
Read the whole thing.
Print
• Email
| « The Houses of Williamstown: Phi Delta … | Trump, Scaramucci, Base : Some descriptors you might not think of … » |
20 Responses to “Marchant ’20 in the Washington Post”
Leave a Reply
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
JCD says:
Trump made the right decision. Transitioning military cost the U.S. about 14x more than normal non-transitioning military. It is silly to include transgenders in our U.S. military, especially when we would be on the hook for the cost of their transitions. Imposing these costs on the military isn’t patriotism, it is selfishness.
July 31st, 2017 at 1:25 pmWilliams Alum says:
It’s virtue signaling which you so often rail against, on the other side. The cost is nominal in terms of what we spend on other things. It’s clearly not a fiscally motivated decision. Silly argument.
July 31st, 2017 at 3:01 pmWilliams Alum says:
JCD –
Please name three actions Trump has taken you disagree with.
WA
July 31st, 2017 at 3:01 pmAlum-Anon says:
So any expense which is “nominal” should be encouraged? For a government run amok with spending? Now that IS a silly argument.
The figure I’ve seen for transgender reassignment surgery costs to be borne by the taxpayer is $1.35 billion over ten years, to accommodate 30% of an estimated 0.7% of the military, and this does not include other costs of accommodation.
July 31st, 2017 at 4:15 pmWilliams Alum says:
Where did you get that number?
We are going to kick out people that have been in the army for five or ten or fifteen years and served several tours in Iraq? Not due to misbehavior? People who are competent and able at performing their jobs? Seems discriminatory to me.
This doesn’t strike you as virtue signaling? This strikes you as measured policy decision, not political?
Mattis was in the midst of a six month deliberation process about the military’s policy regarding transgendered enlistees. Trump, in the middle of that, made a unilateral decision that took Mattis, the person IN CHARGE, who is CURRENTLY WORKING ON COMING UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION, by surprise. Seems like how a leader should lead.
July 31st, 2017 at 4:27 pmJCD says:
Yeah, so we are going to start turning the blind, deaf, and retarded into soldiers – whatever the cost – simply to advance the social agenda of the left. It is ridiculous to pile up these extra costs. After all, there is no efficient way to create warriors by converting women into men.
July 31st, 2017 at 4:29 pmWilliams Alum says:
being blind or deaf makes it hard to be in combat. Being trans does not. Not comparable. It’s pretty likely there are deaf people in some of the 80% of military jobs that are non combat tho. Doesn’t bother me. More power to them.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/trump-claims-transgender-service-members-cost-too-much-true-n786891
JCD, can you name three actions trump has taken that you disagree with?
July 31st, 2017 at 4:31 pmWilliams Alum says:
Also, These seem purely to be arguments against paying for surgery. Two points. 1) even given that, if I agreed with you, I would still happily let transgendered folk serve in armed forces. This isn’t what trump is doing. He is saying even if you paid for your own surgeries and treatment, YOU STILL CANT SERVE. Makes no sense to me. 2) the house just voted on this and it failed. Nice of trump, who used to complain about executive overreach, to take matters in his own hands on an issue that couldn’t pass our legislative bodies.
WA
July 31st, 2017 at 4:35 pmWilliams Alum says:
Hart Lee and FRC cite massively larger numbers but I can’t see how they are calculated on my phone. RAND cited above calculates using a number that is in the range of what I have seen for how many trans military folk there are and how many of them would seek treatment. Who knows the real number. Still doesn’t address my two points above.
And in ten years, we might know this real number.
July 31st, 2017 at 4:38 pmJCD says:
Please. The costs of transgender transition runs in the $100,000 and up range. It is ridiculous for us to pay those costs. Unfortunately, transgenders rack up significantly higher costs no matter what – at least 4x as much as regular service members – even without the reassignment surgery.
Transgenders, for example, can have complications from their hormone therapies. They are also more at-risk for substance abuse, depression, suicide and other intractable problems. Unfortunately, these costs are carried by the taxpayers when transgenders in the military and move on to become veterans.
Transgender Vets Are At Greater Risk For
Transgenders are quite expensive both in the military and after they become veterans. It is not worth it, in my view, to spend all this extra money without any tangible benefit for national security. At a time when we need to be fast, lean and agile, transgender soldiers would only be holding us back.
July 31st, 2017 at 6:28 pmAlum-Anon says:
You argued “The cost is nominal in terms of what we spend on other things. It’s clearly not a fiscally motivated decision. Silly argument.” I merely point out what this “nominal” cost is according to one Congressional estimate (which incidentally uses the Williams Institute study numbers mentioned by Marchant).
Just how long do you think that state of affairs would last, hmm? The second it became feasible to do it, the taxpayers would be on the hook for an additional $1.35 billion (or more) for reassignment surgeries, and the door would be well and truly open for making the military an approved cost center for providing politically-approved elective surgery. As well as the VA, which apparently hasn’t had enough mismanagement issues affecting provision of veterans’ health care over the last several years.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no formal guidance document, policy memo or even an executive order on this. A message on Twitter signalling a reconsideration of existing policy is not “executive overreach” and it certainly isn’t “taking matters into his own hands.” Perhaps if there had been an actual EO you’d have an argument, but only if your lot had been more concerned about Obama’s legacy of sidestepping Congress every time it suited his purposes.
July 31st, 2017 at 6:37 pm89'er says:
Perhaps Trump was merely joking in his tweet?
The same way he was “joking” about police brutality in his extended digression on Friday.
That would solve the mess created by is itchy thumb.
July 31st, 2017 at 9:39 pmWilliams Alum says:
i would happily engage with you, alum-anon, in person about this, but have no desire to type out rebuttals because I have been trying to cut off Ephblog involvement because it provides me no joy. I’m sorry; I know this will be seen as a cop out. For what it’s worth, I am concerned about Obama’s Overreach, and was during his administration. If someone asked me the question I ask JCD and he ignores, that would have been one of the three things I mentioned.
July 31st, 2017 at 10:27 pmAlum-Anon says:
No, not at all, I can understand this (or these). No apology is necessary.
August 1st, 2017 at 7:59 pmanon says:
Like it or not, gender is attached to thousands of military regulations and law. This includes who can be drafted to fight in the infantry- to who must kill and die.
Gender is attached to body fat standards, height and weight restrictions, and fitness standards. Fitness requirements for men are significantly higher than they are for women in every branch.
Like it or not, gender discrimination is a fact of military service. Should that completely change to make all things equal? If the standards were changed to meet those for men, most women would be disqualified from service. Is a fitness standard arbitrary in modern war? Doubtful. You want people to be as fit as possible. You also want women in the service.
Gender is attached to berthing restrictions, uniform regulations, hair length etc. Gender in the armed forces regulates who people are ordered live with, who they are ordered to shower with, what uniform is worn, how much body fat they can have, how many push ups they need to do to enlist and stay in the service etc. etc. etc. Gender regulations are apparent and practiced twenty-four hours a day in the Armed Forces of the United States.
Anabolic steroids in the armed services are illegal and they test for during random urinalysis. If you are positive, you get thrown out of the service. Anything that makes a service member non deployable- yes, this includes pregnancy and gender transition, means that another service member must fill that gap. Who deploys to war and how often definitely matters in a military that is undermanned. You can argue that there is a wide variety of work in the armed services, but the basic premise of the job 9the lowest common denominator) is that a person is deployable for war- period.
Is it illegal to discriminate? Not in every case. You cannot enlist if you are disabled. You cannot enlist or remain in the service if you are too old.
Does a ban on transgender service really equate to a ban because of race, or gender itself? That is a tough question- but he still served as a woman. Not in his case.
The argument he is making is very brave, and I applaud him for it. That said, he did enlist as a women, and these restrictions existed then he enlisted. This ban did not stop him from serving; which appears to be a major part of the thrust of his argument. This ban would not have stopped him from enlisting today.
Contrition is a military fact. The service is not fair. The service is not a right- it is an obligation controlled by very strict regulations that discriminate. War is not fair.
His basic premise that military service is a right is simply not accurate.
August 4th, 2017 at 8:24 amJCD says:
The really courageous people, in my opinion, are the high-ranking career military who protested the Obama administration’s bizarre transgender decision in the first place.
Military Thanks Trump for Transgender Ban: ‘Courageous Decision’
August 4th, 2017 at 1:45 pmanon says:
JCD- So much of what is done in the military- the basic personnel management side of it- depends on gender. They do not put men and women in rooms together when deployed, at Sea, in Barracks, etc. There is also a huge difference in the regulations for men and women.
Plus the ban did not stop anyone from serving. Especially since DADT was repealed by congress. You could serve according to the gender you were born with. That actually opened up a lot of jobs for men who identified as women.
Now they have lifted the combat ban. But still, the standards are very different. It would be much easier to go from being male to female in terms of the physical requirements of standard service. The Marines have very high standards for men- in particular.
It’s a lot to process.. The entire structure is organized by gender, and this has not stopped a single person from military service who wanted to serve and had the physical ability to do so.
August 4th, 2017 at 3:47 pmsigh says:
that something has been and is structured one way does not mean that way is morally justified, nor that it is the most efficient nor effective structure for the task or group at hand. One thing that is not helpful for military readiness is tweeting a new policy halfway through the military’s review of that policy without providing implementation guides…
by anon’s definition of what is important to the military in determining who can be a member of the military–is this person deployable–than a transgender ban falls short. And anon seems incorrect–if Trump’s ban were actually policy and not just a set of three tweets, Marchant would not be allowed to serve if he signed up today.
also, considering debates from years ago about older veterans at Williams as students, really happy Williams has a Landon Marchant as a current student (along w/ two other vets according to a medium post by Marchant) and has a dean specifically connected to help them.
August 4th, 2017 at 6:58 pmJCD says:
As far as I’m concerned, transgenders are delusional. We aren’t doing anyone in the military a favor by signing off on this unscientific nonsense. Unless you can switch around your chromosomes, you are pretty much stuck with one or the other gender. Besides, transgenders are 20 times more likely to commit suicide. The last thing they need is stressful military service.
Austin Ruse: Trans in Military Is Based on Fake Science
August 5th, 2017 at 10:54 amAnon says:
Sigh- It is not the ban that would make a service member non- deployable. The transition would. Again, there is no ban. Landon Merchant served with honor.
Landon was not blocked from service- and a ban was in place when he enlisted. He served as a woman. It is good that Williams has accepted him and other veterans.
The rules in the military are simple;
If you have a penis you serve In accordance with male regulations.
If you have a vagina you serve in accordance with female regulations.
How you identify is not asked or considered when a person enlists. Biological gender guides service regulations in daily life as well as physical standards and appearance.
It’s not that complicated- no one is blocked from service because of their gender or identity.
A tweet does not change that.
Landon was not harmed by the policy- he enlisted and his honorable service under female regulations is probably a reason he is at Williams – which is a good thing.
August 6th, 2017 at 5:36 am