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

[FlowchartRequired]

Apologies if I missed this being discussed.

https://archive.ph/4zC91

"Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness
EXECUTIVE ORDER
January 27, 2025"

An extract:

"Recently, however, the Armed Forces have been afflicted with radical gender ideology to appease activists unconcerned with the requirements of military service like physical and mental health, selflessness, and unit cohesion. Longstanding Department of Defense (DoD) policy (DoD Instruction (DoDI) 6130.03) provides that it is the policy of the DoD to ensure that service members are “[f]ree of medical conditions or physical defects that may reasonably be expected to require excessive time lost from duty for necessary treatment or hospitalization.” As a result, many mental and physical health conditions are incompatible with active duty, from conditions that require substantial medication or medical treatment to bipolar and related disorders, eating disorders, suicidality, and prior psychiatric hospitalization.

Consistent with the military mission and longstanding DoD policy, expressing a false “gender identity” divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service. Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex 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 think it’s an excellent and well written EO - nearly as impressive as today’s Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation EO.

I believe by far the majority of trans people in the military do not serve in frontline active combat positions. They are in auxiliary/support/associated services roles.

That sounds bonkers, Hermione.

Ahhh. Weren’t allowed, sorry insomnia confusion. I had to reload my memory but I remember reading this a while back thinking it was a horrendous over reach.

I find it interesting that this focuses on the psychological aspects rather than the physical. I agree with both for combat zone roles, but not so much for non-combat roles.

Sorry @Helleofabore yes they WERENT allowed to cover up coming out of the showers etc. an important distinction!

About 1.2 cheers.
Totally fine with the military excluding fetishist men who want to wear pink silk panties under their fatigues and make everyone refer to him as she.

Wondering about the butch lesbian women who have been encouraged to think of themselves as male but who are primarily bloody good soldiers and don't really think about gender much. I don't think a change of president should force them out of the military.

Saying they aren't paying for hormones, surgery etc... fair. Making sure facilities are single sex... fair.

But he isn't doing this for women and children is he? I completely understand why people are worried about this ban being extended to LGB soldiers for example, using the same rhetoric.

I think this could have been tackled with ensuring that stringent mental and physical checks and tests were done on proposed new recruits to weed out the navel gazers of every gender identity (combined with the protections for single sex spaces raised in the earlier EO). People should not be joining up just to get medical cover, that's the opposite of having a fit and strong armed forces.

But yes, with the references to selflessness and humility, thus administration is clearly signalling they think many trans people are self-absorbed, and it's not an unreasonable view and definitely not a trait which is compatible with military service.

But he isn't doing this for women and children is he? I completely understand why people are worried about this ban being extended to LGB soldiers for example, using the same rhetoric.

But LG B soldiers are not asking the military to pay for cosmetic surgery, nor are they excluding themselves from active duty., while recovering from major cosmetic surgery procedures nor will they be taking unnecessary medication ., so why on earth would they be banned from serving?

I think there is a point to be discussed though about the expectation of pronoun use and what would happen with misgendering. And that obviously covers all personnel not just those who can be or are deployed into combat.

There are also issues around what physical limits people with transgender idenitities are held to - the sex they are or the sex they claim to be. Such as the USAF physical activity study. And if exceptions are made for those standards for that group of personnel, that could be claimed as discriminatory. And those base physical standards apply to acceptance of just about all new people into the military whatever their job. Whether they work in a warehouse or do end up being deployed.

And they also play competitive sport in the military, which all personnel are able to compete in. It is encouraged.

Another stream for instance is medical. Should a doctor or nurse be able to hide the sex they are in the military?

There then becomes an issue if a person has been accepted as their identified gender and then for reasons such as I have mentioned such as the regular physical testing, being on exercise as a junior where a much wider range of staff are practicing skills and drills where if a person will be outed if held to the correct sex physical standard etc. And many streams people expect to be restricted to base participate on exercise.

There are many reasons for that EO to cover all roles in the military.

Does it apply to women transing as men? Surely they do this to stop being predated by the men. So I'm not sure about that.

I think it's good that they won't have to shower with a man now.

There is no comparison that I can think of where military personnel who are homosexual or bisexual can or should be compared to someone with a transgender identity.

Where are they comparative?

But where are those women actively treated like they were male? Do you mean personally or do you mean administratively?

They are women. They perform their duties as women. They are very likely to be highly respected by their team, as women though. I don’t understand the comparison.

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.

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.

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 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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.