Times article re US military

Biden had a very high ranking trans officer, so they had a great deal of influence

If you mean Admiral Rachel Levine - high ranking and influential, but not military. One of the weird things about the US is their public health service is uniformed and has military type titles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Public_Health_Service_Commissioned_Corps The admiral was a paediatrician in a non-combatant service that's essentially equivalent to Public Heath England in fancy dress.

As for the new policy - should the military expel people simply for thinking they are trans? No. Should the military exempt members with certain beliefs from normal medical rules, fund cosmetic surgery, or force women to share accommodation and showers with men? Also no.

Apart from anything else, having special, more favourable rules for one category of people at the expense of all the others cannot be good for morale, which is quite important in the military. Making it fairer so everyone follows the same rules is much better overall.

Those who refuse to kill on religious or moral/ethical reasons are called conscientious objectors they are not allowed to join the military, they also generally don't want to join and regularly fight against conscription even in times of war.
If your interested in seeing how such truly brave people have been treated you should look at what happened to many conscientious objectors during ww1 & ww2, they face derision, violent attacks, jail and sometimes the firing squad

@VegTrug I think you misunderstood... My DH is put in undeployable roles die to his medical grade. He has completely different skills and is employed for those skills (he's basically an accountant). His friends in the infantry couldn't do his job, as they don't have those qualifications.

So there's 2 things going on here.
Since the US Military said it would fully fund transitioning

I'm sure there was an issue last time because some men had to dilate five times a day, and then regularly for the rest of their lives. How does that work in the frontline position. Not to mention the effect on your colleagues.

It will be interesting to see this play out. If there is pushback against his decision, which there will be, then we shall start to see examples of why he thinks it's necessary.

Plus, if the men are allowed in the women's changing rooms, and have colonised everything to do with female personnel in the way they do elsewhere, it could well be affecting a recruitment anyway, certainly female recruitment.

Thanks for this. I too assumed it would be trans people just being treated like everyone else again, but good to have the explanation.

The media is so captured and treats a trans person getting a minor splinter as trans genocide (while the experimental drugs they take are a-ok) so I just don't believe the headlines at all any more.

Those ‘medically downgraded’ are already serving members though. And how many areas of the military are never going to be deployed that people get to work their entire careers in? I would expect there are rather few areas of service where someone starts their career and finishes it without there ever being a need for deployment if it came to a crisis situation for their every role. Wouldn’t those roles be civilian roles?

It does because as a PP stated (and an Army major on LBC earlier also), trans hormone therapy means they cannot be deployed due to the inability to guarantee supply of medications when on the front line.
How is it fair on other military personnel when either transgender people or people like your husband can get a pardon from deployment when everyone else has to leave their families and in some cases, miss the births of one or more of their children?
Also, transgender hormones are for LIFE. So that's means trans people can be in the forces for decades but never^^ be deployed at any point.....? Nah that's not fair

Bloody hell so direct sexual harassment of women then. How was this not illegal?

Hello, ex USAF family here. We get a lot of people joining the military to fund their trans surgeries, which obviously is very wrong, so no I really don't have a problem with this at all.

There are lots of "medically downgraded" people in the military... its not all fighting roles these days. My DH has been on thyroid medication for 6 years now... still serving. Hes not actually been the top level of fitness since early on in Sandhurst due to an injury there... hasn't affected his career (he can't join certain regiments)

Saying hormome treatment is incompatible with front line roles is fair. But I know of transgender members of the armed services where it doesn't affect their job (other stuff like accommodation is more controversial)

The only good thing about Donald Trump is that in four years he will be out of office!

To add:

If the numbers of medically fit trans-identifying people who feel uncomfortable using the facilities for their sex are significant enough, third spaces might be a reasonable accommodation.

Anyone who won't use sex-specific facilities and refuses a third space alternative should be managed in exactly the same way as anyone else who doesn't follow the rules.

There would be other examples of scenarios where someone's beliefs have led them to refuse to follow rules, I'm sure e.g. there may be Christians who refuse to kill because of the ten commandments. Ignoring the hypocrisy that armies require Christians on the frontline to follow orders to kill, there will be protocols for this kind of issue cropping up.

This makes sense.

If people who have a trans identity pass the physical and mental fitness thresholds, they should be allowed to serve. If they don't, they shouldn't.

I hope that's what's happening here. Otherwise it's unnecessary discrimination and simply showing what real transphobia looks like.

Equally as important would be to make sure that any trans-identifying service personnel who are medically fit to serve are using the facilities that are designated for their sex, not their gender identity.

As others have said the click bait headline is likely to be an exaggeration of what will actually occur.

It's common for medical requirements to curtail military service.

My friend was thrown out of the university air squadron because of medical conditions that came to light during the medical. Another was thrown out because side she was allergic to a chemical used in the haz mat suits and we weren't going anywhere near the front line.

Not necessarily. Transgender soldiers/airmen & women CANNOT be deployed due to the transitioning medications they're on and that's categorically unfair on everyone else who has to leave their families

So there's 2 things going on here.
Since the US Military said it would fully fund transitioning, the amount of trans people in the services has drastically increased. People are actively applying for roles in the military purely to get access to drugs and surgery. It's incredibly expensive.
Also, there's a rule that to be operational ready you cannot be taking drugs on a daily basis as there's no guarantee that they will be able to get them to the frontline in an emergency situation. So anyone on hormone therapy isn't operational ready. Usually with someone when they're undergoing a treatment, they get a time limited certificate to not be deployable. When their treatment is over, back to operational readiness.
With trans people in the military, their drugs are for life. So technically none of them are, or will ever be, operational ready.
15,000 is a lot to have sweeping a broom around a hangar or sat twiddling their thumbs for not a lot in return.

I think that this instance does have to be handled with care. There are numerous issues to consider about this. On the surface it may be easy to react to say that is an over reaction however in combat as has been mentioned the medication issue is one issue.

But there are numerous real and everyday scenarios where this would be a major concern to treat someone who states they are female as if they are female.

Either the military would have to state that everyone has to be treated as their sex or they have to have a blanket ban. I actually cannot see a workable middle ground. So, if a male person joined and accepted that they were treated as male for every purpose that counts (physical and medical considerations, accommodation, toilets and showers, etc) then maybe that will work.

For instance. How would this work in the Navy when already there is limited space on board? No third options are available.

But I don’t believe that it is workable for any person in the military to be forced to use ‘preferred’ pronouns etc either. That in and of itself leaves a huge scope for abuse towards anyone who slips up.

Would any person who had a transgender identity agree to those conditions? Even more importantly, would the military be allowed to have those conditions?

Sorry took too long to write my response and ended up cross posting!

While perhaps not the best move when the US military is in a recruiting crisis, being on medication is usually a disqualifier from serving. Last time I checked you can't even take ADHD medication so why should there be an exemption for cross-sex hormones?

I thought it may be something like this.

As was said a gazillion times, the if the Democrats are so batshit on this, the pendulum WILL swing completely the other way. This is that pendulum.

Or it's just another click-baity headline like "transphobes trying to bar transgender people from sport". Haven't you seen enough of those to raise a slightly sceptical eyebrow about every alleged trans indignity?

Which usually boils down to "going back to being required to follow the same rules as everybody else".

Is it really transphobic because it will reduce the 3rd largest military by a tiny fraction?🙄

Of course not, it’s transphobic because it’s removing people because of their ideological belief of being transgender.

Personally I think there should be some restrictions in terms of their practice of being transgender, the same as other beliefs. It has to be reasonable but not too impactful. Paying thousands of dollars for someone to medically transition, the impact of someone going through medical transition on their unit, the impact of people being forced to comply to that belief, and the impact of males in female spaces in the military - an organisation with a horrendous sexual abuse record - all need to be considered.

As was said a gazillion times, the if the Democrats are so batshit on this, the pendulum WILL swing completely the other way. This is that pendulum.

Ok a little bit of information for those of you who don't understand how the military works.
ANYONE who requires ongoing daily medication (ie long-term not a course of antibiotics etc) are normally automatically discharged on medical ground due to the fact that in a time of war access to any medication cannot be guaranteed. This rule applies across the world to every medical condition especially those that require lifesaving medication such as insulin or according to TRAs Cross sex hormones.
The fact that trans people have been exempt from this rule is a travesty, and a clear case of an unfair two tier system that unjustly favours trans people over the average military personnel who can't keep their job if they need statins daily.
Add to that the fact that cross sex hormones and the puberty blockers that are usually prescribed with them (to block the trans persons own natural hormones) lead to long-term physical health issues all of which individually would normally render someone aa medically unfit for service, and that's before we talk about the mental health side of the trans equation (all mental health conditions usually come with an automatic medical discharge).
So basically being trans should be something that requires a medical discharge and prevent someone from enlisting in exactly the same way that being deaf, blind, diabetic or any number of other conditions and disabilities.
This is not about discrimination against trans people it's about ensuring that the same rules are applied evenly and fairly to all military personnel.
That said I'm not entirely convinced that Trump is doing this for the right reasons but it is the correct course of action