Court rejects Trump's transgender troop ban

No demographic should be banned from killing innocent people and becoming cannon fodder for the elite.

a reply to: Southern Guardian


No one could be happier with this decision than China and Russia! Bravo!

Another corrupt judge who rules based on political beliefs and feelings rather than uphold the law.

a reply to: seeker1963

Another corrupt judge who rules based on political beliefs and feelings rather than uphold the law.

What law?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Oh for gods sake!

If people want to serve and they are able to serve, then they should be free to serve.

This is a stupid move on Trumps part.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
No demographic should be banned from killing innocent people and becoming cannon fodder for the elite.

right there.
nice

good way of looking at it

why not look at it like why should they get a pass to not experience terrible #

Blocked by a US federal judge just like the travel ban, which was later approved by the Supreme court. If activist judges blocking every one of Trump's ban counts as a win, then I'm not sure you know what a win is.

I'm starting to see how Trump is the lesser of the two evils.
A good leader has a hard time getting things done.
A bad leader (Hillary) better not get things done...
And a non-leader (like Trump is) is just not getting things done.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
I'm still unsure about the motivation of the transgender ban? I'm fairly certain transgenders have been serving the military for sometime now. I'm not familiar with any major issues, cases, where the military has been hindered by transgendered troops amongst their ranks? This entire thing just came out of the blue from the administration.

Here are a couple of the problems that I see with the generic idea of transgendered servicemembers--take them with a grain of whatever:

- AR 635-200, Chapter 5-13(a) [dtd. 19 December 2016]: "This condition is a deeply ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration that interferes with the Soldier’s ability to perform duty. ... The diagnosis of personality disorder must have been established by a psychiatrist or doctoral-level clinical psychologist with necessary and appropriate professional credentials who is privileged to conduct mental health evaluations for the DOD components. It is described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM–IV) of Mental Disorders, 4th edition."

AR 635-200

As you can see, the Army (I'm uncertain as to the other branches, as the Army was my profession for a few years) holds the right to discharge someone under a "personality disorder" that prohibits them from doing their duty (within the first 24 months of service). The list of available diagnoses are taken from the DSM-4, which brings me to the next point;

- DSM-4, Gender Identity Disorder: This manual certainly does describe GID (now called "Gender Dysphoria) as a diagnosable, treatable disorder, so it would certainly fall under the AR 635-200's definition of a personality disorder (if it is severe enough under the guidelines that warrant an administrative discharge).

DSM-IV -- Gender Identity Disorder

So, with just these two notes pointed out, we have a situation where a KNOWN personality issue that can warrant clinical diagnoses and administrative discharges exists in people who want to join the military (or are currently serving). Why in the world would we want to invest so much money and time into individuals who are basically ready to be "chaptered" out of the military?

I'm not saying that all transgender people are unfit for service, so don't misunderstand me, but being a veteran, I understand that the military should be a relatively elite group of people, and there already exist numerous bars from enlistment already: Asthma, color blindness, convictions, height requirements, etc., etc...to include other diagnosable mental disorders per the DSM-IV. I cannot go in to MEPS, knowing that I'm a schizophrenic, and expect to be hired by the military, or to be able to hide the symptoms that may inhibit my ability to do my job. Instead, the military is unwilling to invest the time and money into me, so they would bar me outright from enlistment.

I understand how non-PC it is to discuss gender dysphoria as being a mental condition, but the bottom line is that it is one per, at least, the DSM-IV, which is the standard by which the Army makes its determinations concerning personality disorders. In being such, I can absolutely see why a military would want to bar enlistment for people with the disorder, until, at the very least, much more research was done on the issue.

The military is not a Walmart, where nearly anyone can and should be able to do the job--if there is even the slightest doubt about the mental fitness of military applicants, we should err on the side of caution and, if necessary, bar this population from enlistment pending further study.

Another bullet point I was going to list was frequency of suicides in the transgender and military communities--both are excessively prone to this destructive behavior, and that really does weigh into my belief that erring on the side of caution is good for both the military AND the transgender individual.

But, hey, the DSM-IV and the AR 635-200, Chapter 5-13, should be enough to explain to anyone why, at least at this point in time, a ban on transgender individuals makes at least some sense if we can take the time to set aside emotion and just look at it logically.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Thank you for that excellent post. When it comes to protecting our nation, political correctness and emotion should always take a back seat to logic Effectiveness and efficiency.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

BINGO. I don't care what a person feels they are supposed to be. It does fall under a personality disorder, body dysmorphia, etc. You can't join up if you have asthma, but it's okay to spend millions to turn a service member from one sex to another because it's how they feel. I fail to see how this unifies troops if they have to walk on eggshells and pay a fortune to make he a she, and she a he.

There are a lot of people who are gender dysmorphic, but it's not a huge number. Shouldn't they do their time in the military and then have this done after the fact?

To the poster who said they're cannon fodder......lol, most of them are not. There are a lot of logistics that go on in the military that do NOT have to do with battle. But whatever. I'm not being PC over [snipped] in this case. I don't suppose I ever will be. To me, it's a waste of money....in the military, in the courts, and in the media.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: xuenchen

For some reason that never occurred to me, he can still pander to the fringe right without ever having to seriously try and go through with it, if that was by choice thats bloody brilliant.

Yes, look like an incompetent boob. Brilliant.

a reply to: FissionSurplus

If the individual is mentally capable and physically capable of doing the job, then they should be able to do the job.

In my opinion.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Agree with the policy or not, he doesn't have to consult with anyone in the military when giving orders like this. I mean, it makes sense to meet with a judge advocate general or so, just to ensure that he can legally do something, but no meeting need take place if the commander in chief wants to make a change to hiring policy.

Sure but if he wants his EO to be effective and not simply banned he should do some consulting from those who know better, don't you think?

originally posted by: FissionSurplus

There are a lot of people who are gender dysmorphic, but it's not a huge number. Shouldn't they do their time in the military and then have this done after the fact?

If Obama did it that way then it wouldn't ensure naysayers to have solid case to call BS, and then it wouldnt ensue a complete partisan divide, meaning it wouldnt be a 'success'.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Blocked by a US federal judge just like the travel ban, which was later approved by the Supreme court. If activist judges blocking every one of Trump's ban counts as a win, then I'm not sure you know what a win is.

At this point, stop gates and speed bumps are the next best thing to a win.

I have no issues with Transgenders, I knew a couple in the Army. Its the surgery that'll kill troop effectiveness. Can't have it messing with our ready to deploy numbers.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

So, with just these two notes pointed out, we have a situation where a KNOWN personality issue that can warrant clinical diagnoses and administrative discharges exists in people who want to join the military (or are currently serving)

So at best they should evaluate these supposed disorders on an individual basis and not some blanket policy that is considered unconstitutional by the court in the OP.

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: Southern Guardian


No one could be happier with this decision than China and Russia! Bravo!

Another corrupt judge who rules based on political beliefs and feelings rather than uphold the law.

Why would China and Russia be happy to have transpersons serving in the US Military?

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Blocked by a US federal judge just like the travel ban, which was later approved by the Supreme court. If activist judges blocking every one of Trump's ban counts as a win, then I'm not sure you know what a win is.

At this point, stop gates and speed bumps are the next best thing to a win.

I have no issues with Transgenders, I knew a couple in the Army. Its the surgery that'll kill troop effectiveness. Can't have it messing with our ready to deploy numbers.

I have no issue with Transgender folk either. The point of the "ban" (memorandum) was to let the secretary of defence determine if Obama's hasty implementation "would not hinder military effectiveness and lethality, disrupt unit cohesion, or tax military resources, and there remain meaningful concerns that further study is needed to ensure that continued implementation of last year's policy change would not have those negative effects."

Memorandum

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: Southern Guardian


No one could be happier with this decision than China and Russia! Bravo!

Another corrupt judge who rules based on political beliefs and feelings rather than uphold the law.

Why would China and Russia be happy to have transpersons serving in the US Military?

If you have to ask that question? You wouldn't understand the answer!

originally posted by: carewemust
I think the problem was people coming into the military and then asking taxpayers to cover their sex reassignment surgeries, hormones, psychological counseling, and all that stuff.

Very distracting from protecting the nation.

Taxes they pay for them to go and defend their interests and country.
Who cares if a small minority of them use the benefits for surgery or medication.
Don't like where your taxes are going the don't pay. Or you go join the military and not use benefits.
Tons of drugs and useless surgeries are used by all service people, not just transgender.