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

[Darnsquirrels]

US Supreme Court allows Trump military transgender ban www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46963426

I think it's fair. Nobody has a right to join. There are asthmatics and diabetics who would love the opportunity to serve, and who could probably contribute much more; as groups they have far fewer co-morbid MH issues and both asthma and diabetes can be well-managed.
But if the military doesn't want to be liable for an individual who will have medical needs on a tour of duty that can't be met, then they have to exclude people who have ongoing medication needs, and that would include trans people.
The other two complicating factors for the US are that service means GI Bill entitlement to financial assistance with education (serve a few years and get a college degree paid for) and healthcare (VA hospitals etc).
In the US both university and hospital bills can be tens if not hundreds of thousands so being able to serve becomes more appealing. Although the arguments are always about patriotism and defending one's country, the reality is the US military is so vast and with so many branches that active service in deployment is the exception rather than the rule.

Is this a ban on anyone expressing a different gender role with no associated hormones or medications?

Or is it a ban on anyone who has significant health and medication needs?

Because if it’s the latter it is justified. There are strict conditions of health to be met for the US military - a waiver can’t be created for anyone because they’re trans. The rules should apply equally to all.

If x degree of medication regime is required, then you're out, regardless of what it’s for.

The court lifted the stay on the ban while lawsuits work through the lower courts.

It can be enforced for now.

I'm not in favor of an outright ban, and if a person serves, I am in complete favor of them getting the benefits promised them. Bennies are there to persuade people to serve.

the ban shouldn’t be on ‘identity as transgender.’ It should be on ‘requirements for medication/treatment while serving.’

If someone identifies as trans, has no medication needs and is in every other way able to meet serving criteria they should serve. If they don’t meet medical criteria they shouldn’t

Yes. Elizabeth I had it right:

I would not open windows into men's souls.

(Is that the opposite of Layla Moran?)

I disagree with the ban as I believe it is a typical right wing aversion/transphobia issue. I don’t believe the medical thing is the actual reason it’s being done as many roles in the military do allow people with various disabilities/ medication requirements to serve.

The main Issue for me is the same as for eg changing facilities and other single sex accommodation. Military should allow trans identified individuals, but keep sex, not gender, segregation when appropriate (showering etc). Somehow I don’t think either the right or left in the US would support my opinion...

What was the edit?

Actually never mind. If this is accurate I might support this policy (since it’s not a ban).

He said the new policy would make exceptions for several hundred transgender people already serving openly or willing to serve "in their biological sex".

Although I think that it should only be relavent when privacy is an issue (eg trans people serving should be allowed to wear the uniform of their choice, but should not be showering with opposite sex).

I agree - being trans should not be a disqualifier - not being medication dependent/being physically fit to serve should be the criteria, evenly applied to all comers.

This is one of the issues that really demonstrates how radfems are not the same as US conservatives.

This is the kind of transrights I used to think people were arguing for, and agreed with (still do).
Being able to sue a woman for refusing to wax your lady balls? Nope.

If someone identifies as trans, has no medication needs and is in every other way able to meet serving criteria they should serve. If they don’t meet medical criteria they shouldn’t

Absolutely spot on.

The policy has been amended from Trumps idiotic blanket 'policy by tweet'..

Gen Mattis said the new policy would make exceptions for several hundred transgender people already serving openly or willing to serve "in their biological sex".

The above is an important distinction and appears to protect serving personnel although the BBC reality check does say there are 10,790?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40950946

10790 transgender people in the miltary at mid 2017?

Sorry - my last sentence cropped

SanFranBear the US military is nearly 2 million strong if you include reservists, so that number seems about reasonable.

Agreed - so wonder where the several hundred transgender people already serving openly came from as that seems very low.

If someone identifies as trans, has no medication needs and is in every other way able to meet serving criteria they should serve. If they don’t meet medical criteria they shouldn’t

Agree with this. Nobody should be banned on identity alone.

Having said that the insistence that trans people should not be considered unfit to serve is at odds with the narrative that is pushed about the high suicidal rate and severe mental health issues trans people suffer as a very oppressed and marginalised group.

I'm not sure you can have it both ways without questions being raised.

My point being that whilst the amendment does seem to protect those serving personnel, that extremely low number implies there are approx 10k trans members of the military who are not protected? Why would that be unless it refers to the point made about medical costs.. but the actual cost is miniscule in the whole military budget ($716 billion in 2018) so this make a no sense either.

I'm inclined to agree with FWRLurker - this stems from bigotry.

10,000 in 2,000,000 is 0.5% which fits in well with the percentage figures often suggested for Western countries including the US.

If someone identifies as trans, has no medication needs and is in every other way able to meet serving criteria they should serve

I'm not sure I do agree with this for a couple of reasons:

1. I'm not sure if there are single sex spaces in the military, but if there are it would massively complicate things have a trans person there who would need to have facilities provided just for their needs.

2. If a man believes that they are a woman or vv are they psychologically suitable to be serving?

I've personally served with transgender people in the military and think this ban is ridiculous. If someone can meet the physical requirements they should be eligible. I'd be far more worried about the US military personnel deployed whilst prescribed anti-psychotic drugs than trans. Or the fact that they regularly prescribe uppers and downers to help personnel cope with the shift work; including pilots. If men and women can now serve on the frontline, then why not trans?

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?

itsall these are good points. I would say that ‘is able to meet all serving criteria’ would include using facilities of birth sex - ie if a serviceman/woman was able to do the job with no special treatment, and pass all physical and psych bars, they should serve.

No special treatment, no waivers, clean mental and physical bill of health - you serve. Any medication that anyone else wouldn’t be allowed, any demands to inconvenience other troops (Sanitary facilities) and you don’t.

As long as medical requirements are met, I don't see how it can possibly be justifiable to exclude trans people from the military, or from any other job.

Exclusions on the basis of sex are occasionally necessary and proportional. There's no good reason to exclude anyone on the basis of trans status.

But presumably no one IS being excluded purely because they're trans, but solely on whether or not their trans treatment would make them undeployable.

Jennifer Pritzker is not going to be happy about this....they'll be looking to overturn this decision

I recall "Zoe" the ex-navy seal who threatened Ben Shapiro in a neck hold on TV. I wouldn't want them in any women's unit.

I don't want to deny people rights however keeping things as sex-based is essential. So like Corp Klinger, wear a dress by all means, as a man