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."

My dad worked in the merchant navy in the 50s. All the catering stewards on all the ships were transvestites - this was well known as the way you could live your life as trans. They were totally male presenting at work, but off duty when the ship docked, they would dress up and go out.

Fascinating, but shows that there was Give and take. Not that a group of aggressive Trans do the Taking, while the rest of us have to do the Giving. I don't suppose the stewards were demanding to be called Stewardesses and have a uniform skirt provided.

Arbitrary subjective truth? I can’t see anything vague or subjective about the phrase:

“A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood”.

We all know what the words man and woman mean, despite the desperate attempts by transactivists to change the meanings of those words for the last five to ten years.

Whether you are a man or a woman is, in all cases where there is no DSD involved, entirely objective and can be observed or ascertained without difficulty.

Trump is merely reasserting reality.

There is also an argument as to a male soldiers finding it harder to tolerate a fellow female soldier being hurt (or raped)

Meh. IME it was the fellow military doing the raping

This is something I understand as well. Plus the cover up and never giving the women any support at all.

"a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life."

Pity that doesn't apply to the commander in chief and his crew, though. I know he's not a soldier but a bit more adherence to these principles would be nice.

I admit I did smile at that and wondered did the people/person who wrote the EO have a sense of humo[u]r. Or irony, or something.

@Brefugee, yes, sadly, the Irish army has been shown up for that too. But all the more reason to push for honor, truth and discipline as the things to aim for.

Apparently the armed forces are really popular with trans people in America, partly because it gives those living in conservative areas a way to be gender non conforming in a way they are scared to be at home, but also because of the medical treatment they could get for free - hormones, surgery - if they were diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

So a one-stop shop for all your expensive medical needs? Spiffing! And surely preferable to going down the prison route to obtain the same result.

The Spanish armed forces are a boon for men who say they are women, too!

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/spanish-soldiers-have-exposed-the-flaw-in-the-countrys-gender-self-id-law/

Not to mention the good salary, access to education programmes, sport opportunities and benefits including a pension - all without needing to expose yourself to danger.

If an adult male cannot accept their sex and is delusional enough to insist they are a woman-is it wise to arm them with an assault rifle?

The similar argument was if a man is delusional and/or suicidal, do you really want to share an intimate female only space with him?

There is a pilot in the TV interviews making the rounds about the lawsuit.
Probably the one that others mentioned but I can't find the post anymore. Pilot's name is "Emily Schilling".

According to this profile
https://www.aiaa.org/detail/person/cdr-emily-hawking-shilling-usn

the person has so much experience that it looks like a lot of it was gained while being a man.
(and it is annoying that the sidebar on this website links to "women at Sci-Tec".)

The executive order does not say anything about their pensions - regarding the lawsuit debates - it says that the secretary of defense will create more specialised orders / laws to convert this EO in tune with the law governing the military and should report back later.

I think that anyone who has a lot of valuable experience, both in combat and non-combat roles, should be given a choice before being dismissed: for combat roles, if they did not have surgery that impacts their health, if they are willing to phase out hormones and accept using the respective places (beds, showers...) for their biological sex and not force wrong pronouns from others, they should stay on.
For non-combat roles, it probably depends on the roles, but the rest as above. If they are willing to stay in their role without displaying or performing this belief and forcing it on others, I think that's ok.
As an aside, non-combat roles are not the same as non-deployable, in my understanding. There is a lot of crew that doesn't fight but is part of the operations, like analysts or medical staff.

Here is the actual file of the lawsuit and their argumentation
https://www.glad.org/cases/talbott-v-trump/
There is a pdf at the sidebar.