“Roughly 15,000 transgender people served in the military under Obama’s policies. Trump’s decision to reverse these rules was motivated by the politics of prejudice, and he did not even warn the Pentagon in advance of his tweet. Transgender service had no effect on military readiness or unit cohesion and received widespread support among Americans. Former military leaders condemned the ban, as did congressional Democrats and even some powerful Republicans. The chief of staff of the Army, chief of naval operations, commandant of the Marine Corps, and chief of staff of the Air Force testified before Congress that transgender military service had no deleterious effects…  

“Biden’s executive order marks the second time the new president has taken sweeping action to safeguard the rights of LGBTQ people. Last week he directed federal agencies to expand more than 100 civil rights laws to outlaw anti-LGBTQ discrimination in housing, health care, education, immigration, and more. Yet Monday’s order remains vulnerable to reversal at the hands of a future president unless it is enshrined into federal law. Biden must work with Congress if he wants to stop the next Republican president from targeting trans troops for political gain. For now, though, he has made it clear that transgender people are fully welcome in the armed forces as long as he remains commander in chief.”
Mark Joseph Stern, Slate

“As on a number of issues, here conservatives often use practical arguments when the real source of their position is moral. In this case, they say that allowing transgender troops will hurt ‘readiness,’ when there’s absolutely no evidence it does. As the experience of the end of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and the ban on gay service members showed (and before that the end of racial segregation), while plenty of people in uniform have unwelcoming views, as a whole the institution is quite good at adapting to that kind of change without harm to its ability to function…

“No, the real problem many social conservatives have is that they have a strict and hidebound perspective on matters of gender and sexuality, and to them the idea that people can even be transgender just seems wrong. So they tend to oppose any expansion of rights for trans people, because it will lead to greater acceptance and a society that continues to move away from their view of who people ought to be and how things ought to work…

“Liberals can say to them: We hear you. We understand why this is upsetting to you. We’re not trying to disrespect you. But we’re doing it anyway, because it’s the right thing to do.”
Paul Waldman, Washington Post

Dated but relevant: Regarding sports, “many courts have concluded (often on the basis of constitutional sex discrimination prohibitions) that when a school sport is not offered to a particular sex, a student from a different sex must be allowed to participate. Indeed, as to many sports, the Title IX regulations explicitly endorse such an approach. Courts have rejected essentialist arguments claiming that cisgender girls are incapable of participating in sports with boys. If female students must be allowed to participate on a traditionally all-male football team, transgender students must be permitted to compete in accordance with their gender identity…

“[Furthermore, the] emphasis on victory ignores that the purpose of Title IX was to create opportunities for women—all women—and that the overriding goal of scholastic athletics is not winning championships but fostering physical ability, social interaction, mental health, and teamwork among young students. The developmental benefits of athletic participation are acutely important for vulnerable groups, such as transgender students, who already face tremendous barriers in terms of social recognition and feelings of isolation.”
Scott Skinner-Thompson, Slate