Hi clo,
I don't think this should be judged on the basis of rights.
Generally-speaking, there are all sorts of contradictory rights affecting every political conversation. It's never easy to untangle whose rights are superior - indeed, it's kinda the nature of rights that it is impossible to make a correct decision. Someone usually claims a right at someone else's expense. People with conservative religious principles presumably feel they have a right to serve as untainted, righteous Christians and establishing transgender rights harms these competing interests. I can't say whose rights are superior. I do know rights-based claims usually end up being more about emotions than reason.
My view is that it ought to be a conversation about costs and benefits. Do transgender personnel contribute more than they harm the US department of defence? If they do, hire those that can leap the bar. If not, take the tough decision.
I don't have a strong view about this as I have never thought about it. But I don't often find simple rights-based claims persuasive.
| 
