I write the following comments without intending disrespect to the author:

1. This was a military decision, not a decision based on ideological social justice aims. Military readiness runs up against 'inclusiveness' all the time and many people are excluded in spite of their willingness to serve.

2. The author (and commenters everywhere spouting the "viagra costs more" talking point) should think of medical costs on a per-capita basis not on a overall total basis. The per-capita medical costs for 'transgender' individuals are far higher than the *average* per-capital medical costs per person in the military. This is a fact and it is relevant to a decision about who to allow to serve. 

2. It is factually wrong and ideologically weasally to paint all opposition to the transgender movement as being evangelical in nature or rooted in Christianity. In fact, opposition to the movement (as well as support for it!) can be found in the scientific community and across the religious spectrum.