[maz]

Trump: U.S. military won’t allow transgender people ‘to serve in any capacity’

He announced it on Twitter, but nothing appears to be official policy as of yet. Honestly, even if this is just a logical, pragmatic measure, I don't even know if the ban is legal since the precedent of not banning someone because they pretend to be something they aren't or because of the genitalia they prefer.

Either way, this signals a genuine push back towards this trans nonsense, which I believe is what a lot of voters really wanted.

President Trump announced on Wednesday morning that the U.S. military would not “accept or allow” any transgender service members.

In a series of tweets, the commander in chief argued that too much is at stake in the military’s current operations for it to be “burdened” by the medical costs of transgender people or the “disruption” he says transgender service members would cause.

The content of Trump’s statement is at odds with the current Department of Defense policy that had been crafted with Armed Services leadership, as well as medical and personnel experts.

From the Defense Department website:

“ “Transgender service members may serve openly. They may not be discharged or separated from the military solely on the basis of their gender identity.

As with other major presidential announcements from Trump on Twitter, there will likely be extraordinary backlash to this statement from liberal and moderate circles.”




When contacted by Yahoo News, a Pentagon spokesperson said, “Right now we are referring all questions on the tweets to the White House.” Yahoo News reached out to the White House for comment.

Though Trump’s announcement may feel sudden, there have been rumblings that some officers in the military were not comfortable with the current policy.

Earlier this month, for instance, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis announced that there would be a six-month delay in implementing recruitment policies for transgender Americans so that military chiefs could determine how they would affect the force’s “readiness or lethality.”

As expected, backlash to Trump’s announcement was swift.

GLAAD, a prominent LGBTQ advocacy organization, condemned the ban on transgender soldiers as part of “the full-scale attack on LGBTQ Americans by the Trump Administration.”

“President Trump today issued a direct attack on transgender Americans, and his administration will stop at nothing to implement its anti-LGBTQ ideology within our government — even if it means denying some of our bravest Americans the right to serve and protect our nation,” Sarah Kate Ellis, the president and CEO of GLAAD, said in a statement. “Today further exposed President Trump’s overall goal to erase LGBTQ Americans from this nation. Trump has never been a friend to LGBTQ Americans, and this action couldn’t make that any more clear.”

David Dinielli, the deputy legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit specializing in civil rights, released the following statement:

“Thousands upon thousands of transgender people have served and are serving this country with honor and courage. But while these brave men and women risk their lives for all of us, in every corner of the world, 24 hours a day, President Trump tweets out a disgraceful, discriminatory policy – backed by the country’s most extreme anti-LGBT hate groups – that will do nothing to make anyone safer. This policy only serves to throw fuel on the fire of hatred and fear, making an already-vulnerable population even more vulnerable.”

Joshua Block, the senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBT & HIV project, called Trump’s action “outrageous and desperate.” He said transgender service members deserve better than a commander-in-chief who “rejects their basic humanity.”

“Let us be clear. This has been studied extensively, and the consensus is clear: There are no cost or military readiness drawbacks associated with allowing trans people to fight for their country,” Block said. “The president is trying to score cheap political points on the backs of military personnel who have put their lives on the line for their country.”

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., who has a transgender son, criticized the Trump administration in February for revoking federal guidelines that protected transgender students from discrimination. She spoke out against Trump’s most recent statement as well.

Before becoming Trump’s running mate, Vice President Mike Pence was perhaps best known for his opposition to LGBT rights as governor of Indiana. He was embroiled in a national controversy after signing the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” in March 2015. According to Pence, the law prohibited any government entity from “substantially burdening” someone’s right to exercise his or her religion. But critics accused Pence of legalizing discrimination against LGBT individuals, something he denied. But after tremendous pushback, Pence signed additional legislation the following month to clarify that the bill prohibits discrimination.

On Tuesday, Foreign Press reported that Pence and his staff have been quietly working to undo the Defense Department’s year-old policy of covering medical expenses for procedures for transitioning service members.

[Pants-of-dog]

While I think Trump is being transphobic, I applaud the reduction in enlisted personnel.

I hope Trump and his ilk ban everyone from the US armed forces.

[Frollein]

Well, do they let people with other mental illnesses serve in the military? No? There's your precedent.

[Drlee]

I am ambivalent about this. I could not make a good argument for allowing trans individuals into the military except for that they want to join.

But we have to face the facts. Gender reassignment is not something easy or to be taken lightly. It carries with it very considerable risk. (Not to mention expense.)

Trans people take powerful steroids and the surgery dramatically alters their natural hormone levels. They face:

As part of the cross-gender transition, transgender people may take hormones in order to achieve masculine or feminine effects. Those hormones carry risks:

Low or high blood pressure

Blood clots

Dehydration and electrolyte imbalance

Liver damage

Increased cancer risk

Psychiatric problems

Any one of these (except cancer risk) would disqualify someone from military service in the first place.

One must consider the nature of health care not only distinct from civilian health care but also that available in combat. Does a trans soldier carry his/her steroids and other medication into combat? What happens if combat prevents them from getting it. What if they are captured?

Then there is this and it is a big deal. The Federal Government is responsible for all medical conditions acquired during military service and many of those preexisting if the individual is accepted for military service. So. The trans soldier, later in life, could assert that the steroid drugs that he got while on active duty led to his liver damage or cancer. This would qualify the individual for a very expensive pension at government expense and compel the government to provide treatment for life. This is not to be ignored. The data are quite good on these risks.

If I was the decision maker I would stop there and not allow trans people to join. I would certainly not allow those on active duty to transition at government expense. And do we give them the months off that a complete transition with surgery would take? Is that in the best interests of the American people or consistent with the readiness levels required of the military? I would offer them a discharge so that they can transition if they like.

The military is not a tool for social reform. It is not the poster child for civil rights. It can do some things but it can't do all things. In the end its job is to travel to far off lands, find new and interesting people, and kill them. This is, to say the least, an unusual job and one that frequently calls for the suspending of the niceties of modern society.

Finally there is this. I almost don't want to mention it because the pea-brains will grab onto it and ignore the far better argument that I have already made... Like it or not the military relies on young populations and communal living. There are obvious disruptions inherent in manifesting even the more accepted homosexual orientation. The transitioning transgender person is a problem writ large. With whom do they live and when? We are not talking about housing them in a population as accepting as all most of us here on POFO are. We are asking the 18 year old devout Muslim private soldier to share a room with a transsexual. So we allow choice? Think about that. Think about the close quarters on a Navy ship or submarine.

I have nothing against transsexuals. They can do what they like. At least as long as they are not in the military causing far more problems than they are worth.

[Stormsmith]

On health issues: the US is moving towards a single payer system, so conceivably, all transgender may be eligible for care. As for carrying medical gear into battle, that's an issue for anyone whether it's birth control or glasses.

I'd be inclined to turn away from this policy. You're engaged with a number of countries, and it would be a shame to lose an interpreter, a medical specialist, a computer programmer, a sniper that you need over this issue. If there is a problem, deal with it. Keep an eye on other countries and pick the sanest way forward when there's more data to adjudicate the situation.

[Rugoz]

As long as they can do the job who gives a shit.

Trump appealing to his right-wing snowflakes.

It can do some things but it can't do all things. In the end its job is to travel to far off lands, find new and interesting people, and kill them. This is, to say the least, an unusual job and one that frequently calls for the suspending of the niceties of modern society.

Oh please, the tooth-to-tail ratio of the US military is 1:3 or something like that.

[Zagadka]

As long as we can spend a few orders of magnitude more on Viagra and Cialis!

[Albert]

This is good news, I hope Trump can follow this with official action in the future. The "Progressive" madness has to be stopped and reversed.

[B0ycey]

If a person can fulfil the training, what does it matter what their gender is? This seems a strange move from Trump. What has he to gain? I doubt many transexual people would want to join the Army. Of those not all would get through training. So he's going to piss off the LGBT community to prevent maybe one person joining the Army a year. Nice.

[The Immortal Goon]

This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States. And many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years and not paying in those past years. Over the last eight years, the United States spent more on defense than all other NATO countries combined. If all NATO members had spent just 2 percent of their GDP on defense last year, we would have had another $119 billion for our collective defense and for the financing of additional NATO reserves.

Trump when he sees a way to try and connect with the military now:



Yes, it's perhaps unfair to use the picture—but it's all about optics instead of any kind of substance.

Trump is correct to point out that the United States spends so much on the military that her allies don't have to do so. They can instead put money that would have been spent on their militaries into their citizens and the US is stuck holding the bill like suckers.

Despite this, Trump proposed more military spending, while taking funding away from things that help American civilians:

The Trump administration's new budget blueprint aims to quantify the president's nationalistic agenda in dollars and cents. The plan, released Thursday morning, calls for significant increases in military and border-security spending, along with corresponding cuts in many other parts of the government.

The blueprint was designed to "send a message to our allies and our potential adversaries that this is a strong-power administration," Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney explained on Wednesday as he previewed the document in a briefing with reporters.

It also sends a clear message domestically: This administration is willing to make drastic, controversial cuts to fund that "strong-power" message. That includes slashing spending on foreign aid and the environment, as well as long-standing programs aimed at boosting the arts and humanities, as well as the fortunes of the most vulnerable Americans.

But, like a lot of what a snakesoil salesman peddles, it was all garbage in reality:

President Trump’s long touted promises for more robust military spending fell short in his first government-wide budget, which disappointed Democrats and Republicans alike, according to defense analysts and consultants.

The fiscal 2018 budget, released Tuesday, calls for $603 billion in the base budget for defense and national security issues, about $54 billion above a ceiling set by the 2011 Budget Control Act, but only $18 billion more than was planned for this year by President Obama.

...Experts say the $18 billion extra will do little to help bolster Trump’s campaign trail promises to “avoid and prevent conflict through our unquestioned military strength.”

Among his pledges, Trump included a 350-ship Navy, a 540,000 active duty Army force, and dozens of new fighter aircraft for the Air Force. Such new military spending requires roughly $80 billion to $90 billion a year, according to experts.

In comparison, Trump's budget only promises funds to keep the Army at 476,000 active duty soldiers, plans for eight new ships - the same number Obama forecast - and also falls short on extra equipment.

"It was mildly surprising that the Defense Department didn’t buy any new equipment. They chose to put it all in operations and personnel and maintenance," said retired Army Lt. Gen. Thomas Spoehr of the conservative Heritage Foundation. "I thought there would be more of a mix, honestly."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) slammed the budget as inadequate and "dead on arrival” after its release.

McCain, along with his House counterpart Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), has vocalized the need for $640 billion in spending for fiscal year 2018.

And House Armed Services Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said that "despite having extra time to prepare because he delivered the budget some three months later than legally required, the president has not given us a solid document on which one can plan for the national defense."

Defense industry insiders have said Trump’s “historic” increase looks just like another Obama defense budget request. If passed, the budget would only represent the ninth largest increase for the Pentagon in the past 40 years, according to Todd Harrison, a defense expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

So a limp-dick flop, as always.

I would suspect that kicking trans soldiers was a way to appeal to his base after he proved to be completely incompetent at everything else he promised. And it seems to be working as the Trumpites have continued to cravenly lick his hands in tribute to his failure.

The US continues to flip the bill, the citizens get even less, the military doesn't get anything, but the morons can continue to have their precious snowflake feelings stoked.

[Albert]

TIG cant wait to join the "Man Brigade" with all his transgender buddies and furies. As I see.

[The Immortal Goon]

TIG cant wait to join the "Man Brigade" with all his transgender buddies and furies. As I see.

Obviously you can't attack the substance of my post because I'm right.

[Albert]

[Zag Edit: Rule 2]

[The Immortal Goon]

Part of the reason one goes to political forums, I would imagine, is to check work.

I would, in reality, be curious to know about whether or not my logic works.

It has been pointed out more than once that Trump is something of a manipulator when it comes to this kind of thing. Based on past precedence, and how his military budget has worked out, this seems logical enough.

I might also point out that Trump, apparently, feels like he's in trouble.

Trump is trying to get rid of his own Justice Department head.

Junior and Manafort are being tied to trouble.

Spicer bailed.

Rumors are that Tillerson is thinking of leaving like a rat from a sinking ship.

Now is a pretty good time to lob a ball that might distract a lot of people—not just from his complete failure as Commander-In-Chief, but his failure at creating and running a presidential administration.

[maz]

As long as we can spend a few orders of magnitude more on Viagra and Cialis!

I have seen this talking point all over my Twitter timeline, that the US military spends more on erectile disfuntion treatments than sex reassignment treatments and procedures. And Washington Post did a story on it.

I have seen the study and its alleged findings, I thinks it is a bit of twisting the facts. I find it hard to believe that any soldiers under the age of 35 needing or even wanting drugs to get it up. They are too busy being soldiers so the bulk of it can't be for the troops.

The Pentagon spent only about $500,000, be the DoD spent a total of about $84 million on the drugs, but these are probably for all the older, non-active members of the DoD, and a lot of them may even be using them for heart related issues.

That alone makes the talking point irrelevant. Even if it was relevant to active military, forcing soldiers to serve next to soldiers with need Viagra to get it up is nowhere close to forcing soldiers to serve with soldiers who are believe that they were born a different sex or some new Facebook/Tumblr gender and are pretending to be that.

Trump appealing to his right-wing snowflakes.

That is partly true. President Trump is signaling to his base and it's working. He's also signaling to other people who think the transgender issue has gone too far too fast, which I would guess is like 75% of America.

But I think Trump is doing this on behalf of the top brass, who have expressed concern over trans issues. I heard a clip of a general talking about it last month but I can't find it now. If I can find it I will post it because it will bring a lot of context to this decision.

[Albert]

It seem like, Sessions dropped the ball on many important issues. I dont blame Trump for wanting to fire him. As for Trump being in trouble, if you have not noticed he has been besieged by the establishment ever since he won the election, even before he took office this whole Russiagate thing was already started by Obama admin.

I would not be surprised Trump will get impeached at some point or another, I'm surprised he is still alive tbh. At the end if he is forced out of office this will damage credibility to democratic institutions and to the system of the republic as a whole. At this point it is better to keep him in power then not. Because Trump is not some sort of establishment stooge Bill that got his dick sucked under the presidential desk, he represents much more.

[The Immortal Goon]

As for Trump being in trouble, if you have not noticed he has been besieged by the establishment ever since he won the election, even before he took office this whole Russiagate thing was already started by Obama admin.

Then you concede that this is probably a big distraction because of his failure as Commander-In-Chief, and his failure as president—whatever the cause.

That is partly true. President Trump is signaling to his base and it's working.

Exactly. It doesn't matter that this effects very little, or that he's been a complete failure on other issues (like funding the military)—it comes down to the precious feels of his followers. Who, let's be honest, are devoted to Trump because of feelings instead of facts.

This is not to say that parliamentary politics regularly does otherwise. It is not a dumb move on Trump's part in this respect.

But let's be honest about this if we're going to chat about it.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Of course they shouldn't server in the military
Who would want to share a room with some weirdo who pretends to be something that he isn't?

[anarchist23]

Did Trump know what LGTB mean?

[Zagadka]

Of course they shouldn't server in the military
Who would want to share a room with some weirdo who pretends to be something that he isn't?

Yea, that would be so painful for you. How can you live with that kind of stress!