FROM : A Precarious Policy: Executive Order 14,004 Involving U.S. Trans Military Service

Reviewer-1

I would like to see the number of the policy included in the title: A Precarious Policy: Executive Order 14,004 Involving U.S. Trans Military Service

We changed the title to include the policy.

The abstract is not comprehensive and has areas that need to be addressed. Also, I have several questions: 1. The abstract states: “We use Kingdon's (2010) Multiple Streams Framework to highlight successful policy adoption and transitions”. I do not find any reference to this Framework throughout the article. 2. This sentence is unclear to me: “We discuss the beneficial aspects of trans the U.S. military’s inclusion of trans people, and the harm exclusion of this population will do to U.S. military readiness”. 3. It needs to include: explore issues of health and mental health, and compare Transgende and Cisgender Military Healthcare.

1. We removed our references to Kingdon in the manuscript. 2. The sentence was revised. 3. In the section titled “Comparison of Transgender and Cisgender Military Healthcare” we address and compare trans and cisgender military healthcare.

 

English quality is good. Few comments: -“gender-diverse individuals” is first mentioned on page 16; there is no definition of this term. It either needs to be included and explained early in the paper or taken out completely.On page 4- I do not understand: military shaveis On page 14 under: The Overgeneralization of Gender Dysphoria- military str based

We included the definion of gender-diverse individuals in the manuscript. “The term ‘gender diverse’ is used to describe individuals whose gender identity or expression does not conform to the traditional framework of society’s gender binary.” - We believe that “military shaveis” and “str” was something created by technological errors when we converted our document from Word to PDF. We thoroughly read our PDF version, so that this errors and errors like this do not occur again.

 

Reviewer comment-2

 

I found this article to be very informative and raise important issues in terms of how transgender people are treated in the military and how different presidents' administrations have dealt with these issues. I think that especially for social workers who are providing services in the military this article raises critical issues.

I have just a few suggestions:

1. It would be important early in the article to do some definitions as to what the true difference is between what it means to be transgender and what gender dysphoria means so that readers can see the misuse of defining someone with gender dysphoria as a reason not to be allowed to serve or to be cast out of the military. We included this paragraph to address this comment: “It important to distinguish between trans individuals and individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The term ‘transgender’ or ‘trans’ refers to individuals whose gender identity, how they personally identify and feel aligned, differs from the sex assigned to them at birth. In contrast, gender dysphoria is a medical condition characterized by “clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning” related to the “marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender” (APA, 2022, p. 513). Not all trans individuals experience gender dysphoria, and identifying as transgender does not inherently mean an individual has gender dysphoria.”

2. I would just go over sections that could be combined so that the same or similar points are being made. We revised our draft to combine areas with similar points.

3. I think this is a very important topic that goes beyond the military and the author(s) has done a great service by providing this analysis. Maybe in the conclusion section the author(s) could point this out for further investigation. It is well-written and covers a wide range of recent history and politics and that is very important for all social workers. We appreciate this feedback and added this point in the discussion section.