Equality is not the Same as Equity: Some Thoughts on Gender in the Military

On February 25th, NPR published an article entitled, “Judge Rules Male-Only Draft Violates Constitution,” in which gender discrimination in the United States military draft is challenged on the basis of its constitutionality. The article states that having a male-only draft is indicative of men’s lives being viewed as disposable and the misconception of women not being able to fulfill combat roles. Those quoted within the piece point towards this ruling as a victory for gender equality. Although there is no active draft right now, nonetheless, the ruling states that (cis) women will share the burden of the draft, unhindered by stereotypes about gender roles. In the wake of the government’s recent efforts to ban transgender people from joining the military, this ruling does not feel like a victory against gender discrimination. It, does, however, illustrate exactly why equality is meaningless without specificity.

In his video, “Why Equality is Unhelpful As a Political Goal,” Cuck Philosophy (I know, but bear with me, the username is a joke), discusses how “equality is meaningless if you don’t specify what kind of equality you are talking about.” He goes on to cite how women who sought for equality in the prison system ended up inadvertently with harsher and longer sentences because their focus was on equal treatment rather than prison reform as a whole. Ultimately, he resolves that the answer is not about equality, but equity–equity, being, fair treatment based on individual circumstances rather than broad stroke equality, which would be treating everyone the same. In reality, on a person-to-person basis, individuals have different needs; treating each person the same way without challenging overarching political or systemic structures is unhelpful. In the case of the military draft, ending gender discrimination among cisgender people is “equal,” but it is equally oppressive and does not undermine the larger, structural issue of an active draft and the government’s ability to force people, regardless of gender, into combat lawfully against their will.

On the other hand, the government’s ban of transgender people in the military is one pointing to a lack of equity–a refusal to pay for the healthcare of people who require different hormonal treatments, surgeries, mental health care, etc than their cisgender peers. In the article, Fit to Serve? Exploring Mental and Physical Health and Well-Being Among Transgender Active-Duty Service Members and Veterans in the U.S. Military, the authors explore the link between “identity concealment and poor health.” They conclude that the ban is unfounded, stating, “although additional research is needed, our study is one of the first to collect primary data on a sample of transgender ADSM and lends support to an emerging consensus that transgender men and women should be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military with their cisgender heterosexual and LGB peers.”

The government ban is using bigotry as fuel to paint the transgender community as inherently mentally or physically unfit to serve, which is untrue. The societal stigma and identity concealment is what takes a toll, and instead of combating that stigma and being equitable to transgender veterans and service members, the ban discriminates, further marginalizing and oppressing the trans community. (It should be noted here that regardless of how you personally feel about the military and its role, stripping the rights of a marginalized group should always be taken seriously, especially because any and all removal of these rights can serve as a foot in the door to remove more.)

It is important to challenge oppressive power structures; equality for the sake of equality is not only unattainable, but does not always contextualize itself within a larger picture. Being equal does not necessarily mean that all parties are having their needs catered to, nor does it mean that all parties should be subjected to the same systemic issues. Regardless of gender, people who are fit to serve in the military should be able to do so, and our government should not use bigotry and misinformation to justify a ban on those who are fit to serve.

A gender neutral draft is not a victory for anyone–framing it as such is disingenuous, hyper-focusing on what some men’s rights activists refer to as women’s “privilege” (their reaction to benevolent sexism) instead of deconstructing gender norms from their foundation. Furthermore, banning a marginalized group of people from joining the military because their needs apparently exceed from the standardized “norm,” is in itself a form of blanket “equality,” as they are only willing to give each service member the same benefits, not being equitable and straying from that “default.” An equality that enlists another party into conceptually joining a death toll against their will and excludes those whose needs are different on the basis of their difference is not an equality that we should be fighting for.

 

Further resources:

1. Laird, Melvin R.  We don’t need a military draft. The Washington Post. 
2. Supreme Court allows transgender military ban to go into effect. CNN.
3. Shaun. Transphobia in the UK.