While the left is throwing around economic boycotts for tomorrow “in protest” of Trump, some of the left are still focused on the transgender military “ban”.

Take Gil Cisneros, who represents California’s 31st District and is also a member of the House Armed Services Committee. Cisneros felt convicted enough to post a write-up in The Hill yesterday. A bit of background: Cisneros was also DEI Chief Extraordinaire for the DoD at The Pentagon from April of 2021 until September of 2023, after his departure. The guy spent LOTS of time on DEI but neglected to follow his orders in the MyTravel fiasco.

Any policy that prevents transgender people from serving as transgender people — whether through an outright ban or through requirements to serve in one’s birth sex — is a ban, plain and simple.

The suggestion that transgender service members could simply serve in their birth sex fundamentally misunderstands what it means to be transgender.”-Gil Cisneros

This criticism comes at the heels of transgender service members identifying one of two sexes at birth to continue to serve in The Armed Forces.

Requiring service in one’s birth sex requires a transgender individual to suppress being transgender — echoing the goal of discredited conversion therapy practices.

The cost to our nation’s defense of a ban is substantial and multifaceted. First, we lose qualified service members who are meeting and exceeding our standards. These are pilots, cyber specialists, medical professionals and leaders at every level — individuals in whom we have invested millions in training and development. This investment isn’t just financial; it represents years of specialized training intended to build the next generation of military leadership.

In an era where ensuring the nation’s security turns on our meeting recruitment goals, we cannot afford to alienate talented individuals who are eager to serve their country.”-Gil Cisneros

Lots to unpack here, for sure. All substantial and multifaceted. Let’s examine the people who want to join our forces. As Pete Hegseth once said, there just aren’t enough lesbians from San Francisco who want to join the 82nd Airborne. He’s right. Who would be more interested in a military career? A young, able-boded man or woman who wants to fight for his or her country. You know who wasn’t interested in being recruited over the past few years? Young, able-bodied men and women. Why? Who wants to be in combat with a person who cannot make up their mind? Who wants to be in combat with an individual who may be having complications because of a bad day on transitioning protocols?

Now, some may see this as a close-minded and self-centered POV. There are so many talented transgender people in our Armed Forces! But when did talent and diversity take over lethality?

Don’t answer that. It’s a rhetorical question we all know the answer to.

When we tell qualified individuals they cannot serve as transgender people, even though they meet all standards, we send a message that resonates far beyond the transgender community. Non-transgender young Americans increasingly choose not to serve in an institution they perceive as unfair or unprincipled.”-Gil Cisneros

Which is why active duty numbers diminished the last four years, Gil? Which is why Army recruiters have blown up my son’s phone immediately after attending a wrestling meet and his 18th birthday and continue to call while he’s at university pursuing a medical degree? While the transgender population does not want their egos slighted and feelings hurt, non-transgender (that’s the CISGENDER MAJORITY, FYI) are not sure they want to walk into a death trap in combat-an Armed Forces branch that is more focused on feelings and talent than it is lethality.

But the advocates who do not understand the way the military is supposed to work will continue to criticize:

When people enter the military they trade the possibility of dying very early for the guarantee the government will provide for them and their family. Refusal to treat any medical condition is a violation of that promise.

It’s also a risk: The military wants a soldier to do his job, not to limp on a sprained ankle, or ruminate on a limp something else. His job might be pretty important. It might involve a big gun, or a missile, or guarding something we don’t even know about yet. I believe that’s ‘mission critical’ in military jargon.

Trans people will continue to join the military even if they’re not welcome, just as gays did during (and before) the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell era. Forcing people to stay closeted while the government denies health care that improves their mental well-being is like taking a rake from the garage and stepping on it because you think the rake is really a shovel.”-Vivian McCall, The Seattle Stranger

Which is exactly the point. Joining the ranks of The Armed Forces involves a calling from deep within a person to be part of something larger than themselves. One cannot act in a “mission critical” manner with a “big gun” or a “big missile” when having a heart attack because of a reaction to gender-transitioning hormones. One cannot act in a “mission critical” manner when experiencing a hormonal mood swing or a depressive state. This poses a risk to others who are serving with this person.

This is not to say that all individuals who identify as transgender cannot serve in the military but there are risks. And, unfortunately, there are realities of war and certain truths that need to be confronted head-on while examining these risks. The reality and ugliness of war and being ready for this reality trumps any delusion or dysphoria that is in a person’s brain. A transgender person cannot deny the reality that they were born either 1) male or 2) female. Denying ANY facts and reality can get you, and your brothers and sisters-in-arms, killed.

OK, I didn't realise I needed to explain this, but wizards aren't real. In that respect, they greatly resemble women with penises. Hope this helps. pic.twitter.com/Cr6obQAVOa

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) February 26, 2025

The choice before us is clear: We can maintain a military that rewards merit and builds strength through inclusion, or we can embrace discrimination and watch our readiness erode. The safety and security of our nation, as well as the preservation of our national values, rests on us choosing merit and strength over class-based exclusions.”-Gil Cisneros

Here is the deal: being transgender is not part of a “class” but it is rather a lifestyle. Inclusivity does not equal merit. And military strength and might is, sometimes, sadly, NOT inclusive. You either have it or you don’t. And, you were born either male or female. If these words are too harsh, you may not belong in the Armed Forces because if you are, we will lose wars and there will be more bloodshed.

Feature Image: West Virginia National Guard/Flickr/Public Domain/edited in Canva Pro