Well, this is similar to the discussion of women in combat arms roles/SOF.
The problem with the "if you can do the job and can prove you can do the job, you are accepted" argument is that it never stays that way.
The US Army Airborne school was known as a difficult course before standards changed. You can tie the standards being changed directly to the introduction of women into the course, the consequential high-washout rate, and arguments by politicians and bureaucrats to create gender normative standards and/or lower the universal standards to increase the 'success' rates.
Now, this isn't me saying "women shouldn't be allowed to go to Airborne school", or even necessarily that women shouldn't be in combat arms or SOF.
I realize this is a 'slippery slope' argument, but its based on historical context and I see no reason it won't happen again.
This is a political problem being used as a 'combat readiness' problem, when in reality, its an attempt of a political solution to solve a problem that is purely political at the expense of combat readiness.
As far as the 'just banter' point, I agree it is just banter. However, it changes the dynamics of the culture and introduces unnecessary friction -- aka distractions -- into an extremely dynamic, demanding environment, particularly in combat arms and SOF roles.
I agree completely that it can be the start of a decrease in standards. I have seen exactly that in the past, but I feel that is a different argument (and one I think I would agree with you on). If a role requires a set standard of fitness, that should be the standard, otherwise you are endangering the individual as well as the rest of the team. If an individual can meet those standards, they should be accepted regardless. If an individual cannot meet the standards, they should not be accepted. In the UK we have had split standards for years, with men and women having separate physical targets to meet. I feel this is wrong. If job A requires a certain standard, that is what is required. It does not vary up or down dependent on sex etc.
I feel many of these 'issues' are blown out of all proportion to the issue at hand, because its great for the media to play on it. If the stated figure of 15k trans individuals in the US forces (approx. size of 1.5m) is anything to go by (don't kill me for incorrect figures), then that's only 1%. I suspect most people wouldn't even notice.
I used to be quite prejudiced 20 years or so ago but over the years I have been surprised and I would rather treat everyone as an individual and let them impress or disappoint me on their own merits than try and prejudge.
I don't care what people do on their own time, as long as it doesn't harm others.
But free society != military. Standards are the glue of big organizations by which metrics and 'success' can be measured. Saying that transgenders aren't allowed to enlist/commission is by definition a standard. A line has to be drawn somewhere. This makes it simple from a leadership perspective.
Plus, I would be ripping my fucking hair out with all the new 'required training briefings' that undoubtedly came from this.
The military is supposed to reflect the society it is supposed to represent. I agree that standards are the glue etc but I don't agree that excluding a portion of society can be deemed to be a standard (or not one worthy of an organisation such as the US Armed Forces).
I completely agree on the briefings point, but that is just the military going overboard on a new policy etc (which they do on everything). There is not enough time in the day to actually attend every mandatory brief and read every mandatory manual!!
I used to think exactly like you and maybe I got old but I saw some stuff and changed my perspective and mellowed a little. I don't think we are going to agree on this but I respect your opinion! I do think it is something you'll have to accept in the next few years though, regardless of what Trump says.