This week, President Donald Trump announced that he would be reinstating a ban on transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. armed forces. The ban was lifted by the Defense Department during President Barack Obama’s administration.

President Trump tweeted, “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. Thank you[.]”

As a staunch supporter of the LGBTQIA+ community, I woke up to this news and found myself completely sickened and angry over this ban.

I have seen quite a few reactions to this new policy via social media. Some people stated that this was a good move on President Trump’s part because this country should not be spending taxpayer dollars on the healthcare transgender individuals need.

Others, however, have made the argument that more taxpayer dollars go towards other types of healthcare, such as Viagra, and that the notion that transgender healthcare is “expensive” is laughable.

After doing some digging, I did find a 2016 Rand Corp. study that was commissioned by the Defense Department itself. The study came to the conclusion that allowing transgender individuals to serve openly in the military would have a “minimal impact” on health care costs.

Why?

Because there are actually very few transgender individuals serving in the military.

In fact, the study stated that out of the 1.3 million individuals serving in the military, between 1,320 and 6,630 of those individuals identified as transgender. Additionally, the study estimated that there would be about 30 – 140 new hormone treatments a year and 25 — 130 transition-related surgeries.

Overall, this would cost about $2.4 million — $8.4 million, which, according to the study, was an “exceedingly small proportion” of total health care costs.

In his tweets, President Trump also wrote that transgender individuals serving in the military would be a “disruption.”

However, according to an article by The Washington Post, there is “no evidence” that the disruption argument is true.

18 countries allow transgender individuals to serve openly in the military. And, none of those 18 countries have reported that transgender personnel are a “disruption” to their armed forces — unlike what President Trump tweeted.

Someone’s gender identity does not make them any less able to defend our country. Many politicians — from both sides of the aisle — have spoken out against this new policy with many arguing that the military should not be discriminating against anyone, that everybody should be given a fair chance to serve in the armed forces and that any American who is qualified to serve in the military should be allowed the opportunity to serve.

I agree with those that state we should not be discriminating in the armed forces. Based on what I have read, there aren’t any strong arguments that support President Trump’s claims.

Healthcare costs would not be drastically affected, if at all. As for the “disruption” claim, there seems to be no support for that either. I know a few trans individuals who are members of the armed forces, and they serve this country just like any other individual in the armed forces.

They take the privilege of being a member of the military seriously, and they love this country just as much as anyone else does.

If someone wants to defend our country and potentially give their life to do so, I don’t think that they should be told no simply because they identify as a different gender than the one they were given at birth.

A person’s gender identity should not matter when it comes to serving in the military, and I think President Trump, who claims to support and fight for the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community, is far off base in his assertions.