Today, we have all sorts of sophisticated monitoring devices. We have ways to measure the amount of mercury in tuna fish, or radon in our basements. We have warning alarms for our homes to measure dangerous gas leaks. But these devices are fairly new. Before that, we used animals to alert us of a problem. These animals were among a classification called sentinel species. I remember seeing dogs with high school students pass me in the hallway on their way to their next class. These dogs were trained to lick the hand of the student periodically and bark if they sensed that the child’s glucose level was too low. That gave the diabetic student enough time to consume some glucose before developing hypoglycemia which can be a life threatening emergency. Dogs (and particularly cats) have been used to “sense” or smell different types of cancer in people, or sniff out explosives or illegal drugs. Coal miners would sometimes be exposed to lethal levels of carbon monoxide, an odorless gas, and so the sentinel species of their choice was the canary which could not breathe carbon monoxide and survive. Death for these small yellow birds was certain and instantaneous. For a century ending only in our lifetime (mine,anyway), caged canaries were brought to the deepest parts of a mine. If the canary lived to see the end of a shift, miners might have been able to breathe easier, themselves, except for the silicosis and the COPD that they contracted working in coal. If the canary died, the miners would immediately evacuate the mine. So, the canary was a harbinger as well as a sentinel and a potential sacrifice.
Today is Monday, January 27, 2025, a week after President Donald J. Trump took office. He is expected momentarily to sign an Executive Order that will purge the U.S. Armed Forces of transexuals and forbid them from serving in the future. According to The Hill it directs . . .
“Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who previously criticized allowing transgender people to serve, to outline new military readiness requirements that declare transgender troops are not physically or mentally capable of doing so. It tasks Hegseth with acting against ‘the use of invented and identification-based pronouns’ within the department.”
The number of transexuals in the U.S. military has been variously estimated to be between 14,800 and 15,500, though estimates are outdated and trans members would likely be less forthcoming now more than ever to be counted. If you believe that life is simple, then this is not necessarily an example in which to make your point. For example, the dependents of active duty military receive health care at military hospitals or in the communities using military insurance called Tricare. What becomes of the trans dependents of “straight” military parents after this Executive Order is signed? What is covered and what is not?
“It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in Tricare or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through Tricare Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty-suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. That amounts to one tenth of one percent (or 0.1%) of the 918,000 youth aged 6 to 18 years who have at least one parent on active-duty or ready reserve military status. Tricare has covered gender-affirming treatments for transgender youth since 2016.”
UP-CLOSE AND PERSONAL
I usually don’t comment on GLBTQ issues, though I have in the case of trans and in the context of last summer’s Olympics. I’m sort of a DEI guy myself. I mean, who can argue with the terms “diversity,” “equity” and “inclusion?” We all want to belong. We all want to be treated fairly. And that’s regardless of our race and gender. Shouldn’t the military be diverse enough to have women and Hispanics in their ranks? Maybe I’m just part of a vanishing species in America?
While my moral opinion is my own, my concern is how we in America treat people who may be different from us in some way (religion, color, language, gender, political orientation, etc.) other than our own. I’m also fairly alarmed at where “this” might “end.” I was not alarmed when Kennedy was our President, or when Nixon was elected (and resigned.) I did not agree with Ronald Reagan on a lot of issues and I was sorely disappointed in Bill Clinton. I voted for Obama in 2008, but not in 2012. It’s just that never before have I viewed a sitting President as an existential threat to our Constitution, our liberties and our values as I see in President’s Trump’s case. So, I have to wonder if members of the trans community are not just the first step down a intolerant and un-American path and that some other group might be disenfranchised next? What laws are transsexuals breaking? What rights might they lose in our society? Where would it end, and then, what group is next? No doubt the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) will couch his opinions in terms of readiness and morale. These were probably two adjectives used earlier in the Twentieth Century to enforce racial segregation and much later, keeping women from serving in combat.
Is there a least-drastic way of accommodating trans (in terms of public restrooms and so on?) This is not a Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) redux, because a gender neutral toilet is not a seperate but hypothetically equal accommodation. It is a neutral facility that all genders and both sexes share.
I can go for a whole day without wondering whether someone is this or that. Why is it my business (or the government’s business) to single out a group for persecution. This is exactly the mischief that Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) warned us of when he spoke about the tyranny of the majority in his work Democracy in America:
“In my opinion, the main evil of the present democratic institutions of the United States does not arise, as is often asserted in Europe, from their weakness, but from their irresistible strength. I am not so much alarmed at the excessive liberty which reigns in that country as at the inadequate securities which one finds there against tyranny. If an individual or a party is wronged in the United States, to whom can he apply for redress? If to public opinion, public opinion constitutes the majority; if to the legislature, it represents the majority and implicitly obeys it; if to the executive power, it is appointed by the majority and serves as a passive tool in its hands. The public force consists of the majority under arms; the jury is the majority invested with the right of hearing judicial cases; and in certain states even the judges are elected by the majority. However iniquitous or absurd the measure of which you complain, you must submit to it as well as you can.”
This is also why I as a Christian cannot support Christian Nationalism. What would that mean for in America Jews? For Muslims? For Catholics or Mormons who many evangelicals do not believe are Christians?
WHAT THE EXECUTIVE ORDER (EO) ACTUALLY SAYS
At first, I hoped to provide a root and branch commentary on the EO, but it would take too much time and I have not thoughtfully/prayerfully considered the issue in detail. A few things strike me, however and I’ve highlighted them in the EO below.
The mention in Section 1 of a “soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life. . .” made me wonder whether the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth met that standard, himself. As the SECDEF’s own mother wrote:
“I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth.”
Also, Hegseth’s alcohol excesses appears to be legendary according to many co-workers who have known him much longer than any of us.
Section 2 begins with the need for “honesty,” “humility” and “integrity” among servicemembers. Yet I wonder whether these adjectives fit our Commander-in-Chief? But then, I suppose it is hard to be humble when you believe that you are chosen by God to save a nation, not to mention an entire planet. Thoughts like these never entered my brain, so I hope I’m not being unfair to President Trump.
Section 4 delegates the responsibility for operationalizing this EO to the SECDEF, whose mother further wrote to him: “We still love you, but we are broken by your behavior and lack of character.” To be fair and honest, his mother reported after his nomination that she subsequently sent him a second e-mail apologizing for the one I’ve cited. I searched for that e-mail in vain but could not locate it.
So, it is in this sense that I see the potential for transsexuals in the military to be the canary in the coalmine. Who will be purged from the military next? Liberals? They have a political agenda that the EO warns of. Incidentially, so do conservatives in the military.
As the famous poet John Donne (1572-1632) wrote:
“Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.”
What Donne is saying is don’t worry who might be disenfranchised by this EO. Because you are next!
WHERE SHOULD THE CHURCH STAND?
I do believe that Christians in America, regardless of how they interpret Scripture (and I am a fundamentalist, believe it or not) should stand up for the oppressed and the underdog. Treat everybody with dignity and respect and “let God sort it out” on the Final Day. If you want my personal opinion on the trans issue or whether we should help Ukraine, or colonize Mars or clone human fetuses, I may share it with you if you ask me and I am convinced that the benefit of doing so would outweigh the cost in terms of our fellowship. And in that case, I will be totally honest with you. But you can probably find the answers well enough on your own.
THE TEXT OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER
PRIORITIZING MILITARY EXCELLENCE AND READINESS
EXECUTIVE ORDER
January 27, 2025
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, and to ensure the readiness and effectiveness of our Armed Forces, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. The United States military has a clear mission: to protect the American people and our homeland as the world’s most lethal and effective fighting force. Success in this existential mission requires a singular focus on developing the requisite warrior ethos, and the pursuit of military excellence cannot be diluted to accommodate political agendas or other ideologies harmful to unit cohesion.
Recently, however, the Armed Forces have been afflicted with radical gender ideology to appease activists unconcerned with the requirements of military service like physical and mental health, selflessness, and unit cohesion. Longstanding Department of Defense (DoD) policy (DoD Instruction (DoDI) 6130.03) provides that it is the policy of the DoD to ensure that service members are “[f]ree of medical conditions or physical defects that may reasonably be expected to require excessive time lost from duty for necessary treatment or hospitalization.” As a result, many mental and physical health conditions are incompatible with active duty, from conditions that require substantial medication or medical treatment to bipolar and related disorders, eating disorders, suicidality, and prior psychiatric hospitalization.
Consistent with the military mission and longstanding DoD policy, expressing a false “gender identity” divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service. Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life. A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.
For the sake of our Nation and the patriotic Americans who volunteer to serve it, military service must be reserved for those mentally and physically fit for duty. The Armed Forces must adhere to high mental and physical health standards to ensure our military can deploy, fight, and win, including in austere conditions and without the benefit of routine medical treatment or special provisions.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States Government to establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity. This policy is inconsistent with the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria. This policy is also inconsistent with shifting pronoun usage or use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex.
Sec. 3. Definitions. The definitions in the Executive Order of January 20, 2025 (Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government) shall apply to this order.
Sec. 4. Implementation. (a) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense (Secretary) shall update DoDI 6130.03 Volume 1 (Medical Standards for Military Service: Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction (May 6, 2018), Incorporating Change 5 of May 28, 2024) and DoDI 6130.03 Volume 2 (Medical Standards for Military Service: Retention (September 4, 2020), Incorporating Change 1 of June 6, 2022) to reflect the purpose and policy of this Order.
(b) The Secretary shall promptly issue directives for DoD to end invented and identification-based pronoun usage to best achieve the policy outlined in section 2 of this order.
(c) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall:
(i) identify all additional steps and issue guidance necessary to fully implement this order; and
(ii) submit to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs a report that summarizes these steps.
(d) Absent extraordinary operational necessity, the Armed Forces shall neither allow males to use or share sleeping, changing, or bathing facilities designated for females, nor allow females to use or share sleeping, changing, or bathing facilities designated for males.
(e) Within 30 days of the issuance of the respective updates, directives, and guidance under subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, with respect to the Coast Guard, issue updates, directives, and guidance consistent with the updates, directives, and guidance issued under subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section.
Sec. 5. Implementing the Revocation of Executive Order 14004. (a) Pursuant to the Executive Order of January 20, 2025 (Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions), Executive Order 14004 of January 25, 2021 (Enabling All Qualified Americans To Serve Their Country in Uniform), has been revoked. Accordingly, all policies, directives, and guidance issued pursuant to Executive Order 14004 shall be rescinded to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of this order.
(b) The Secretary and, with respect to the Coast Guard, the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall take all necessary steps to implement the revocations described in subsection (a) of this section and ensure that all military departments and services fully comply with the provisions of this order.
Sec. 6. Severability. If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 27, 2025.
