Author Archives: jamiej

This year, the United States senate passed the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act into effect. As part of this legislation, women that turn 18 on or after January of 2018 will be required to register for the United States military draft. Does this overstep the limits of an individual’s sovereignty over herself? I would argue that yes, it undoubtedly does. The draft in general is a way of getting members of society to participate in something against their own personal will, and therefore puts their lives at the hands of society instead of at the hands of their own individuality. On these grounds, military participation is not a decision for the government to have a say in. Instead, individuals should be granted the ability to choose. If not granted this ability, they will be performing national duty for the wrong reasons – out of obligation rather than passion. Regardless of how heavily correlated the government and the military are, it is socially moral and necessary to leave the decision to participate in military service in the hands of individuals.

In this particular piece of legislation, it is not only the nature of the issue that is immoral, but also the nature of the discourse surrounding it. Military service, in any form, is an action that affects all of society. Therefore, the issue should be discussed publicly rather than privately. Ted Cruz’s expressed concern regarding the discourse surrounding the law, saying that “the provision including women in the draft entered the bill through committee, rather than in public, open debate.” Was this the correct way to handle it? Is this an issue to be decided by the public or by elected officials only? I will argue that the section of 2017 National Defense Authorization Act that specifically deals with the draft should not have been left exclusively to private discussion among members of the senate. Due to the large effect the decision has on the public as a whole, it should have been placed within the realm of public debate. This is even more true when dealing with the possibility of incorporating the mandatory service of women. If the natural abilities of females would in fact prevent them from succeeding in combat to the same extent as their male counterparts, as many conservatives seem to believe is the case, then our military performance is at risk of suffering. A direct threat to our national safety, such as this one, should have been given more attention that it was granted.

In the midst of the already tense political arena of modern America, members of the transgender community have been fighting for their right to use the public bathroom of the gender they identify with. Especially since North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory signed House Bill 2 into effect in March of this year. The controversial piece of legislation blocks transgender people from using the public bathroom that aligns with their gender identity. They must instead use the bathroom that corresponds with their biological sex. By not allowing members of the transgender community to choose, the government of North Carolina is overstepping the boundaries of their power. The issue of gender identity is purely a private issue and does not belong within the realm of public discourse, as it does not affect anyone other than the individual. It can be stated that, although gender identity is a private matter, the actions (choice of public bathroom) that result from it have a direct influence on the rest of society. This argument would be void of any truth to support its validity. Pat McCrory attempted to justify his support of the Bill using this reasoning by implying that tolerance of transgender bathroom rights would be equivalent to allowing men into women’s locker rooms. If there were significant evidence that cisgender men have used gender identity as a way to commit perverted acts, I could admit the validity of this claim. However, considering the lack of recorded cases of men using a false transgender identity as a way to gain access to female public bathrooms, this argument is purely based on assumption and therefore should remain in private discourse only.

In August following the passage of the North Carolina bill, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review a case (Gavin Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board) concerning a lower court decision that ruled in favor of a high school student’s right to use the bathroom that aligned with his gender identity. The supreme court blocked the original ruling on the case on the grounds that they needed to “preserve the status quo” of traditional bathroom use based on biological sex. By deciding to rule in favor of the status quo, the supreme court is oppressing the individuality of the high school student. Without the individuality of minorities – in this case, transgender individuals – new truths will not be discovered, we will become stagnant in our current practices, and society will miss the opportunity to become more well developed. The judges should have upheld the original ruling on the case so that the publicly accept definition of “normal” could have been challenged. Challenging “normal” would promote a healthy public discussion on the topic, and inevitably lead to a new and more developed understanding of truth. In the long run, this would have brought a greater benefit to society than leaving the status quo undisturbed.