Military General: Delay of ‘Transgender’ Enlistment ‘Largely Based’ on Disagreement Over Science of Solving Medical Issues

WASHINGTON — A top military general says that one of the main reasons that the U.S. Department of Defense has decided to delay implementation of the Obama-era policy allowing “transgenders” to serve in the military is disagreement over the science of how the medical treatments for those struggling with gender dysphoria alleviate the problem.

Air Force Gen. Paul Selva was asked about the matter by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, on Tuesday during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

“I am concerned that the recent six-month delay the Department has approved before letting transgender people enlist in the services will have some unintended consequences,” Gillibrand stated. “What have you learned so far in your review of this issue, and how is the implementation going so far?”

“I am an advocate of every qualified person who can meet the physical standards to serve in our uniformed services to be able to do so,” Selva replied. “Our decision to delay the accessions of transgender individuals into the services was largely based on a disagreement on the science of how mental health care and hormone therapy for transgender individuals would help solve the medical issues that are associated with gender dysphoria.”

“There are a host of other issues that involve the potential physical standards, and the service chiefs asked for additional time to assess so that they can make their necessary changes to infrastructure, as well as training curriculum for our basic trainees who come in in transgender status—particularly those who have not undergone gender reassignment surgery and while they present as their target gender are physiologically still in their birth gender,” he added.

He said that those issues must be addressed before the military can allow those who identify as the opposite sex to enter the U.S. Armed Forces.

As previously reported, U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis announced earlier this month that the Pentagon would push back its implementation date to Dec. 1 to give additional time to determine whether or not the Obama-era policy will negatively affect military readiness.

  • Connect with Christian News

“After consulting with the service chiefs and secretaries, I have determined that it is necessary to defer the start of accessions for six months,” he outlined in a memo. “We will use this additional time to evaluate more carefully the impact of such accessions on readiness and lethality.”

However, Mattis also advised that the delay “does not presuppose the outcome of the review.”

Christian and family groups opine that Mattis should do away with the policy altogether.

“Spending billions of dollars on transgender surgeries and treatment plans, when the military has other priorities that would actually ensure its effectiveness in war, is irresponsible,” said Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, who now works with Family Research Council.

“However, the cost to readiness, recruitment, retention, morale and cohesion will be even greater,” he continued. “Secretary Mattis and Congress need to ensure the priorities of the U.S. armed forces remain those that the secretary has outlined: mission readiness, command proficiency, and combat effectiveness. These should be the new priorities, not the last administration’s social engineering projects that ignore military readiness.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • InTheChurch

    Should we pay for the changes or should the possible soldier already arrive with the changes?
    Should we change physical, mental and military standards for anyone?
    Let me be clear, I have not served so that is why I’m asking.

    • BuckeyePhysicist

      Those are great questions. The general cited in the article is basically saying the military leadership is asking the same things. My fear — and I have served — is people will join the military simply to get a sex change at our expense. This will change the physical standards big time because a man who transitions to a woman will always be stronger than a woman who transitions to a man.

      • ZappaSaid88

        Folks already join the military to get a college education at our expense. Who cares if now it’s surgery?

        • BuckeyePhysicist

          A college education changes a military member for the better. A sex change just changes where they go to the bathroom.

    • Robert

      Thank you for not serving in the united States Queer military it says you don’t go for that stuff!

      • InTheChurch

        I guess I’m suppose to say thank you.
        I want and would serve my country if asked. My country is bigger than this issue.

    • Bob Johnson

      The military is constantly changing requirements. The entire fields of electronics has added all kinds of new jobs and training requirements. The Air Force just this month has changed PME eligibility, dropping time-in-service requirements.

      If we want an all volunteer military, then the services must offer incentives for people to enlist. Or we could return to the Draft, only this time we will need a lot more recruits with advanced technical degrees.

      • InTheChurch

        These new recruits will enlist for sex changes and not to advance the military and all that it offers.

  • FoJC

    If the US military continues down this path, they most certainly better consider Russia an immediate threat to our nation. This is weakening the military, not strengthening it.

    Follow Jesus, find Wisdom.

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    US nuclear arsenal controlled by 1970s computers with 8in floppy disks

    Government Accountability Office report details ‘museum-ready’ machines controlling nuclear force messaging system that are ‘obsolete’

    maybe we should update some other things of a higher priority than peoples genitalia ………….

    • Croquet_Player

      You’re quoting from The Guardian? I am both surprised and pleased. Hat tip to you sir. The Guardian doesn’t get everything right (no newspaper does) but they’re right about the extraordinary vulnerabilities in nuclear weapons safeguards. And this is true worldwide. We’re (the U.S.) better at than most, and we’re in the weeds. They’re not joking about some systems being run on floppy disks. There was such a huge run-up in the fifties with nuclear weapons, we (the U.S., and Russia, and China) have enough weapons each to kill every living thing on the planet thousands of times over. You have to wonder, what exactly, is the point? And who’s in charge? It would only take one lunatic with access to the button to turn Earth into a barren rock, with only a few bacteria (perhaps) surviving. Is this really what we want? We have to find a way out of this. Some of our best presidents have, during their short time in office, turned their attention to nuclear disarmament. Realizing, as one hopes, if they don’t do that first, nothing else really matters. Because we’ll all be dead.

    • Bob Johnson

      Problem is that some of those warheads are just as old. Not to mention all kinds of military satellites from those years. Do you really want to junk the only known system to talk to that hardware and hope your new software does the job?

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        interesting thought …… do you really want to risk not updating it and have almost 50 year old software fail due to outdated equipment …… oooohhhh …. look at us …. we have fighters that can fly at mach 2 or 3 ….. and we have stealth aircraft that are invisible ….. and we have the latest 70s computers …… yeah …. and we have soldiers with detachable genetalia ……….