Transgender ‘Medicine’ Essential to Military Recruitment, Say Democrats in Tight Races

Several Democrats running in tight races for the U.S. House and Senate joined a larger group of Democrats in signing a letter urging Congress not to defund a measure providing experimental transgender medical interventions that’s included in a bill to fund the U.S. military.

The vast majority of the Democrats in the House (162 of 212) signed the letter, led by Reps. Sara Jacobs, D-Calif.; Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash.; and Mark Pocan, D-Wis. The letter urges the House of Representatives not to include “provisions that actively target LGBTQ+ service members and LGBTQ+ dependents and threaten the recruitment, retention, and readiness of our Armed Forces” in the National Defense Authorization Act, the bill to fund the military.

The NDAA allocates money to the Department of Defense and it is considered one of the must-pass bills in Congress each year. Two of the letter’s signatories, Reps. Colin Allred, D-Texas, and Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., are running for U.S. Senate in their respective states.

The letter flags provisions House Republicans added to the NDAA that would restrict what the Democrats call “medically necessary care for transgender service members or their family members.” In addition to defunding transgender medical interventions, the provisions would prevent military leaders from approving ideological flags like the LGBTQ “Pride” flag. They would also remove pornographic books and books pushing gender ideology from Department of Defense K-12 school libraries, which the Democrats call a “transgender book ban.” They would also ban any of the NDAA funds from going to “a drag show, drag queen story hour, or similar event.”

The 162 Democrats who signed the letter claim that these provisions would exacerbate the U.S. military’s recruitment and retention crisis and that people who identify as transgender are more likely to serve in the military than those who do not so identify.

“As our nation faces recruitment and retention challenges, attacking transgender people—who are more likely to serve in the U.S. military than cisgender people—is a grave mistake,” the Democrats wrote. “If service members are concerned for their health care, their right to exist, or the well-being of their children and loved ones, they cannot focus on their jobs, thereby weakening military readiness and retention rates.”

“The U.S. government should not prohibit our service members from accessing medically necessary care, especially care that is safe, effective, and supported by every major medical association in the U.S., representing more than 1.3 million doctors,” the letter adds. “The care transgender service members receive is essential for them to be their authentic selves and focus on their mission. Denying this access to health care would deter transgender people from joining the Armed Forces, damage retention efforts, and hurt our military readiness.”

Are these claims true?

‘Gender-Affirming Care’

Many states have passed laws banning experimental “transgender” medical interventions for minors, such as so-called puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries that remove healthy breasts or sex organs. There is no conclusive evidence that these interventions, euphemistically referred to as “gender-affirming care,” make life better for people struggling with gender dysphoria (the persistent and emotionally painful condition of identifying with the gender opposite one’s sex).

Internal documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, or WPATH, a pro-transgender activist group, revealed that the organization’s leaders knew about various side effects of “gender-affirming care,” including cancer in teens and reduced sexual function, as well as the lack of informed consent for procedures with lifelong impacts. These medical professionals endorse the experimental treatments anyway.

Some doctors have gone on record opposing such treatments. Back in 2023 in Florida, many doctors testified in favor of a rule that would prevent Medicaid dollars from funding “gender-affirming care.” The doctors—including psychiatrists, endocrinologists, neurologists, and a former WPATH leader—testified that these interventions are experimental and may do more harm than good.

“The claim that ‘gender affirming’ drugs and surgery are safe, effective, and medically necessary is a triple lie,” Jay Richards, director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.

“The complications—some that persist for a lifetime—from these experimental procedures are notorious,” he said. “And while some individuals may report relief from symptoms of gender dysphoria in the short term, there’s no evidence that, on balance, medicalizing a therapy for a mental disorder is beneficial. And by definition, these procedures are not medically necessary—since they attempt to treat a psychological disorder with drugs and surgery that does not directly address the psychological disorder.”

“At best, sex trait motivation drugs and surgery are experimental interventions of doubtful benefit and obvious harms,” Richards added. “Subjecting service members to these experiments makes no sense either for the individuals involved or for military readiness.”

Polls have consistently found that more Americans oppose “gender-affirming care” for minors, even when framed in terms most likely to get a favorable response.

An RMG Research poll in March found that only 22% of respondents supported giving minors access to “gender-affirming care,” while 64% said they opposed it.

A 2022 Pew Research Center survey asked respondents whether they would “make it illegal for health care professionals to help someone <18 [under 18] with medical care for gender transition.” Even with this arguably deceptive framing, nearly half of respondents (46%) said they would support such a ban.

Similarly, more Americans (44%) told Pew they would oppose requiring “health insurance companies to cover medical care for gender transitions” than would support it (27%).

From these responses, it seems likely that taxpayer funding for experimental transgender interventions would prove rather controversial.

As for the idea that transgender people are “more likely to serve in the U.S. military than cisgender people,” the claim appears to trace back to an analysis of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. That survey, conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality, found that “respondents served in the military at nearly twice the rate as the people in the U.S. population overall.” Since the proportion of the general population who identify as transgender is minuscule, this does not mean that a large proportion of veterans or service members is transgender or that the military would be handicapped without transgender recruits.

Two Senate Candidates

Two of the 162 House Democrats who signed the letter are running for U.S. Senate.

Allred is challenging Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in the Lone Star State, which former President Donald Trump carried in 2016 and 2020. Cruz leads Allred by five points in the RealClearPolitics polling average.

“Day after day, Colin Allred shows Texas who he really is,” a spokesman for the Cruz campaign told The Daily Signal in a statement on the letter. “He is a radical who will destroy Texas and America. His record on transgender issues puts our children and families at risk.”

Gallego is running against Republican Kari Lake in Arizona, which is considered a key swing state. Gallego leads Lake by seven points in the RealClearPolitics average.

“The fact that Ruben Gallego would try to hold up the National Defense Authorization Act to DEMAND that taxpayer money goes to sexual reassignment surgeries is a testament to how radical he truly is,” a spokesperson for Lake’s campaign told The Daily Signal in a statement Tuesday. “Gallego’s radicalism does tremendous harm to our military preparedness and puts our national security at risk.”

18 Swing-District Democrats

Eighteen House Democrats in races the Cook Political Report rates as “competitive” also signed the letter.

Reps. Yadira Caraveo, D-Colo., and Emilia Sykes, D-Ohio, are running in races Cook rates as “toss-ups.”

Eight Democrats in races Cook rates as “lean Democrat” also signed the letter: Reps. Jahana Hayes, D-Conn.; Eric Sorensen, D-Ill.; Frank Mrvan, D-Ind.; Angie Craig, D-Minn.; Susie Lee, D-Nev.; Pat Ryan, D-N.Y.; Andrea Salinas, D-Ore.; and Chris Deluzio, D-Pa.

Eight more Democrats in “likely Democrat” races also signed the letter: Reps. Mike Levin, D-Calif.; Darren Soto, D-Fla.; Sharice Davids, D-Kan.; Hillary Scholten, D-Mich.; Chris Pappas, D-N.H.; Dina Titus, D-Nev.; Steven Horsford, D-Nev.; and Greg Landsman, D-Ohio.

None of these Democrats responded to The Daily Signal’s request for comment by press time.

The post Transgender ‘Medicine’ Essential to Military Recruitment, Say Democrats in Tight Races appeared first on The Daily Signal.