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."

This is the issue.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.)

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?

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.

"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.

*one is identifying as male or female

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.

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

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?

But where does a person's sexual orientation impact ability to do military duties?

What is the issue with 'honouring' their sexual orientation? What impact does that person's sexual orientation have on you (generally)? Whether you believe they are homosexual or bisexual or heterosexual, that is their personal reality and it is not supported by anyone else's validation.

I do think that the wording of this EO seems to be less strong than the EO produced with May Mailman. I agree but I don't think that your analogy works, as in I am not sure if it can be extrapolated to include other groups.

Claiming you're the opposite sex clearly isn't truthful.

Claiming you're attracted to your own sex, when you're dating your own sex, clearly is.

Thank you.

It's not me who doesn't believe this.

But ok. Lets just trust that this deliberately ambiguous language will only ever applied to trans identifying people.

I don't see it ambiguous. Is it the word truthful?

How could someone who is gay be accused of lying about being gay?

And why would it matter to anyone?

I think though it is good to have the discussion as to how it could be misapplied and why and whether there is any intention to extend this EO or to create another EO separately that will exclude LGB people.

I do think interrogating how it could in practical terms, not vague terms, is a very worthwhile exercise.

But I don't understand how you are applying it to sexual orientation. Edit: it reads very clear that it is relating to gender identity, is there any wiggle room to extend this EO?

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

it is though. It's verifiable.

Maybe I think their personal life isn't honest on the basis of their sex preferences

Again, the honesty is provable.

Maybe I think it's selfish for a Gay person to demand I 'honour' their sexuality.

I'm not sure what that would constitute, to be honest.

I am not sure if it can be extrapolated to include other groups.

Fair enough.

I disagree though. After all, as long as you're not taking cross sex hormones being trans identifying doesn't affect your military ability either, does it? Yet mental health and an arbitrary composite truthfulness of existence is being used as an argument for exclusion here. So why can't it be used in other contexts?

By the way mental health has been used as an argument against gay and lesbian people in the past. Not that long ago.

And that is precisely the conversation that was had, what 50 years ago, and still is going on in some countries.

Do you have stats for this ? I just saw an interview with a trans woman who is a fighter pilot of over 15 years . You wouldn’t want to lose the experience and money invested which is what Trump is suggesting . That would be a lot of talent wasted .

Yes, it does though.

Some of which are directly mentioned in the EO.

Truly?

Maybe I spend too much time on the internet in the wrong places for you to see such attitudes as impossible. Especially in a right leaning, conservative ultra-religious funded administration.

There is nothing in the way language is being employed in this EO to rejoice over. Just because it appears to be a victory against the nonsense that has made women's lives (and objectively their own lives) incredibly difficult doesn't mean it's automatically great. It isn't detailed enough. It is couched in subjective language and even I can see why some trans people will have issues with it.