Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Dark_Grey

US SC Approves Ban on Trans in Military

210 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Dark_Grey

Hot off the press:

Trump's "Transgender Military Ban" Approved by Supreme Court

CNN
Globe and Mail
BBC

Quote

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday handed President Donald Trump a victory on his policy barring many transgender people from the military, lifting lower court rulings that had blocked it on constitutional grounds from going into effect.

The decision, with the court’s five conservative justices prevailing over its four liberals, granted the Trump administration’s request to put on hold injunctions issued by federal judges against enforcement of the policy while a challenge to its legality continues in lower courts.

The court did not resolve the underlying question of the legality of the Republican president’s plan, which reversed the landmark 2016 policy of his Democratic predecessor Barack Obama to let transgender people for the first time serve openly in the armed forces and receive medical care to transition genders.

But in lifting the injunctions, the court signaled it likely would decide in favour on the administration when it eventually is asked to rule on the merits of the challenge brought by transgender people already in the military or hoping to join. The plaintiffs argued that the policy violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

This could have quite the effect on 5 or 6 people across the nation.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Yes, and watch how many protests and parades come out of this.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd

From my POV it is not a matter of trans people being unfit for the military, but the military itself that is too prejudice, old fashioned and immature to handle them. This is mostly due to the military being dominated by ignorant rednecks and their gutless followers.

Edit: By gutless, I mean, that it takes more guts for some people, to accept something they don't understand, than to go in harms way.

Edited by sci-nerd
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
21 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

But in lifting the injunctions, the court signaled it likely would decide in favour on the administration when it eventually is asked to rule on the merits of the challenge brought by transgender people already in the military or hoping to join.

I'm not so sure about this claim. It seems to me that they're simply deciding not to enforce a decision that goes against policy that the administration have introduced until the matter has been decided. 

It might well end up with the same result but there are Republican judges who might see it, constitutionally, as a violation of their rights.

Either way, it's a pretty disgusting policy to introduce in the first place. It seems like blatant and absolutely pointless discrimination to me. Nothing more than feeding hate.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
2 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

From my POV it is not a matter of trans people being unfit for the military, but the military itself that is too prejudice, old fashioned and immature to handle them. This is mostly due to the military being dominated by ignorant rednecks and their gutless followers.

Please, don't sugar coat it - tell us how you really feel about the military :tu:

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
1 minute ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I'm not so sure about this claim. It seems to me that they're simply deciding not to enforce a decision that goes against policy that the administration have introduced until the matter has been decided. 

That's more or less what I gathered as well. Less of a "ban" and more of a "we don't have to enforce Obama's policy if we don't want to"

Quote

Either way, it's a pretty disgusting policy to introduce in the first place. It seems like blatant and absolutely pointless discrimination to me. Nothing more than feeding hate.

I believe the initial controversy was in regards to the military paying for gender re-assignment surgeries like they would pay for one's higher education. However, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a tinge of discrimination in there somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
8 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

From my POV it is not a matter of trans people being unfit for the military, but the military itself that is too prejudice, old fashioned and immature to handle them. This is mostly due to the military being dominated by ignorant rednecks and their gutless followers.

Oh, please, sci-nerd!

It has nothing whatsoever to do with being fit or not fit, for gawds sake.  The military legally can and does refuse people who have a medical condition that requires ongoing care at high expense, like diabetes. 

I don't see "Diabetics Unite" holding any protests over the military's actions, do you?

Do you know how much it costs to give these people operations and lifetime supply of estrogen/testosterone injections? gad.

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
2 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

Please, don't sugar coat it - tell us how you really feel about the military :tu:

I wish we didn't need it, but our world is still immature.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
20 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

This could have quite the effect on 5 or 6 people across the nation.

Closer to 10,000, according to the Rand Corporation. Not the the number is important, because even if just five or six individuals were affected, the ban is still based on a faulty premise, is still ludicrous, and bans people not because of their qualifications or ability, but because of who they are. 

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1530.html

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
2 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Oh, please, sci-nerd!

It has nothing whatsoever to do with being fit or not fit, for gawds sake.  The military legally can and does refuse people who have a medical condition that requires ongoing care at high expense, like diabetes. 

I don't see "Diabetics Unite" holding any protests over the military's actions, do you?

Do you know how much it costs to give these people operations and lifetime supply of estrogen/testosterone injections? gad.

I see your point, but those things are negotiable. It could be managed by a contract of "own responsibility and liability".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
4 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Closer to 10,000, according to the Rand Corporation. Not the the number is important, because even if just five or six individuals were affected, the ban is still based on a faulty premise, is still ludicrous, and bans people not because of their qualifications or ability, but because of who they are

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1530.html

 

Kittens, your statement is based on a faulty premise.

THe military knows what it's doing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
4 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

That's more or less what I gathered as well. Less of a "ban" and more of a "we don't have to enforce Obama's policy if we don't want to"

I believe the initial controversy was in regards to the military paying for gender re-assignment surgeries like they would pay for one's higher education. However, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a tinge of discrimination in there somewhere.

It's all discrimination.

Costs for gender reassignment surgery (and other procedures/medications) are extremely low. According to the Rand Corporation study, these costs are about one-thousandth of one percent of the Defense Department's budget. The military spends ten times as much treating erectile dysfunction, and five times as much on Viagra.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
3 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I see your point, but those things are negotiable. It could be managed by a contract of "own responsibility and liability".

I can't pretend to know how the military should do anything, but this issue has risen before. There is no way somebody can go thru the transformation with their own money based on soldier pay, or their own, unless they are rich. 

This is why the transies want into the military, so WE will pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
2 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

It's all discrimination.

Costs for gender reassignment surgery (and other procedures/medications) are extremely low. According to the Rand Corporation study, these costs are about one-thousandth of one percent of the Defense Department's budget. The military spends ten times as much treating erectile dysfunction, and five times as much on Viagra.

Make that comparison on a PER PERSON basis.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Kittens, your statement is based on a faulty premise.

THe military knows what it's doing.

They do for the most part, but Trump doesn't. He totally blindsided the Joint Chiefs of Staff with his transgender ban.

As for my statement, it's based on reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
Just now, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I can't pretend to know how the military should do anything, but this issue has risen before. There is no way somebody can go thru the transformation with their own money based on soldier pay, or their own, unless they are rich. 

This is why the transies want into the military, so WE will pay.

That's like saying Mexicans go to the US to commit crimes. It might be true for a small amount of people, but far from true for all.

I assume trans people who seek to do service are finished with their transition, and eager to live their new lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
2 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

They do for the most part, but Trump doesn't. He totally blindsided the Joint Chiefs of Staff with his transgender ban.

As for my statement, it's based on reality.

Kittens, do you have a link?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 minute ago, sci-nerd said:

That's like saying Mexicans go to the US to commit crimes. It might be true for a small amount of people, but far from true for all.

I assume trans people who seek to do service are finished with their transition, and eager to live their new lives.

Well, you can assume that but I sure don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
55 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

 

BBC

This could have quite the effect on 5 or 6 people across the nation.

And the other 9-15000 active duty trans personnel. 

According to your own source... 

To put it another way, you just potentially lost 2% of your army. 

Edited by Setton
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
12 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

From my POV it is not a matter of trans people being unfit for the military, but the military itself that is too prejudice, old fashioned and immature to handle them. This is mostly due to the military being dominated by ignorant rednecks and their gutless followers.

It's easy to be confused about any organization when you don't understand its mission and purpose.  The military is precisely focused on destroying the deadly enemies of a nation.  When that mission is diluted and the forces are used for social engineering or law enforcement/nation-building then it confuses the troops and the people.  I support the right of any man or woman who sincerely desires to serve the country out of patriotism.  Those who want to join to advance a social agenda or to acquire medical benefits for selfish reasons have no place in our military.  Every person who raises their hand to swear an oath for support of the defense of our Constitution is also pledging their life to that cause if need be.  The minuscule minority that this ruling affects is proof that a social agenda is being pursued at the expense of the discipline and good order of our defense forces.  I present in evidence one Bradley Manning.  The nature of training men and women to a discipline that prepares them for the ultimate sacrifice leaves no room for the civilian concept of fairness or equality.  Our military is an all-volunteer force.  If the conditions don't suit an individual's life and world-view, they needn't join.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo

The Military isn't and shouldn't be an equal opportunity's organisation. Letting people in with mental problems, and wanting radical surgery to change your appearance is a mental problem, is not in the military's scope.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
5 minutes ago, and then said:

It's easy to be confused about any organization when you don't understand its mission and purpose.  The military is precisely focused on destroying the deadly enemies of a nation.  When that mission is diluted and the forces are used for social engineering or law enforcement/nation-building then it confuses the troops and the people.  I support the right of any man or woman who sincerely desires to serve the country out of patriotism.  Those who want to join to advance a social agenda or to acquire medical benefits for selfish reasons have no place in our military.  Every person who raises their hand to swear an oath for support of the defense of our Constitution is also pledging their life to that cause if need be.  The minuscule minority that this ruling affects is proof that a social agenda is being pursued at the expense of the discipline and good order of our defense forces.  I present in evidence one Bradley Manning.  The nature of training men and women to a discipline that prepares them for the ultimate sacrifice leaves no room for the civilian concept of fairness or equality.  Our military is an all-volunteer force.  If the conditions don't suit an individual's life and world-view, they needn't join.  

I concur. Please read my comments after the one you quoted.

@seanjo I think they should be accepted on equal terms as all others. Being both physically and mentally fit.

Edited by sci-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
1 hour ago, Dark_Grey said:

Hot off the press:

Trump's "Transgender Military Ban" Approved by Supreme Court

CNN
Globe and Mail
BBC

This could have quite the effect on 5 or 6 people across the nation.

 

18 minutes ago, Setton said:

And the other 9-15000 active duty trans personnel. 

According to your own source... 

To put it another way, you just potentially lost 2% of your army. 

Accorrding to the CNN article linked in the OP...

Quote

Most transgender persons are now disqualified from military service except:

- Service members who have been stable for three years in their biological sex prior to joining the military -- meaning 36 months after completion of surgery and hormone treatments.

- Service members diagnosed with "gender dysphoria" after joining the military can stay in the military if they don't require a change of gender and remain deployable. Gender dysphoria involves a conflict between a person's physical or assigned gender and the gender with which the person identifies, according to the American Psychiatric Association.

- Service members who were diagnosed with "gender dysphoria" before the effective date of the policy can still serve and receive medical treatment.

- Transgender persons without a gender dysphoria diagnosis or history can serve in their birth sex.

The Defense Department can issue waivers on a case-by-case basis.

So... Yeah, most Transgendered people in the military are going to be fine and unaffected, except fewer new buddies may be coming their way.

Looks like it is targeting people who are looking for a free surgery.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
14 minutes ago, Setton said:

And the other 9-15000 active duty trans personnel. 

According to your own source... 

To put it another way, you just potentially lost 2% of your army. 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-enforcement-trump-military-transgender-ban-appeals/story?id=60541370

Current estimate is around 9000 trans people in the military with about 900 with gender dysphoria.

Quote

Advocates estimate more than 15,000 transgender Americans are currently serving in the U.S. military and that more than 134,000 are veterans. But a memo from then-Defense Secretary James Mattis' last February memo cited 8,980 service members who identify as transgender, "and yet there are currently only 937 active duty Service members who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria since June 30, 2016."

Myself, as a former Army active duty soldier... I'd have no problems with a trans individual in my unit. As long as they did their job, didn't ask for special treatment (other then being treated fairly), and didn't sexually harass me, I'd be all good.

I, myself, am not sure about the surgery. I'd not expect the military to buy me tooth implants, when a bridge would do. So, unless the surgery is NECESSARY... I'd say no. But, that's just me. I'd cut a ton of pork projects in the military if I could, so...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.