The Pentagon updated its leave policy to include the phrase “non-birth parents,” a change that signals the continued influence of gender ideology inside the military despite promises to restore traditional standards. This article examines how a shift in language matters for military culture, provides context from the author’s two decades of service, and highlights recent statements from senior officials that suggest the problem runs deeper than a single memo. It traces the timeline of the instruction’s evolution and points out apparent conflicts with the stated priorities of the current leadership. The goal is to show why words in policy matter for readiness, cohesion, and the character of the force.
The central job of our armed forces is straightforward: defend the nation and the people who live in it. After 20 years in uniform, I watched the institution change from one that treated traditional family roles as foundational to one that now accepts radical social experiments as routine. That shift undermines confidence in what the military values and trains its members to protect.
When Pete Hegseth said, “DEI is dead at DOD,” many cheered because it sounded like a return to mission-first priorities. Yet in practice a lot of offices tied to diversity programs were rebranded rather than dismantled, and many individual personnel kept advancing the same ideology. Closing an office does not automatically change minds, and policy language can be a subtle, lasting way to keep ideas alive inside the organization.
The recent amendment to DOD Instruction 1327.06 added the phrase “non-birth parents” to the military leave guidance. That wording is not neutral; it imports activist terminology into official doctrine and normalizes a worldview that rejects biological distinctions. Policy words teach habits of thought, and when an institution as consequential as the military adopts this vocabulary, it shifts norms across ranks and units.
Some defenders say the term intends to include adoptive parents, but that explanation does not hold up to the document’s structure. Adoption and adoptive parents are already referenced clearly and separately many times in the instruction. Introducing a new category labeled “non-birth parents” is a deliberate choice that carries cultural meaning distinct from adoption law and practice.
Language change matters because institutions rely on shared reality to function. If you start to reduce fathers to “non-birth” parents and rename basic biological facts, you erode the common framework that makes clear command decisions and training expectations possible. A military that undermines reality risks weakening its moral clarity about what it exists to defend.
The cultural vocabulary pushed by gender activists often treats women and men as interchangeable labels rather than distinct biological realities. Terms like “birthing person” and “non-birther” erase the traditional understanding of sex and parenthood, and in doing so they distort the social foundations that have long supported unit cohesion. That distortion matters more in a fighting force than in other institutions because combat effectiveness depends on clear roles, honest assessments, and unambiguous standards.
Claims that the change is merely bureaucratic miss a broader point: words in regulations become precedent and training material. Left unchecked, they influence command climate, performance evaluations, and even readiness standards. The military has already seen standards altered in high-profile cases, and altering language across the bureaucracy is a stealthy way to ensure those changes stick.
There is also a mismatch between executive direction and what happens down the chain. Several executive actions and memoranda issued after January 2025 directed a return to biological truth and restored focus on readiness, yet the new instruction slipped transgendered language into a key personnel policy. That contradiction raises legitimate questions about who in the personnel apparatus is enforcing the president’s priorities and who is quietly resisting them.
Worryingly, public statements by senior service officials reflect a cultural disconnect on standards and gender. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll’s remark that he “could not tell you gender” after watching soldiers at Ranger School signals an unwillingness to acknowledge objective physical differences that often inform selection and training criteria. Such comments undercut efforts to restore tough, objective standards across the force.
Promises from senior leaders to end ideological experiments in the military are welcome, but they mean little without consistent follow-through in policy wording and personnel decisions. The real fight is cultural and bureaucratic: ensuring that words in instructions reflect biological reality and mission priorities, and that policy changes are enforced across the organization. Otherwise the force remains at risk of being reshaped by social agendas instead of being sharpened for war.
Add comment