A Closer Look at Transgender Pronouns within the Military

On February 18, U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes heard arguments surrounding the Trump administration’s executive order “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” following a lawsuit from several current and would-be servicemembers who identify as transgender.

Section 2 of that executive order maintains that two factors stand at odds with the military’s “high standards for readiness, lethality, unit cohesion,” and other qualities. Those factors are, first, “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria,” and second, “the use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex.”   

Much of the early news coverage centered on pronouns and, in particular, on Judge Reyes’s skepticism that they affect military readiness. Addressing the administration’s lawyers, she said: “You and I both agree that the greatest fighting force that world history has ever seen is not going to be impacted in any way by less than one percent of the soldiers using a different pronoun than others might want to call them.” In Judge Reyes’s view, a “military [that] is negatively impacted” because of transgender pronouns would be “incompetent.” She called the suggestion “frankly ridiculous” and said that “any common sense, rational person would understand that [pronoun use] doesn’t” affect military readiness.

The judge even issued the following challenge: “If you can get me an officer of the United States military to get on the stand and say that because of pronoun usage, we are less prepared, I will be the first to buy you a box of cigars.”

As an Air Force officer with a Ph.D. in philosophy who has personally struggled with the issue of transgender pronouns in the military, I am writing to meet this challenge. Importantly, I do so not out of “animus”—a common accusation surrounding this case—but with a sincere belief in the intrinsic worth of people who identify as transgender, with whom I have worked both personally and professionally, and whom I wish well. Nevertheless, the challenges that transgender pronoun use raise for our pluralistic military are real, and citizens need to understand them. 

The use of transgender pronouns creates a dilemma for military readiness. So long as the military permits such pronouns, it has two basic choices: require their use or leave that use optional. Yet either choice brings real costs.

Choice 1: Require Use

Suppose the military required the use of transgender pronouns. To see the consequences, consider the following facts.

First, there are many people among us who cannot in good conscience use transgender pronouns. These include people who, for religious or philosophical reasons, believe that calling a biological male “she/her,” a biological female “he/him,” or calling someone any of the various other preferred pronouns such as “zi,” “zem,” or “fae,” amounts to a falsehood. The conscientious abstainers believe that their use of such language actually harms all parties involved: the speaker, who must violate his commitment to truth or his duties to God; the person who identifies as transgender, who will be encouraged in what the speaker believes to be a falsehood; and any other listeners, who may feel added social pressure to join, or continue, in that supposed falsehood. 

Now, it is true that many people do not agree that transgender pronouns amount to a falsehood. This latter group sees the use of such pronouns as a mark of authenticity, even courage. But here I am focused on the former group, the conscientious abstainers. Their position gets little serious attention in most media coverage surrounding this issue, yet they need understanding too. 

According to recent survey data, this group is not small. A 2022 Pew Forum study found that “[t]he vast majority of Republicans and those who lean toward the GOP say gender is determined by sex assigned at birth (86 percent),” along with “38 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners”—a massive number in a country of 340 million people, with a relatively even split between the parties. If you believe that biological sex determines one’s gender, then calling a biological male who identifies as a woman “she/her” (for example) will be for you direct participation in a lie. 

That may help to explain why, according to a PRRI study from 2023, 43 percent of Americans reported that they were “somewhat” or “very uncomfortable” using “pronouns like ‘he’ or ‘she’ that do not match your perception of their appearance.” That figure includes 68 percent of Republicans, 40 percent of Independents, and 33 percent of Democrats—again, a massive number. 

Nor, for many of these people, will the supposed falsehood appear innocent. A study by Gallup in May 2024 found that a “steady 51 percent of Americans think changing one’s gender is morally wrong,” and many of those cited religious reasons, meaning their opposition is not surface-level but goes very deep, even into First Amendment territory. Although that study focuses on more extreme means of transition (puberty blockers and hormone treatments, for example), such treatments exist along a spectrum, and changing one’s pronouns surely falls along that spectrum.

Thus, were the military to require the use of transgender pronouns, it would alienate a substantial portion of eligible citizens, who may conclude that it is no longer safe to serve, since doing so exposes them to a not-insignificant chance of being forced to violate their conscience. This chance greatly increases when viewed over the course of a twenty-year career, with the myriad colleagues that will come into their path. Instituting such an obstacle to military service for so many citizens poses a clear readiness problem.

Choice 2: Leave Use Optional

Suppose instead that the military leaves it optional whether or not to use transgender pronouns. This too creates a readiness problem, in two distinct ways.

First, although many Americans cannot use transgender pronouns, others view that refusal as an existential threat, a “denial” of the transgender person’s “very existence.” Claims about this erasure of existence are numerous. (See, for example, here, here, and here.) As such people see it, to deny the requested pronoun (and the beliefs on which it is based) is to deny that the requesters are who they claim themselves to be; it is to deny the real them. The coexistence of these two groups—the pronoun abstainers and the pronoun requesters—provides a recipe for immense tension in a military unit, as one group demands what the other group cannot, in good conscience, give. It does so, at the very least, so long as such pronouns are optional, for then members can be found culpable for not using them.

That tension intensifies when we consider that many of today’s prominent voices portray all who refuse to use transgender pronouns—or to support other aspects of a transition program—as bigoted or hateful, even when abstainers state their reasons clearly and in gracious terms. (See, for example, the 2018 controversy surrounding Isabella Chow, a former UC Berkeley student senator—a case I explored in detail in my doctoral dissertation.)

Now because our military is pluralistic, it contains representatives of both groups: those who cannot use transgender pronouns, and those who either demand their use or who regard abstainers as bigoted or hateful. Thus, a portion of servicemembers declining to use transgender pronouns could easily undermine trust and cohesion in the unit, while alienating servicemembers who identify as transgender. This is hardly a recipe for success.

Those who wish to understand these two groups better, and therefore to engage in more productive dialogue about pronouns and related issues, might start by reading the entries on “gender identity” and “transgender” in the Red Blue Translator, a resource from the public benefit corporation AllSides. Such awareness can humanize opponents, while clarifying conflicts that seem inexplicable when one does not know the basic assumptions of the other side. 

There is a second way in which the optional use of transgender pronouns can damage military readiness. Certain aspects of military culture create immense pressure on servicemembers to use transgender pronouns, regardless of whether such pronouns are theoretically optional or whether they align with such servicemembers’ beliefs. Consider the following scenarios.  

A commander of an Air Force squadron has been asked to officiate the promotion ceremony of one of her airmen, a person who identifies as transgender. It is customary in the Air Force that the officiant make remarks on behalf of the promotee. These remarks are often personal, summarizing major milestones in the promotee’s life and career—they often last for ten minutes or more. The promotee’s family is usually present, along with his teammates. 

What, then, is our commander to do? All eyes (and ears) now rest upon her, with the expectation that she will help make the occasion special. And though she wishes to make it special, she belongs to that large group of people who object to using transgender pronouns.

Have you ever tried to omit pronouns when speaking about someone who identifies as transgender? Planned every sentence in advance? Heard the awkwardness as you repeat the person’s name again and again, rather than the graceful alternation between name and pronoun that our language affords? If so, then you can appreciate just how difficult our commander’s task is. Perhaps we can trust seasoned leaders with that challenge, but what about 18-year-old recruits or your average mid-level supervisor? Are they up to it? 

And if they fail, what then? Will they be subject to an Equal Opportunity (EO) complaint, or even a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on harassment grounds? This may sound far-fetched, but one military lawyer and professor at West Point has argued that EO law supplied such a basis as recently as last year. 

And what should that airman’s teammates in the audience infer from their commander’s abstention? That she is a bigot and full of hate, as many allege? So much for unit cohesion.

Next, take the case of a junior servicemember who serves under a civilian leader—a government service (GS) employee who identifies as transgender. How should our servicemember address the leader in question in all his interactions with that person?

This case is especially difficult for multiple reasons. Unlike in the previous scenario, where the commander could at least alternate between using the airman’s rank and his or her first name, the servicemember in our new scenario has no such option. There are no gender-neutral titles for civilian employees. You would not call someone “GS-15 Smith,” for example, whereas you can and do call someone “Colonel” or “Airman Smith.” In the civilian case, one uses “Mr.” or “Ms.,” “Sir” or “Ma’am,” a custom which leaves conscientious abstainers no way out. 

Unlike many civilian organizations, which are “flat” in nature, the military is strictly hierarchical, and it adheres to time-honored customs and courtesies. In our current system, many would consider it extraordinarily inappropriate for a junior servicemember to refer to civilian leaders by their first names, or to use titles like “boss.” This especially applies to major political appointees (service secretaries, for example). Were such people to request alternative pronouns, that could create a crisis of conscience for tens of thousands of their subordinates, who may either fear reprisal or the assumption of animus from many of their non-abstaining teammates.

In short, so long as the military permits transgender pronouns, it faces a dilemma. To require their use means alienating a substantial percentage of eligible servicemembers who cannot use them in good conscience. To leave them optional threatens unit cohesion, and it risks the continued alienation of those who, given the nature of military culture, see no genuine room for abstention. 

Judge Reyes, and all those holding authority over our nation’s armed forces, should take the real dangers posed by a culture of pronoun usage—whether mandatory or “optional”—seriously.

The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the official guidance or position of the United States Government, the Department of Defense, the United States Air Force, or the United States Space Force.

Image by roibu and licensed via Adobe Stock.