Court rejects Trump's transgender troop ban

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: SlapMonkey


My contention with it comes from the logistical perspective. I don't know what all drugs a transperson has to take, but I imagine it's at least a few of them. That creates the potential for a supply problem. What makes it on the helo for a drop at a COP in the middle of nowhere, the trans' drugs or antibiotics? Both are necessary for health and welfare, and if there's a weight issue on the helo...then what?

Yup, and I think that this is where the massive disconnect for many people lies--most envision garrison units with people manning the supply room, but don't consider the when-it-really-matters moments, like deep deployments where, as you note, supplies are often limited in scope, weight, availability, and the like.

This is a very major part of the problem that most people either willfully ignore or don't know enough about to discuss intelligently, so they just move on to a different aspect.

I make infographics as part of my day job, and if I were to undertake the job of creating one that showed exactly all of the potential areas of the military that one trans person touched by their service, it would look like an exploded pot of spaghetti. But the same goes for the average Service Member as well--but the issue that I have is that "gender identity disorder" has the potential to be recognized as a personality disorder in the military per DSM-IV, and that in and of itself creates so many potential issues on its own, none of which the military should have to encounter during a deployment.

Gender reassignment surgery takes months to come back from. The whole transition process can take years. If a person starts the process after they finish their MOS school, will they be transitioning the entire time they're under contract?

Yeah, but I don't think that "GRS" is a big issue in the military--but your point is valid.

But there's a logistical angle to it that needs to be figured out one way or another, and it needs to be figured out definitively.

Yes, sir...and it's the "definitively" part that makes me side with the ban at this point, but certainly not with the automatic, blanket discharging of currently enlisted trans Service Members.

Some here are asking why a Transgender person would want to join the military...


Maybe health insurance to help pay for their costly surgeries??? That seems like a good enough reason to me. Especially being a lot of people who join are younger and really have no other job opportunities. Health Insurance is a pretty enticing reason.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

My thing with the GRS comes from a deployment standpoint: if you're recovering from major surgery, you're non-deployable. If you're going to be non-deployable for half your contract (and that's after boot and MOS), then what benefit are you giving to the service? In one of the previous threads about this subject, I used the following example: four year enlistment; three months for boot, another three to six months for MOS school (obviously could be longer or shorter), now you're closing in on a year into your contract. You decide to transition. Begin the mental health process (which, by the way...that seems to get ignored a lot for some reason) and hormones, you go for the surgery after several months of therapy and now you're well over a year, 18 months into your contract. Surgery takes a year (again, could be longer could be shorter) to recover from. Now you're well over two years, possibly even as far as three years.

So you've got a year left to be a productive member of the service? How'd that benefit in military in any way?

Again, just one of those things that they've got to study and figure it out.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I feel like the military readiness point is also a good point since it basically says that trans people don't negatively effect that either.

I tend to agree, but remember, this is just the perception of the few Service Members who took the survey, not the official stance from military leadership.

But I will say that, in this sort of thing, "barracks perception," as I'll call it, tends to reflect reality much more than what senior leadership would come up with.

Just trying to show that a high number of m2f trans people sign up. There has to be something compelling them, no?

Sure...I'd like to know what it is, to be honest, since it's 300% the norm of gen-pop enlistment.

The President made the right call even though the majority of the country, congress, and even the military itself disagrees with him? Yeah. I highly disagree with you. The only thing I DO agree with is that he was technically allowed to do it, which often is the primary motivator for why Trump does what he does. However, just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Again, you are citing the court of public opinion, and the bottom line is that this doesn't matter.

Yes, I believe that the ban is the appropriate call, but I do not believe that the immediate discharge for all currently serving trans Service Members is appropriate--at all.

Trump should stop pretending like he knows everything and ACTUALLY recognize that others may be more knowledge on things than him. Then he needs to take their advise over his ideas.

I agree with the first part completely, only partially with the second. Advice is just another piece of the puzzle, but at the end of the day, a leader doesn't automatically do what advisors say.


Maybe one day, Trump will learn how to be a leader instead of a man-baby in how he makes decisions (I think that we both hope for that).

I feel like you are a man on a search for a problem that doesn't exist. These people have been serving with few to no issues outside of what we expected (like intolerance and rape) for a while now. It's not like Trump canceled this policy shortly after it was enacted already. We already know that trans people function just fine in the military. All you need to do is open you eyes.

I'm a man whose main job in the military was to type up DD Form 458s (Charge Sheets), review trial evidence, understand the MCM and appropriate Army Regulations proficiently enough to help commanders up to Brigade level, understand AR 635-200 thoroughly enough to type administrative discharge paperwork for commanders, aid in witness interviews, transcribe official court proceedings (both verbatim and summarized), prepare for and sit through pre-trial confinement hearings, handle courtroom evidence, deal with panels (military juries), be the judge's right-hand man during trials (when I was part of criminal law, not trial defense), and myriad other associated duties.

If there's anything that I understand, even more than a decade removed from my military service, is the judicial and non-judicial processes in the military (and, specifically, the Army).

I'm not looking for a problem, Krazy, I'm looking at the big picture, and the big picture reveals a large amount of potential issues that can negatively impact the military and other Service Members. This is why I'm advocating the ban until it can be shown that gender dysphoria is not a major issue through actual research, not opinion polls and anecdotal stories in "TIME."

I understand that you differ in opinion, but to pretend like your eyes are open and mine are shut is absolutely ridiculous, as you are choosing to gloss over things that matter greatly in this debate in favor of, it seems, just your opinions and feelings.

I'm not going to take that road, but you are welcome to do so, obviously. Just don't pretend like you have it all figured out and that I'm just a big, ignorant fool on some sort of blind journey.

originally posted by: GuidedKill
I never once said I had anything against LBGT or anyone who wants to do anything with their personal lives.

I never once said that you did

a reply to: SlapMonkey

And, no, it's not "best" for the military to take every applicant and evaluate them in-depth before determining their ability to serve

I said "at best", like at most but it's irrelevant because I get your point.

The hard truth is that the military is not for everyone, isn't meant to be for everyone, and there is absolutely zero right enshrined in the constitution that military service must be attainable by everyone.

I see the military as a government institution and subject to constitutional protection but then again I understand your point here and I agree. I defer to your opinion, you know far more about this than I do. I appreciate the time you spent replying.

the judge is saying that no administrative actions barring enlistment or discharging active-duty Service Members can happen until the deadlines set for actual policy on the subject matter.

So what does this mean? Is this reversing the announcement made by secretary of defense last year?

“Effective immediately, transgender Americans may serve openly,” Mr. Carter said. “They can no longer be discharged or otherwise separated from the military just for being transgender.”

NYTimes

a reply to: Devino

So what does this mean? Is this reversing the announcement made by secretary of defense last year?

No, it essentially puts the policy back to where it was the day before Trump went on twitter. Which is to say that transgenders are allowed to serve openly.

The quote from her ruling is "revert to status quo."

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Devino

So what does this mean? Is this reversing the announcement made by secretary of defense last year?

No, it essentially puts the policy back to where it was the day before Trump went on twitter. Which is to say that transgenders are allowed to serve openly.

The quote from her ruling is "revert to status quo."

My question was is this block permanent or does it apply only until the policy deadline SlapMonkey was referring to?

a reply to: Devino

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued the preliminary injunction Monday, finding that a group of transgender service members would have a strong chance of prevailing in their lawsuit to have the ban declared unconstitutional. The injunction remains in place until the lawsuit is resolved or a judge lifts it.

WaPo

The American federal government is tasked with defending the nation it gets to decide how to do that, not some judge.
If the Pentagon leadership deems that being forced to have transgender persons effects unit cohesion then..........

originally posted by: xuenchen
Good strategy.

He has no real issues with this, so he declares it a ban.

Then the courts stop the ban.

Perfect.

He stops the issue and never pisses off the extremists.

The courts get the "blame".

Trust me. They will blame Trump for this an so much more. He will never escape blame from the Leftists.

originally posted by: GuidedKill
Some here are asking why a Transgender person would want to join the military...


Maybe health insurance to help pay for their costly surgeries??? That seems like a good enough reason to me. Especially being a lot of people who join are younger and really have no other job opportunities. Health Insurance is a pretty enticing reason.

Or maybe they want to serve our country? Or maybe the like guns and want to blow things up and get paid for it? Or maybe they want to learn to fly planes? Or maybe they want to go to medical school and have the military pay for it? Or maybe they want to be a lawyer and have the military send them to law school?

But yeah, let's just make the claim they need the medical coverage for their surgery. That's not a huge ignorant assumption at all...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Fair enough. Let's agree to disagree. At least we hold some views the same on this issue. I'll take solace in that.

Yeah because we know transgenders have a great track record at level headed living and should be trusted with deadly weapons in the heat of the moment. Not...

originally posted by: Devino
a reply to: SlapMonkey
I see the military as a government institution and subject to constitutional protection but then again I understand your point here and I agree. I defer to your opinion, you know far more about this than I do. I appreciate the time you spent replying.

The sad reality is that government institutions (I know...I work for one of the worst ones as we speak) are the biggest suppressors of constitutional rights. In the military, you willingly give up numerous first, second, and other amendment rights in order to serve, but you do so at your own discretion and do so willingly. The same goes for when I accepted employment where I work: I'm now limited by the Hatch Act, I'm limited as to what I can and cannot say in the workplace, I cannot have a firearm on my office's property, etc., etc.

So, one would assume that federal institutions would have to be the biggest enforcers of constitutional rights, but quite honestly, they place the biggest limitations on them.

So what does this mean? Is this reversing the announcement made by secretary of defense last year?

The judge stayed the loose directive from Trump pending the 2018 date for an official military policy to be set in place. At that point, further action may be taken by the court, but since nothing was set in stone as policy yet, the judge really had nothing to overturn.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Fair enough. Let's agree to disagree. At least we hold some views the same on this issue. I'll take solace in that.

That works for me...and I appreciate the civility in the disagreement, as we don't always have that (and it's not always your fault when we don't, either)

originally posted by: hombero
Yeah because we know transgenders have a great track record at level headed living and should be trusted with deadly weapons in the heat of the moment. Not...

Maybe just worry about Canada's military and don't be concerned with the policies of ours?

Stereotyping an entire group based on subjective concerns is ignorant.

I've worked in the courtroom on both sides of the argument (prosecution and defense) in military courts-martial--your concerns about "level headed living" by trans folks really should be the least of your worries in our military.

So these people are getting reassignment surgery and vets are dying while waiting to get an appointment to see a doctor?

Wassup wit dat?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

If the Pentagon leadership deems that being forced to have transgender persons effects unit cohesion then..........

Well the Pentagon hasn't deemed that so....

That's sorta the same argument that they used for keeping the military racially segregated.

And for not allowing women in.

And for not allowing openly gay people to serve.

The report that DoD commissioned about it

a reply to: SlapMonkey

(and it's not always your fault when we don't, either)

Correction: it is always Krazy's fault. For everything. Ever.