US executive order - relating to gender identity and the armed forces.

That a male general can then come out as trans and magically consume one part of the "quota" put aside for ir women - to use a crass military phrase - absolutely boils my piss.

Will Trump's EO put a stop to this in the US?

Women were not allowed to serve in HM Ships until 1990. The first ones to actually go to sea served on HMS Brilliant.

Maybe I think being Lesbian or Gay isn't grounded in reality either

I would think an erection at the thought of a beautiful young man would be pretty good evidence of the reality of a gay man's sexual orientation, whereas putting on a dress doesnt prove that a human male can change sex.

*one is identifying as male or female

"conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life. A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."

Does no one see this as problematic? It's not very well grounded

Who says what is truthful or not? I mean what is the underlying foundation upon which saying one is female or male is not truthful? It isn't being made clear. It isn't saying: in contrast to ones biological gamete selected sex. It reads as arbitrary. An opinion.

The humility and selflessness part is also arbitrary in the context in which it is written. Will a trans identifying person not also lay their life for their country as well as their fellow soldiers? It's questionable.

This is ambiguous and leaves room for other groups to be excluded.

After all. Maybe I think being Lesbian or Gay isn't grounded in reality either. Maybe I think their personal life isn't honest on the basis of their sex preferences. Maybe I think it's selfish for a Gay person to demand I 'honour' their sexuality.

It's problematic. Wholly deliberately vaguely put and unmoored from scientific facts as a backup.

I completely understand the problem but this has issues imo.

Bref, was it the type of vessels? (ie, where they did not have separate accommodation - small that the women's section might be) or was it just sexism at the time. I have a few ex-female naval officer friends and they were active at sea, but it was not the UK and the vessels could (barely) accommodate a women's section.

I am with you on the discrimination that homosexual and bisexual people and women experienced too.

I know this very well. However, it was also illegitimate discrimination. It was not legitimate. As I said, the two situations are not comparable in my mind. Are they comparable in your mind? If so, how outside of what you consider discriminatory treatment? I mean how specifically on a practical level of everyday working in the military.

But also has Trump indicated at all that he plans to target homosexual and bisexual people in any EO for the armed forces?

Ex-military. I wanted to join the navy but women couldn't do the job I wanted because they weren't allowed on ships.

So I went in the Army. Quite a few of my friends from back then are now receiving formal apologies gor being dishonourably discharged for being gay (against Queen's regulations) and are having their records amended. I am 100% behind this - was quite outspoken about discriminating against the LGB at the time. If the British army try to "come for the gays" again I will be on the barricades with them.

Now to the trans issue. As a member of the forces you want to know your team functions as it should. If exceptions have to be made - nope. Out with that person. I also want 3rd spaces and nobody should be forced to share what should be s single sex space with the opposite sex.

If you are not immediately "forward everywhere" - step aside for someone that is

(as an aside I am miffed and outraged that men get all the good jobs/promotions relatively easily, women have to be twice as good to even get a look-in. That a male general can then come out as trans and magically consume one part of the "quota" put aside for ir women - to use a crass military phrase - absolutely boils my piss.)

In the military, where chain of command is THE important thing.

Funnily enough, that never even occurred to me. I was imagining the peers and contemporaries of these people being forced to comply. Not their bosses!

The Coast Guard (nearly 75% of it uniformed civilian volunteers of the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary) is mentioned in two sections.

In addition there's this:

Sec. 5. Implementing the Revocation of Executive Order 14004. (a) Pursuant to the Executive Order of January 20, 2025 (Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions), Executive Order 14004 of January 25, 2021 (Enabling All Qualified Americans To Serve Their Country in Uniform), has been revoked. Accordingly, all policies, directives, and guidance issued pursuant to Executive Order 14004 shall be rescinded to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of this order.

Essentially if a situation had developed where the chain of command was being subverted by forcing senior officers to obey the gender claims of subordinates it is obvious something had to be done.

And this is quite something.

It is only a short while ago that homosexuality was seen as being deviant. The argue could be that it is an unnatural deviation since from a purely biological perspective homosexuality is evolutionary suicide. Not what I think but when it comes to Executive orders it is only the opinion of one person that matters.

This is the issue.

Why should anyone in a work situation be coerced under threat of any negative repercussions to use language that supports and prioritises one person’s philosophical belief about themselves over another person’s? Or their own?

And in military services there is also specific disciplinary policies that are different and involve different punishments.

Even if someone has great mental health, not taking any treatments, doesn’t demand to be accommodated in any way for the sex they claim to be not the sex they are, if they are still demanding that others use their stated language expectations, this does become an issue in any work place. But it is certainly an issue in the military.

When he says

"requirements of military service like physical and mental health, selflessness, and unit cohesion

conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle,"

Is he only referring to soldiers being deployed?

is the term soldier very specific?

There are also considerations about changing spaces and sleeping / living accommodations on bases, ships, on exercise and a most other places.

Many of these places may not have the ability to create third spaces.

And this situation impact all impact military personnel who are not potentially deployed.

I look forward to having someone with current serving experience explain which serving personnel could be reasonably excluded. And why they should receive special treatment compared to those who are categorised as available for deployment.

I’ve been reading a bit about this and cont seem to find out if a trans person who isn’t on any medication would be allowed to join on the assumption they are recruited in line with their biological sex ?

TBH I don’t disagree about the people on mental health medications (or indeed most medications) as if a combat situation should suddenly become dire a lack of medication may affect them severely ? I don’t just mean in terms of the illness being treated either.

One of my medications, while being off it would mean I am in a lot more pain the illness itself wouldn’t prevent me from functioning. But stopping the medication abruptly puts people at risk of seizures- even if they have never had one before.

I know there's always going to be some suspicion that Republicans will want to target the TQ+ and then move onto the LGB.

But I'm really not seeing that. The Senate has just voted to confirm Scott Bessent as Treasury Secretary, the highest ranking gay politician in American history.

And Trump himself was gay-friendly long before it was fashionable. Him dancing to YMCA would not surprise anyone who's followed his career long term.

This EO is good. He's really rolling them out and deconstructing gender ideology at quite a pace. High fives to the female lawyers who I'm assuming actually drafted the EOs.

To be fair - saying "you'll get a flaming from me" and the response "I accept your flame" is hardly really flaming is it?

It's like me saying to my kids that I'll rip their arm off and beat them to death with the soggy end - we both understand that we disagree on some aspect of their thought or deed, and I'm hand-waving at a hyperbolic response because we're friendly, and have a sense of humour and don't want to actually get into a discussion about that right now.

It really is like a reset.

It is remarkable to see language that is all about saying that it is not ok to force others to act as if someone’s philosophical belief is materially real.

Most people know that in a work environment being forced to call a man she, him using female facilities, or taking a ton of time off for cosmetic surgery and the company paying for it, and possibly taking time out during the day for dilation, etc, is unacceptable. Particularly because it's based on an ideological position that has no basis in reality.

But it's interesting that this EO has been very specific as to why that won't work in the military.

requirements of military service like physical and mental health, selflessness, and unit cohesion

conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life. A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."

I'm realising how bloody unusual it is to see the focus shift from pandering to this ideology under the threat of being discriminatory, to 'this is what the job is and these are the skills required to do it'.

I can envisage a lot of serving trans military personnel suddenly having an epiphany and deciding they are no longer trans.

As we know most trans people do not take cross sex hormones or have surgery so all that is required is a change of clothes and deciding to live as their natal sex rather than acquired gender.

I do hope that this forces a clear distinction between LGB and TQ. Sadly in the US I can see an EO regarding LGB is a possibility. I just hope I am wrong.

I can understand that there may be fear for returning to exclusion of homosexual or bisexual people. However, there was not a legitimate reason for excluding that group of people.

Has Trump said he would exclude homosexual or bisexual people? Or is it fear mongering leveraging other groups?

I think people think they're the same because of the forced teaming, and so it might well be seen as anti-LGB. Also, you never know how far the republicans will go unfortunately.

The yahoo article suggests that the order will mean serving trans people will lose retirement benefits and access to the GI Education Bill. Does anyone know more about that?

Seems a bit off to take away someone's pension for doing something that was approved at the time. But not sure how true that is.