Only 23 percent of America thought the military should start enlisting transgenders on July 1 — and fortunately, Defense Secretary James Mattis wasn’t one of them. With a buzzer-beating memo, the military boss made the eleventh hour decision to postpone the move for six months — to the relief of conservatives and troops across the country.

After an intense internal debate, the service chiefs can finally exhale about an Obama-era policy they worried would crumble morale, readiness, and retention. Behind closed doors, most lobbied for a two-year delay but finally agreed on a shorter timetable with the hopes that they can prove how devastating the decision would be on their warrior ethos. To his credit, Mattis heeded their warning in a statement late Friday, announcing that a delay was the beginning — not the end — of the discussion. “Since becoming the secretary of defense, I have emphasized that the Department of Defense must measure each policy decision against one critical standard: Will the decision affect the readiness and lethality of the force?” he explained. “Put another way, how will the decision affect the ability of America’s military to defend the nation? It is against this standard that I provide the following guidance on the way forward in accessing transgender individuals into the military services.” Then, without tipping his hand, he promised that whatever analysis the Pentagon undertakes “in no way presupposes an outcome.”

While President Obama dropped this bomb on the Defense Department without a single systematic study of the consequences, most people expected a more cautious approach from the Trump administration. Hopefully, this means they’ll get it. As FRC’s Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin points out, there’s a lot riding on the Pentagon’s decision. With everything to lose and not much apart from political correctness to gain, General Boykin agrees that hitting the brakes is a good first step. “Fortunately, the military’s leadership realized what the American people already do: this makes no sense. With a price tag of $3.7 billion over 10 years, no one seems to understand the rush to embrace a culture change that not only undermines national security but taxpayers. 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,” General Boykin told reporters.

Apart from the actual gender reassignment surgery (which would cost taxpayers as much as $110,450 each), FRC’s Peter Sprigg calculates that “Service members will also be unavailable for deployment for several months after surgery — adding $504.3 million in cost to replace them. Making matters worse, those who have had reassignment surgery or hormone therapy may actually be permanently non-deployable because they would require specialized medical care which may not be available everywhere in the world.” This isn’t the business world, where decisions don’t have life or death consequences. This is the U.S. military, where special treatment depletes a very real war-fighting force.

Then, of course, there are the practical implications — like biological men showering next to women, “male pregnancies,” and off-duty drag. “Personnel who identify as transgender are expected to receive exceptions to policies and medical requirements that their peers will still be required to meet. These exceptions may be applied to policies about everything from physical and mental fitness standards to dress and presentation standards, and they create an unfairness that will undermine unit cohesion and morale,” the General warned.

Now that the clock starts ticking toward January, conservatives like Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) recognize that the reprieve is a temporary one. In the meantime, she and her House allies continue to push for a complete rollback of a decision she calls a “threat” to readiness. “This delay is indicative of a policy that was rushed and never clearly thought out, and I am pleased that Secretary Mattis has decided to delay the accession policy. It is my hope that he will move forward with full repeal in the coming months.” If not, the GOP stands ready to do it itself on the National Defense Authorization Act.

If it does, it’ll have the country’s support. In a poll that probably gave the Pentagon the nudge it needed, Rasmussen announced late last week that the majority of Americans favor a delay (48 percent, compared to 32 percent who don’t; and 21 percent who are “undecided). Of those who strongly approve of commander-in-chief Trump, 63 percent believe enlisting the gender-confused would be bad for the military.

In the end, one of the opinions we should care about is our enemies’. They won’t have mercy either way. All they’re concerned with is whether we’re capable of killing and capturing them on the battlefield. And as they know, a distracted force is a vulnerable one.

Originally published here.

A Recipe for Tex Mess

If Texans want a fair shake on their privacy bill, they’re not likely to get it from House Speaker Joe Straus (R). One of the effort’s biggest antagonists, Straus isn’t hiding whose side he’s on — and based on polling, it’s not the state’s. Probably the most telling evidence of the speaker’s allegiance is in his newfound fame in the LGBT community, which has had nothing but praise for the politician’s most recent comments. In a stunning interview with The New Yorker, Straus sounded more like a far-Left extremist than the leader of the Texas House. "I’m disgusted by all of this,” he said of the privacy debate. “Tell [Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick] I don’t want the suicide of a single Texan on my hands.”

They were astonishing comments for anyone — let alone one of the state’s highest ranking officials. After all, the majority of Texans agree that men shouldn’t be allowed to use girl’s restrooms, showers, or locker rooms. Sixty-nine percent, to be exact (and that includes 56 percent of Democrats!). Obviously, Straus has decided to cater to the small fringe who think safety should place a distant second to “sensitivity.”

Lt. Gov. Patrick, who’s led the charge for privacy, hopes Straus’s comments were misreported. “Obviously, no one wants to see harm to anyone as a result of any legislation that is passed,” his office responded. Of course, as FRC’s Peter Sprigg points out, the most harmful position may be the House speaker’s. Suggesting that protecting women and children would lead to suicide is a ridiculously false and disingenuous statement. Even the Left cites studies by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention’s Ann Haas, which says, “Years and years of research has taught us that the overwhelming number of people who die by suicide had a diagnosable mental disorder at the time of their death.” In other words, people do not commit suicide because of the passage of legislation, or even because of “bullying,” but because of mental illness (which gender dysphoria, according to the APA, is!). There’s absolutely no evidence that which bathroom someone uses will cause them to commit suicide.

In an older article of the journal Pediatrics, the authors wrote: “Suicide attempts were not explained by experiences with discrimination, violence, loss of friendship, or current personal attitudes towards homosexuality.” A 2005 analysis of this article, by conservative scholar Neil Whitehead, Ph.D., is still available online. “So these last two points,” Peter points out, “that public hysteria about LGBT suicides may actually contribute to them, and that early self-labeling also increases them, suggest that Straus’s own comments (reflecting fear of transgender suicides, and implicitly supporting self-labeling even by schoolchildren) might do more to cause suicides than passing the Privacy Act would!”

Then, of course, there’s the important 2011 Swedish study, which showed that even AFTER having gender reassignment surgery, people who identify as transgender had a suicide rate 19 times higher than the general population. This undermines any suggestion that simply giving those who identify as transgender everything they ask for will do anything to reduce their suicide rate.

The American College of Pediatricians calls agendas like Straus’s child abuse. This week’s Daily Signal highlights one such pediatrician, who says that this ideology has infiltrated her field and offered a deeply-flawed narrative. Read why here. As for Texas, let’s hope leaders like the House speaker can set aside their own prejudices long enough to do what’s in the best interest of the state — which research shows is not a gender-free existence!

Originally published here.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.