The 2018 policy memo released by the Trump administration cited several reasons for the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. Some of the reasons mentioned in the memo included:
1.
The need to maintain "military readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion"
2.
Concerns about the cost of providing medical care for transgender service members, particularly those undergoing sex reassignment surgery
3.
The potential for "undue stress and disruptions" caused by the presence of transgender individuals in the military
4.
The need to ensure that military personnel are "deployable" and able to serve in a variety of roles and environments
However, many critics argued that these reasons were not supported by evidence and were instead motivated by a desire to discriminate against transgender individuals.
The memo was widely criticized by LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, medical professionals, and many members of Congress.
A 2016 study by the RAND Corporation, a non-partisan think tank, found that allowing transgender individuals to serve openly in the military would have a "minimal impact" on military readiness and would not be a significant burden on the military's medical resources.
The RAND Corporation is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization that provides analysis and recommendations on a wide range of policy issues, including national security, healthcare, education, and more.
RAND is composed of a diverse group of experts from various fields, including researchers, analysts, and scientists. These experts use rigorous research methods and data analysis to provide objective and unbiased recommendations to policymakers, business leaders, and other stakeholders.
In the case of the 2016 study on transgender military service, the RAND Corporation assembled a team of experts in fields such as military personnel policy, healthcare, and social science. The team conducted a comprehensive review of existing research and data on the topic, and also consulted with military personnel, medical professionals, and other stakeholders.
The study's findings were based on a thorough analysis of the available evidence, and were intended to provide policymakers with a neutral and objective assessment of the potential impacts of allowing transgender individuals to serve openly in the military.
The RAND Corporation's study on transgender military service can be used as evidence in court, but its admissibility and weight would depend on various factors.
In the United States, expert reports and studies can be used as evidence in court if they meet certain criteria, such as:
1.
Relevance: The study must be relevant to the case at hand.
2.
Reliability: The study must be based on reliable methods and data.
3.
Peer review: The study must have been peer-reviewed or subject to some other form of quality control.
4.
Qualifications: The authors of the study must be qualified experts in their field.
The RAND Corporation's study on transgender military service is a well-regarded and widely-cited report that has been peer-reviewed and is based on rigorous research methods. As such, it could potentially be used as evidence in court.
However, the admissibility of the study as evidence would ultimately depend on the specific court and the judge's discretion. The opposing party may also challenge the study's methodology, findings, or conclusions, which could affect its weight as evidence.
In the case of the transgender military ban, the RAND Corporation's study was cited in several court cases challenging the ban, including a 2017 lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other advocacy groups. The study's findings were used to argue that the ban was not supported by evidence and was therefore unconstitutional.
LGBTQ+ people need to advocate for themselves. They must demonstrate that they are not a problem, but a solution. 
