Space Force Leader Trades Qualifications For Gender Reassignment Surgery

In a recent Department of Defense (DoD) event, Lt. Gen. DeAnna M. Burt of the United States Space Force confessed a troubling strategy for officer selection. She indicated a potential preference for access to “gender-affirming care” over the proven qualifications of candidates.

During her address, Burt drew attention to over 400 state-level laws she deems “anti-LGBTQ+.”

These statutes mainly center around restrictions or prohibitions on gender-altering surgeries, hormone treatments, and puberty blockers for minors. Burt expressed concerns that these laws could create an unwelcome environment for service members and their families, negatively impacting the military’s readiness.

While most would agree that the safety and well-being of service members are paramount, it is difficult not to question Burt’s assertion that she would place potential candidates’ circumstances over their qualifications. She said, “If a good match for a job does not feel safe being themselves. I am compelled to consider a different candidate, perhaps less qualified.”

However, such a viewpoint overlooks the essential creeds of our armed forces: “I will always place the mission first.” By prioritizing a service member’s access to transgender surgeries and hormones over their fitness for a particular job, the mission may risk being second to other considerations.

Former Space Force veteran Lt. Col. Matt Lohmeier, relieved of his command for alleged “political partisanship,” called out this political shift. He pointed out that Burt’s stance demonstrates actual political partisanship in an official capacity.

The Space Force’s response to these concerns could have been more elusive. An official noted the importance of removing barriers and ensuring the health and safety of service members’ families but didn’t directly address Burt’s comments.

Interestingly, Joe Biden has supported such considerations as commander-in-chief, critiquing state-level laws as “hysterical” and “prejudiced.” Yet, it’s worth noting that even Britain’s National Health Service has raised concerns about the need for more evidence on the benefits and risks of puberty-blocking drugs for children at gender identity clinics.

By placing personal circumstances and perceived inclusivity over qualifications, we risk compromising the mission-centric focus that has been the backbone of our military’s strength. After all, in a crisis, would you prefer the most qualified officer leading the charge or the one chosen based on personal and political circumstances? The mission should always come first.