Trump: transgender people will be banned from U.S. military

Post Reply New Topic

There's speculation in the media – even here – about why this ban was announced so suddenly.

One of the prevailing theories is that President Trump is trying to shore up support in Congress for a bill to deliver a some of his campaign promises, including funding the border wall with Mexico. A group of congressional Republicans threatened to derail the bill if military funding for gender-reassignment surgeries wasn't withdrawn, which they consider a waste of taxpayer money. So they consulted with President Trump, who unexpectedly announced a ban on all transgender personnel serving in the military in any capacity.

Just a theory doing the rounds so far although it at least explains the sudden timing of such a ban, without waiting for the Pentagon's investigation on how allowing transgender personnel to enlist and serve affects military capability and cohesion, which was expected to be released later this year.

Personally I wonder if we'll see a "softening" of the ban at some point, allowing transgender personnel to continue serving but only if the military doesn't have to fund gender-reassignment surgeries ... at least until the Pentagon report is released. Sounds like a typical corporate negotiation tactic to me.

He sent a tweet, not an executive order, so it's not officially anything aside from another distraction from stalled Trumpcare, ongoing Russia probe, and especially the unexpected blow back he received from southerners by going after Jeff Sessions for carrying out his official duty. The rule with Trump is shaking out to be: don't believe anything he says until it's an official executive order.

Defense Department to Trump on transgender ban: Not so fast

I mean its kind of no **** right that Tweets aren't literal executive orders ?

First let me say, the military does not reject transgendered individuals. It will reject transexuals. These are people who have undergone some type of sex "reassignment" surgery and/or are typically on hormone therapy. I personally don't have any moral issues with transexuals serving in the military, though it does raise some questions, for example...

1. If transexual individuals who require regular hormone therapy are permitted into the military, then why should people who require regular medication for other conditions be excluded? For example, people with hypothyroidism can't join the military. This is an easy to treat condition that merely requires the person take replacement thyroid hormone everyday, and have a blood test every few months. So if transexuals are permitted to join the military, people with hypothyroidism, and a number of other disorders that require medication should be permitted to join the military.

2. While there are plenty of positions in the military that don't require physical strength, it's definitely an asset when it comes to defense of the nation, and sometimes people in the military find themselves in combat situations whether they are a combat soldier or not. Because of this, the military has strength and fitness requirements for both males and females. Females obviously have less strength than males, and are banned from most combat positions because of this, though they still sometimes see combat. While female soldiers often serve honorably, and are just as integral to the success of the military as anyone, that they have less strength is not optimal. So the question is, being that stronger is better than being weaker in the military, is it unethical for someone who was born male (and stronger), and serving in the military, to intentionally weaken themselves with testosterone blockers in pursuit of a personal agenda, at the potential expense of the military's success in a combat theater?

2b. There is a sub question to the above, which I've often thought about, which is, what is the logic of rejecting weak males who don't meet male physical fitness requirements but who meet female physical fitness requirements?

2c. And this brings us to yet another question. Why are female soldiers not required to virilize themselves with testosterone if doing so would improve the performance of the military? I know the answer to this but I thought I would put the question out there anyway. The answer is two fold. First, it goes against social norms. And second, testosterone is actually expensive. The gel form can run $200 to $600 for a month supply. It would cost the military almost $1 billion dollars per year.

3. People on hormone therapy will go through withdrawal if there is an interruption in access to the hormones, and this can compromise the person's ability to function. Would it be ethical for the military to send an individual who relies on regular administration of exogenous hormones into a combat situation where the person may lose access to those hormones?

If the reason for this decision truly is "cost", I can think of a better way to reduce the U.S. military budget - just do what other maritime nations are doing, and have done, and scrap the carrier fleet. Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks to the latest Russian and Chinese missile and submarine technologies, and they are only ever used to murder people in small, defenceless nations in Africa and the Middle East that for reasons of convenience the U.S. Government has deemed to be holders of "weapons of mass destruction", or "supporters of terrorism", or some other such crappy BS.