Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

"Glossing over institutionalized transphobia to debate the reprehensibility of U.S. military policy comes from a place of privilege," writes Vanderheiden, "and divides people of the progressive coalition." (Photo: Ted Eytan)

Even Anti-War Progressives Should Care About the Trans Military Ban

The ban sets a precedent for the blatant exclusion of transgender people from public life.

Nicole Vanderheiden

 by The Progressive

On January 22, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed two injunctions against President Donald Trump’s proposed policy banning transgender Americans from serving in the U.S. military, making way for the implementation of parts of the policy in the near future, while ongoing legal challenges play out.

For me, as a transgender veteran of the Iraq War, this reversal hits close to home. Of course, it will harm transgender service members, many of whom are dear friends of mine. The Department of Defense is the largest employer of transgender people in the country. Banning them from military service limits the economic and educational opportunity of a minority class that already faces massive obstacles in those and other areas.

But, even more troubling, the ban sets a precedent for the blatant exclusion of transgender people from public life. This is especially important, given that many forms of integration in the United States began within our military.

This includes racial integration as well as the inclusion of women. And even though the military was late to embrace gay and lesbian service members, the 2010 repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” may be read as a precursor to marriage equality. All of these now broadly accepted societal shifts got a leg up from developments within the military.

Yet some progressive critics argue that the expansive military-industrial complex does so much harm in the world, it should not matter who can and cannot participate in state-sanctioned violence. As one critic expressed, “We don’t need more trans bodies to act as bullet shields in lands we have no business occupying.”

But glossing over institutionalized transphobia to debate the reprehensibility of U.S. military policy comes from a place of privilege—and divides people of the progressive coalition.

"Glossing over institutionalized transphobia to debate the reprehensibility of U.S. military policy comes from a place of privilege."

Division at the expense of transgender people is nothing new. There is a persistent debate as to whether transgender rights are entirely at odds with women’s liberation. Queer and transgender immigrants have struggled to get their unique challenges to be recognized as part of the movement for immigration reform. And even within the LGBTQ+ community, trans people have encountered difficulty being seen as an important part of the movement for queer civil liberties.

A prime example is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that would have protected members of the LGBTQ community from discrimination. In 2007, even with Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate, many lawmakers on the left decided the bill was unpassable because of its inclusion of protections for transgender people. Those protections were dropped, dividing the coalition and killing the bill. Attempts to revitalize the bill since then have failed.

The truth is, many people seem to have no problem with making transgender protections a last priority. But we know from experience that this only works to undermine all of our goals. When it comes to the transgender military ban, it is clear that on the road to equity, we must hold a united front.


© 2021 The Progressive

Nicole Vanderheiden

Nicole Vanderheiden (@NicoleV_MN) is a transgender Iraq War veteran, an advocate for transgender youth, service members and veterans, and a mentor to transgender youth.

We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.

Sanders Demands End to Medicare Premium Hike From Alzheimer's Drug

Biogen's original price for the controversial drug, he argues, "is the perfect example of why Medicare should be negotiating drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry."

Jessica Corbett ·


'Monumental Victory' as Biden Cancels Boundary Waters Mining Leases

Rep. Betty McCollum called the administration's decision "a rejection of the deeply flawed and politically motivated process under the Trump administration."

Brett Wilkins ·


Rights Groups Demand Hearings on the 'Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act'

"The longer Congress waits," warned one advocate, "the stronger and more dangerous this industry will become."

Kenny Stancil ·


Democrats Urge Biden to Abandon Dangerous Trump Policies on Nuclear Weapons

With the Nuclear Posture Review, say congressional lawmakers, the president can ensure "future generations can finally be free from the nuclear sword of Damocles that hangs over all our heads."

Andrea Germanos ·


'There Is No Military Solution': Jayapal, Lee Demand Diplomacy on Ukraine

"We call upon our colleagues to allow the administration to find a diplomatic way out of this crisis," said the progressive Democrats.

Jake Johnson ·

Support our work.

We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100% reader supported.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values.
Direct to your inbox.

Subscribe to our Newsletter.


Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit | Privacy Policy
Common Dreams Logo