I'm having a difficult time grasping the level of outrage from the Washington Post and various and sundry other leftist sources over the announcement released this morning. My impression is that it is targeted at new recruits enlisting in the Armed Forces. The overwhelming majority of new enlistees are in the 18-21 year old age bracket. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect very few 18 or 19 year old transgender folks have already completed their transition. Is it somehow reactionary and bigoted to suggest that the focus of such a person would not be on their basic training and subsequent readiness to go into combat, if needed? That their desire to resolve the paramount issue in their lives might transcend their military obligations? That just maybe some, not all, are motivated to enlist by the possibility of Uncle Sam covering the tab? Before anyone says, so what, one doesn't enlist in the military to get free medical coverage for a pre-existing condition that could possibly prevent said person from combat readiness until resolved. Rather, such conditions usually result in failing to qualify.

As far as those transgender individuals already in the military, two points. First, today's announcement said nothing about forcing them to retire. Second, according to today's New York Times, there are approximately 2,450 transgender members of the military out of 1.3 million on active duty. So potentially impacting significantly less than 1% of the total forces.

So again I ask, how is this so horrible?

EDIT: In today's NYT, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs stated that this ban will not apply to those trans soldiers currently serving, but to new enlistees. Final determination on this issue will be made by military leaders as they review how to apply the Presidential edict. The point was made by the writer that it would be difficult to roll back those already openly serving based on President Obama's previous order without lawsuits.