Trump military transgender ban goes ahead **This post was edited by MNHQ**

From my experiences I never felt unsafe with the transgender woman I worked with and I even shared a room with her. She married a man and so if we want to argue that toss I could have felt more subconscious sharing with a lesbian.

On the flip side I have personal experience of sexual assault in the military. It was at the time set up with shared ablutions between 20 mix sex, mostly male colleagues with only a flimsy white shower curtain to the shower cubicle. Thankfully they're gradually moving to en-suite accommodation.

The facts are that transgender people have been serving in the military for years without people getting het up about it. There are huge issues with sexual assault that have nothing to do with transgender folk.

As for mental health concerns, as I've stated before, the US military have a far wider issue and more troublesome psychiatric issues that they're happy to deploy troops with.

I am GC but don't think there is justifiable reasons for this blanket ban and completely mistrust Trumps intentions.

If they have medical reasons to not be eligible to be deployed then by all means say no but I really don't think that was The Trump administrations aim and therefore I am against this action. As pp said, if that was the case then surely the old legislation would have covered it.

I do however, worry about sexual assault of women in the military and think more needs to be done around safeguarding women in these situations.

It was interesting 2ndWaveFeminist and I was attracted to it because I, along with my twin sister Illyria47 served for four years in the WRAF from 1965 to 1969. Our last posting was to a V bomber station, so a lot of Caroline Paige's descriptions of her basic training and initial postings resonated with me. However, I was disappointed to read at the end of the book that Caroline visits schools as a Stonewall representative, and that she supports Mermaids. I can sort of see why she supports the latter after reading about her severe psychological struggles with her gender identity as a child, but it's sad that she can't see the damage they are doing.

Otepot that book sounds interesting. There was a time (not so long ago) that I'd have been all over opposing such a ban and people like Caroline would have been who I'd have had in mind.

However there is already a problem with sexual assaults on women in the military and TW like Karen White (and all the other tw in prison for assaulting women which is too long to remember) would concern me greatly these days.

So I'm in the position where I don't agree with a blanket ban and that it should be more nuanced but should take into account psychological history and fitness to serve and must protect biological women.

But since I'm suffering from compassion fatigue after abuse from TRAs I'll settle for 'meh, don't agree with Trumps policy as stated but I've bigger fights to worry about so not going to worry about this one'

InACloudOfGlitter Those are common sense questions.
I think they are fair to ask. It's a good point about the mental and hepatic strain, but the problem with that is to admit the danger of long term hormones means it becomes more dangerous for kids to go through, so that narrative has to be suppressed.

Some of the side effects from transitioning hormones include affecting a persons mental health and putting a strain on the liver.

If someone is on long term hormones then they will be permanently 'at risk' and unlikely to be deployed, rendering them useless to the military.

Is someone identifies as trans but does not take medication, do they share with what they identify with in single sex accommodation? Do they have to pass the male or female fitness requirements? (Not sure if they're different in the U.S.)

I recently read Caroline Paige's book True Colours on her life in the Air Force, first as a man, and then as a transgender woman. I recommend it for the author's honesty in describing the struggles she had as a child in living as a boy, and the relief she feels when she eventually comes out to her superiors as a transgender woman. The fact that she was able to serve another 16 years in the military is quite remarkable. The initial reaction to her request to stay was not encouraging to say the least, and she did face hostility from some colleagues.

Caroline Paige's struggles to understand why she felt so wrong as a boy are vividly described, and help the reader comprehend why she made the decision to undertake the process of gender reassignment.

www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/true-colours

I saw this interview on CNN the other day, and thought Capt Peace spoke very well. It was an informative and calm discussion, as would be expected from a professional like Christiane Amanpour.

www.thirteen.org/programs/amanpour-co/capt-jennifer-peace-being-transgender-military-ubmf8p/

The ban is also on behaving as though you are other than the sex you are.

The ban is fair. Consider the military. All aspects of your life are controlled. You are told what to wear, when to get up, what to do all day, how long you can wear your hair, what to eat on many occasions, when you can travel and have free time.
I am a goth. I could not join the military and wear black clothes, multiple piercings, teased hair, and black lipstick.
If you want to, as a male, wear frilly skirts and earrings and demand people call you by a girl name but have no intention of having sex change surgery, you will just have to wait until your term of service is over. The military is not a place for personal self-expression.

damn right they should get free healthcare and education
I'm old fashioned, I think everyone should get this.
And that the armed forces be comprised of genuine volunteers not those coerced by US economics.

other western countries have been allowing transgender people to serve for at least 18 years
Well I'm glad you've got real world experience of it, that's very interesting. However as mentioned previously the US is a different kettle of fish.
It's possible to accrue medical cover and college tuition and never once be at risk of deployment. The US military is as litigious as the US public so they are cautious employers. The end result is 18 month tours for everyone else.
If you're interested in the US military I can recommend Rachel Maddow's book, it describes the disconnect between the public and the military very well.

I understand from trans groups in the UK that many if not most trans people are suicidal. I can’t believe it’s better in the USA.

How would that work out for military service ?

I don't think the army should have to pay for transitioning but if a person is fit and well to serve then there is no reason at all to exclude them based on being trans.

Obama was 'woke' about it because other western countries have been allowing transgender people to serve for at least 18 years (I went through military training with a transgender female in 2001) My experience isn't media hype, it's real.

Having worked with the US military where personnel were throwing themselves in front of vehicles to try and get home following 18 month + deployments if anyone is willing to serve in the American military then damn right they should get free healthcare and education.

In summary, I think that if there is a medical basis for excluding somebody from military service, that should be possible under existing law without issuing blanket bans.
I understand it was under existing law until Obama decided to be woke about it.
It's like the Dreamer thing. It's not a new law, it's rolling back exceptions Obama made.

People forget Obama deported more than any other president and he put migrant children in cages. If you're against this you have to acknowledge it's not just a Trump thing. I'd argue you also have to acknowledge that a significant percentage of these children are accompanied by adults unrelated to them and there are complex safeguarding needs that become apparent when a crossing is intercepted by border officers. It's much easier to just say "OMG the orange one is a Nazi".

Political conversation has become so wildly partisan that facts are being deliberately omitted.

If the US had a better healthcare system the issue of trans people serving wouldn't be so fraught. But because healthcare (and tertiary education) are tied up with military service for so many, it becomes a much more emotional argument.

The problem is that transgender is such a vague description and can mean 'takes medication and requires surgery' or 'has blue hair'.

There is a very very long list of disqualifying conditions from the US Army.

www.military.com/join-armed-forces/disqualifiers-medical-conditions.html

Being transgender is, we are told, a medical condition, requiring expensive treatment by the NHS/health insurance.

So why would it be exempt?

In summary, I think that if there is a medical basis for excluding somebody from military service, that should be possible under existing law without issuing blanket bans.

On the medication front I was prescribed contraceptives and mefenamic acid due to painful periods, should I have been excluded from the military and the tour I did in Afghanistan?

From what I understand some women already have difficulty accessing the pill when they are on long term deployment.

I am gender critical, but I think this is a knee jerk ban that isn't evidence based. The terms 'trans' and 'in the military' are so broad that they are meaningless and I do not trust Trump's motives. I wouldn't assume that any policy initiated by a Trump tweet has been been properly evaluated and I think the next step is banning women for vague non-specific reasons.

For once I agree with trump on this. You can't serve for various medical reasons (asthma, diabetes etc) therefore if you have a medical issue as a result of gender reassignment then this needs to be considered too. Also they are not saying every transgender is banned it's just to be considered, which seems fair.

testosterone blockers would make it more difficult for them to meet men's physical fitness standards

I wonder how much more difficult this would be. A significant obstacle that would weed out more than 50% of the relevant group, something that could be overcome by most if there were highly committed and pushed themselves, etc?

This thread is one of many examples of how we terfs are so bloody dangerous. I mean, logical debate? Differing opinions? Thoughtful responses? Getoutahere.
But nup; it's hate speech.

I’m uncomfortable with trans women serving in the military. Given the significant history and mishandling of rape and sexual assault, I don’t think that women serving should have to sleep, shower, dress etc next to a male.

I’d have no concerns whatsoever if this was a case of uniform and pronouns, but it’s not, like most subjects TRA’s make it a case of “all or nothing” and when it’s put in those terms, I reluctantly conclude that it has to be nothing.

For MtF people who haven't had an orchidectomy, they would need either daily pills, or an injection maybe once a week. This in itself shouldn't be a problem, but testosterone blockers would make it more difficult for them to meet men's physical fitness standards.

In terms of ongoing medication, for MtF trans people who have had orchidectomy, often they will be on something like a double dose of hormonal contraception. Missing a few doses isn't a medical emergency, in the way that missing medication for diabetes or asthma would be. Unlikely to be a problem for the military.
For FtM people, there's long-acting formulations of testosterone which only need an injection every few months, and again, it isn't immediately dangerous to go overdue. Not in itself a problem for the military.