Sure there is, and that in itself is an issue. Is the person being 'honest', and not trying to avoid active duty, are they conflicted for having to keep things suppressed?
You're either a woman or man. Just because you wear silk panties, and 'identify' as a woman, does not give you the right to share a woman's barracks. Different story if someone has had a full sex change prior to enlisting.
Can a man in drag have a period, or baby? Of course not. Gender identity isn't a hard thing if you just look between the legs, it would take away many debates.
Monty Python - "Loretta"
I think I'm confused here.
"Sure there is, and that in itself is an issue. Is the person being 'honest', and not trying to avoid active duty, are they conflicted for having to keep things suppressed?"
There's a pretty strong history of violence against trans people in the US, and the fact that this is even an issue tells us the US military isn't altogether trans-positive. This seems like enough to force a trans person who wants to serve into the closet and keep those serving as non-transitioning or closeted trans people in the closet.
Serving is a choice. Being trans isn't. Being trans, or gay, or a woman, isn't conflicting if the institution you're being honest with is one that supports your particular form of humanity.
"You're either a woman or man."
I think what you're getting at is that sex is a binary concept. You either "are" or you "are not."
Contemporary medical knowledge tells us otherwise:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363.php
...Gender identity and sexuality as nonbinary are two concepts very much put to bed as far as debate goes... but I don't think this is what you were going for...
And then you said this:
"Just because you wear silk panties, and 'identify' as a woman, does not give you the right to share a woman's barracks. Different story if someone has had a full sex change prior to enlisting."
In today's US military, there are mixed gender units. It would seem a bit silly for me to say a sentence that ends with 'does not give a woman the right to share a man's barrack.' But maybe that's just me...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat#United_States
To me, it seems like we're well past asking whether overies or testicles should preclude you from service in a particular unit.
Maybe trans barracks is the answer to
your concerns?
I mean, personally, I'm all about integrated armed forces units... be it race, sexuality or sex. [insert bad performance reviews for integrated units here].
I'm not a woman, but I'd be surprised if any of the women I know would feel
more unsafe in a barrack with a trans man than with a cis man.
Key word: unsafe.
Level of comfort doesn't seem like something you need to ask (for the sake of argument) an infantry unit.
===
But maybe I'm missing your point. Could you be suggesting that a big part of the problem here are all the trans men and women who are pretending to be trans?