Here’s a quick quiz: Who made this comment about the U.S. military?

“The soldier on the battlefield deserves to have and must have utmost confidence in his fellow soldiers. They must eat together, sleep together, and all too frequently die together. There can be no friction in their everyday living that might bring on failure in battle.”

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, justifying the new ban on transgender soldiers? Nope. The quote comes from an Army report in 1948, defending racial segregation in the armed forces.

Fortunately, President Harry Truman thought otherwise. In an executive order, he required “equality of treatment and opportunity” in the military “without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.”

I’ve been thinking about Truman ever since President Donald Trump’s own order barring trans people from the armed forces. There is no evidence — none — that trans soldiers are “harmful to unit cohesion,” as Trump asserted.

That’s also what makes it different from puberty blockers and trans athletes, the other hot-button gender controversies right now. We don’t fully understand the effects of the blockers on teenagers or the physical advantages that a female trans athlete might enjoy when competing against other women. If you’re the kind of Democrat who puts a “Science Is Real” sign on their lawn, you need to be honest enough to admit that our knowledge of these matters is murky.

The ban on trans soldiers isn’t, though. Just like the old rules requiring racial segregation, it’s based on falsehood and prejudice.

Indeed, integration reduced prejudice — and enhanced unit cohesion — in the armed forces. In a 1945 survey of white troops assigned to an integrated unit, 64% said they had an unfavorable view of African Americans before serving alongside them. But afterward, 77% said their views toward Black soldiers had become more favorable.

Likewise, politicians invoked unit cohesion to justify the ban on gay troops and the “don’t ask don’t tell” rule created under President Bill Clinton, which barred them from serving openly. Gay soldiers “would cause an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order, and discipline and unit cohesion that are absolutely essential to effective combat capability,” then-Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia warned in 1993.

But a wide swath of research — in the United States and around the world — showed that wasn’t true. A 2009 study of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans found that troops who served with an openly gay or lesbian soldier perceived no loss of unit cohesion or readiness.

Nor do we have any data suggesting that trans troops undermine military effectiveness. Israel began accepting trans people into its military in 2013, and a study two years later showed that the policy was working well. “When you feel accepted and happy as who you are, you want to do your best as a soldier, as a person,” the Israeli army’s first openly transgender officer said.

That’s all our own trans soldiers want: to serve their country and to do their best. A U.S. District Court judge earlier this spring halted the ban on trans troops, who had openly served “without any discernable harm to military readiness, cohesion, order, or discipline,” he wrote. But in May, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to implement the ban while litigation continues.

And earlier this month, the deadline passed for trans soldiers to voluntarily separate from the armed forces. The military plans to scrutinize soldiers’ social media posts and even their private conversations with commanding officers in order to root out any remaining trans troops.

Does that sound like a policy designed to enhance unit cohesion? “Clearly, Secretary Pete Hegseth’s military ban has NOTHING to do with equal standards or military readiness — it’s about bigotry,” U.S. Rep. Sara Jacobs, D-Calif, posted on X. It was reposted by U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride, D-Del., Congress’ lone trans member.

But McBride has also called on Democrats to create“more space in our tent” around other trans issues. In a recent interview, she noted the need for “nuance” about puberty blockers for teenagers, which have been sharply limited in several European countries.

No matter what my fellow Democrats think of the Supreme Court’s decision last week upholding a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors — including puberty blockers — we should admit that there are reasonable disagreements on the subject. I don’t like the bans, because they inhibit the autonomy of families and their physicians. But I also acknowledge that the science around puberty blockers is heavily contested, and that informed people differ on how we should regulate them.

Ditto for the issue of trans athletes, which some Democrats have made into a litmus test: You must support female trans athletes playing on women’s teams or you’re a bigot. McBride isn’t having that, either.

“I think it is an incredibly problematic instinct that many have to excommunicate people who aren’t in lockstep with you on every policy,” she said.

McBride is right. The only way to win the battle over trans soldiers — where knowledge and justice are clearly on our side — is to come clean when we’re not so sure. Americans don’t like scolds or know-it-alls. But if we create more space in our tent, they’ll come right in.

____

Jonathan Zimmerman teaches history and education at the University of Pennsylvania and serves on the advisory board of the Albert Lepage Center for History in the Public Interest.

___

©2025 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.