AMA condemns DOD’s new transgender policy

The Department of Defense’s new transgender policy has been in place just for a few days, and the American Medical Association is taking issue with some of the fine print.

As of April 12, the DOD implemented a new policy that would require most individuals to serve in their birth gender, allowing those currently serving to continue their transition plans only if they have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

AMA President Barbara McAneny released a statement raising concerns about the chosen language of the policy.

“[T]he AMA is troubled that the DOD characterizes the need to undergo gender transition as a ‘deficiency,’” McAneny said, adding, “The DOD regulation also instructs service secretaries to add gender-dysphoria to service-specific lists of ‘administratively disqualifying conditions’ that DOD regulations label ‘congenital or developmental defects.’ The only thing deficient is any medical science behind this decision.”

The medical association stands firm that there is no medically reason—including a diagnosis of gender dysphoria—to exclude transgender individuals from serving in the military.

President Trump approved the policy in March, giving military services 30 days for implementation.

Late last year, the Office of Personnel Management removed guidance that gave specific protections for transgender federal employees.

Opposition has said the new rules falls short of an all-out transgender ban and will likely force the military to eventually discharge transgender individuals who need hormone treatments or surgery and can't or do not want to serve in their birth gender.

Trump announced the rule change via Twitter in 2017 (sic):

“After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow...Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming...victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”

 

Reader comments

Sat, Apr 20, 2019 Jim Austin, TX

Trump administration acting against science once again.

Fri, Apr 19, 2019

This is not exclusive to transgender issues. If you have medical conditions that require certain amount of surgery and lifelong care, you may not be fit for duty. How is someone deployable in a remote area when they may not have hormone access and begin changing into their original sex. You can’t enlist with the most minor of conditions. How is this different?

Thu, Apr 18, 2019 Barf Somewhere in space

Really? Who cares? The AMA is a good ol' boys club, and are basically a doctors union. Somebody mentioned the Hippocratic oath - I can tell you that few universities administer it anymore. gender dysphoria is a genuine diagnosis, and the +40% suicide rate is an established fact. Why are we letting crazy people into the military at all?

Wed, Apr 17, 2019 Luke

Doctors are supposed to understand basic biology. I'd say she's not qualified to be where she is. "Barbara L. McAneny, MD, a board-certified medical oncologist/hematologist from Albuquerque, N.M., became the 173rd president of the American Medical Association in June 2018. She has been a member of the AMA Board of Trustees since June 2010, serving as its chair in 2015–2016."

Wed, Apr 17, 2019

As most of the AMA is bound by the oath "first do no harm" it is good they are not in charge of winning wars.

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

Contributors

Edward A. Zurndorfer Certified Financial Planner
Mike Causey Columnist
Tom Fox VP for Leadership and Innovation, Partnership for Public Service
Mathew B. Tully Legal Analyst

Free E-Newsletter

FederalDAILY

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.

Stay Connected

Latest Forum Posts

Ask the Expert

Have a question regarding your federal employee benefits or retirement?

Submit a question