Slashdot Mirror


Donald Trump Says US Military Will Not Allow Transgender People To Serve (theguardian.com)

Donald Trump said on Wednesday he would not allow transgender individuals to serve in the US military in any capacity. From a report: The US president tweeted: "After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow ... transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military." He added: "Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming ... victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail." Trump's decision marks a sharp reversal of a policy initiated under Barack Obama, in which the Pentagon ended a longtime ban on transgender people from serving openly in the military. As a candidate, Trump cast himself as a supporter of LGBT rights and indicated he would uphold certain Obama-era policies designed to protect transgender people.

28 of 904 comments (clear)

  1. After consultation with "my Generals"... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Full body shiver.

    1. Re:After consultation with "my Generals"... by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nahh, it's OK, just think of it as "mit meinen Generalen".

      Oh.

    2. Re:After consultation with "my Generals"... by haruchai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Full body shiver.

      Huh? The president is the commander in chief, and the military generals are in a real sense "his". This is civilian control of the military. The military is not some 4th branch of government on a par with the legislative and judicial branches.

      If Obama had ever said that, Lou Dobbs would have driven a car bomb through the White House gates

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    3. Re:After consultation with "my Generals"... by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Informative

      Even Franklin Fucking Delano Roosevelt never had the balls to refer to them as "my Generals".

      A little history would be apropos, here.

      FDR likely referred to the SCOTUS as "his court" after threatening to expand the number of justices and pack the court with "his justices" because the SCOTUS initially viewed provisions of Social Security as unconstitutional. At least the Republicans aren't talking about raising the number of SCOTUS justices and packing the bench to advance their agendas.

      Oh, and just as an additional FYI, Woodrow Wilson racially-segregated the US military when it was not racially segregated at that time.

      And both POTUS's sent ethnic Germans, Japanese, and more living in the US to camps during WW1 & WW2 and forced them to surrender all their property.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    4. Re:After consultation with "my Generals"... by superwiz · · Score: 5, Informative

      The President is the commander-in-chief. So the generals of the US armed forces are his generals.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  2. PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I personally know a former Marine. He loved serving. He was an NCO, a sargeant. He's one of these disciplined and athletic guys who actually likes all the running and training. He spoke so fondly of it that I asked him why he would have left. He told me that the political correctness was just becoming ridiculous. The female Marines just didn't have the physical performance capabilities of the males (the best among them were about equal to the average male, and those were exceptional) - this is the same reason sports and the Olympics have Men's and Women's events. It's just the nature of the sexes and beyond our control. The top brass kept trying to ignore these differences, to the point that it was harming combat effectiveness in many situations. Of course, in a military environment you do what you're told and you shut your mouth about it, so he and other NCOs had no voice and no ability to protest. Eventually he got tired of it so when his term of service was up, he got out. He told me he was not the only one, not by far. Politics was not why he signed up.

    People already generally have a hard time being rational about real, measurable physical strength/performance differences between men and women. And those can easily be demonstrated and proven. The whole LGBT topic tends to cause even more extreme irrational reactions and controversy. You really don't want this kind of bickering in a military unit where distractions and small mistakes get people killed. It's the one place you can't afford it.

    There's plenty of things Trump has said and done that I don't like. This time though, I think he's making the right call and probably knows he's going to take a lot of outrage for it. I can respect that whether I like the guy or not.

    1. Re:PC by joe_frisch · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Its an interesting question. Women are on average not as strong as men and they are on average smaller. so fighter planes designed for women pilots would be more efficient. Should our next generation military aircraft and other roles that don't require physical strength be optimized for women, while roles that require physical strength are optimized for men.

  3. Re:It makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The military doesn't need to be at the forefront of social change. There is nothing wrong with the military lagging, and by doing so in minimizes internal disruption. Heck, greater society is still fighting bathroom policy, the military has other stuff to occupy its time.

  4. Re:No surprise. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Funny

    You want to know why Trump one?

    I suspect it is because there are people who aren't intelligent enough to know how to spell "won", a three-letter word?

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  5. Re:This is what WINNING looks like! by mark-t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even accepting your so-called logic, and further even accepting that US enemies are "not afraid of girly men", there would not be any way in practice to notice any so-called "girliness", because at least generally speaking, the soldiers of opposing sides do not routinely socialize with eachother enough to know them well enough to associate such traits to them. There is no objective standard by which anyone can say that your notion is acceptable... I can't even call it an argument, it is so abysmally flawed.

  6. Re:Well, that is support by Lord+Kano · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can 0.3-0.6% of the population really do anything "in droves"?

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  7. I couldn't join...why should they? by freak0fnature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was rejected for mild scoliosis....I would think being born with the wrong genitals would be a more severe condition than that. I require no treatment and rarely ever even feel discomfort...compared to someone who will require treatment for the rest of their lives.

  8. Re:GOOD! by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The purpose of the military, is to break things and kill people. It needs to be a tight cohesive bunch, not with a bunch of "my gender of the week" types.

    I don't know why you think someone having a different gender identity than their assigned at birth identity somehow must make them "weak." Heck, for that matter, even if you did have someone whose gender identity changed every week as you suggest, I don't see why that would them have trouble killing people or being part of a cohesive fighting force.

    The military should be EXEMPT from all of this political correctness garbage, which, is set up on purpose, to reduce morality, and destroy the best fighting force in the world.

    Or this is about people who genuinely want the right to fight for their country. You appear to be jumping from the fact that you disagree with other people to concluding that they must have nefarious goals. Incidentally, it is worth noting that the exact same arguments you are making now have now been made twice before. They were first made when we desegregated the military to have black and white people in the same units. This argument was again made only a few years ago when we let gays and lesbians openly serve. Why is it different this time?

  9. Re:Social Experiments by fropenn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's the experiment? There have been transgender people living in the world as long as there have been people.

  10. Re:It makes sense by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can speak further about this because I was discharged from the Army for having a condition called Congenital Stationary Night Blindness. The way the military works is that no matter what job you have, combat or not, you still have to have a wartime duty, which applies to ANY military occupation. For example, the Army (music) band functions as enemy POW prison guards during time of war. All service members, including cooks, are expected to be able to fire weapons and throw grenades, because every single one of them are expected to be either in or very close to the combat zone.

    In my particular case, the logic is that if I was out in the combat zone (my MOS was 19D) or anywhere near it, and night came around, I would be ineffective and would end up being a liability to my battle buddies. Sure, there are night vision goggles, but what if they are damaged, batteries run out, etc? Doesn't work, hence discharge.

    In the case of a transgender, if the combat situation caused them to ever separated from their unit for a long period of time (something that happens often) they'd become a liability to their battle buddies. MtF trans would also have to carry other gear around if they've had bottom surgery, which also presents a logistical problem.

    At least, this applies to the Army, the same would definitely apply to the Marines, so those two would be right out. It would also likely apply to the Navy as well since they are out at sea for years at a time (definite logistical issues there,) and can and do approach combat zones. Air Force personnel are rarely in the combat zone (except for pilots) but they are typically near the combat zone where they can and do make contact with the enemy.

    Furthermore, in any service branch, they don't position you based on your military occupation, rather they position you based on wherever your unit is deployed to, and your unit has many different occupations within it. They aren't going to say "well, our unit can't deploy here because we have a transgender person in it."

  11. Re: No surprise. by Verdatum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good job dehumanizing people that you don't agree with.

  12. Re:No surprise. by Kohath · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Modern sensibilities" is just a way of referring to the preferences of a small minority of self-appointed elite moralists. It can never make intuitive sense because if it did, the elite club wouldn't be special. For the same reason, it can never be a majority -- if it ever becomes a majority, they shift it so they're special again. They always need to know they're better than you.

  13. Re:Contentious issue by Train0987 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trump is the elected Commander in Chief of the armed forces. He has sole authority to do this. The 9th circuit has zero say.

  14. Re:2 reason why by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I also wouldn't rule out that this is simply another check box on something Obama did that he can undo. It does seem that he is super OCD about trying to undo everything he possibly can that Obama did.

  15. Re:No surprise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.
    (2015, not decades ago)

    A german study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12832250) results state "In 270 (75%) of these 359 patients, cross-gender identification was interpreted as an epiphenomenon of other psychiatric illnesses, notably personality, mood, dissociative, and psychotic disorders. Major mood disorders, dissociative disorders and psychotic disorders reported in 79% of transgenders."
    (2003, not decades ago)

    Even if you argue that transgenderism isn't in itself a mental disorder, a transgender individual is far more likely to have multiple other mental disorders, a much higher risk of suicide, etc. It then becomes fair to say that if you are transgender, you personally might be mentally stable enough to be in the military but there is a very high statistical chance that you are nuts in ways that are prohibitively not conducive to the purpose of the military and the stresses that occur due to that purpose.

  16. I am sorry? by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is this in any way relevant for a tech site?

  17. Re:This is what WINNING looks like! by haruchai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Amen!

    We need to disallow gays in the military also. It's important that our enemies fear our military and they are not afraid of a bunch of girly men.

    The US military should make their uniforms as girly as possible. Imagine the humiliation of having your ass handed to you by a bunch of guys in pink taffeta

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  18. and? by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You don't think you can be medically discharged for an inability to perform duties for _any_ reason in the Military? You don't know jack about the Military. I'm a US Army vet, and have zero problems with this ruling but not simply because of the medication. I'll give two easy examples.

    First, as GP stated above, the Military has to be a very cohesive bunch. In back line situations you have communal showers and bathrooms with little privacy. In front line situations, you have a canteen and hole that you dig. You put the majority of the military at a very compromising position with transgender soldiers. The twig and berries don't vanish because a person believes they are a woman, any more than breasts and bush vanish when a women believes they are man. So should the women in the military be forced to look at a twig and berries in the showers? Do you think it's fair to the men to stick a naked women who thinks they are man into a shower with them? Not that people want things to happen in either of those circumstances, but you are providing a very high risk and completely unnecessary situation for soldiers.

    Next, you have PT rules by gender because _biology_ differences give us different limitations and abilities. The military loses effectiveness due to some of those differences already but has learned to cope. What they can't cope with is a completely arbitrary set of restrictions for every potential soldier. How do you cope with a guy who claims to be a woman? Do they get to do PT based on woman's rules or men's rules? Can the woman be medically discharged because the believe they are a man but can't do 80 pushups in under 2 minutes? Don't you believe more and more soldiers would not just try to drop out medically, but claim to be a more convenient gender for things like PT testing and promotion consideration?

    The Military is not about "me", it's about "the force". Since we do not force service people who want "me" don't have to serve.

    For the person who claimed not all jobs in the Military are combat, I say bullshit! Every soldier is trained on how to kill the enemy and defend against attacks. Even if your job isn't going out on patrol looking for enemies, you are at risk simply by being a soldier. Your first job and first responsibility in the Military is to be a Soldier. Your secondary job is to be a medic, mechanic, etc... (See Jessica Lynch, or any of the other people attacked, wounded, killed, or captured away from the front lines.)

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:and? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "First, as GP stated above, the Military has to be a very cohesive bunch. In back line situations you have communal showers and bathrooms with little privacy."

      Isn't that the same argument that was once used against mix-race units?

    2. Re:and? by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 4, Informative

      And women. And gays.

      The pattern is so predictable we can all basically sing along to it.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  19. Re:It makes sense by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The military is already, apparently, the largest employer of transgender people in the USA. This is a political decision, not a practical one. How do we know? The DoD is telling reporters to go talk to the WH about this policy change, AND the Secretary of Defence is currently ON VACATION.

    This decision has nothing to do with whether the military can handle it or not; they have been.

  20. DoD already studied this by redmid17 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's basically a non-issue.

    http://www.rand.org/content/da...

  21. Re:It makes sense by penandpaper · · Score: 5, Informative

    but it needs to be at the forefront of equality:

    No it needs to be the forefront of lethality. Everything the military does is in service to killing the enemy. The point of Sun Tzu "moral law" isn't that the army needs be moral but to be a "cohesive fighting force" which demonstrably increases the lethality of that fighting force. Everything is secondary to killing the enemy.