Biden Ends Trump's Ban on Trans Troops

Reversing a bad policy launched by tweets


President Joe Biden signed an executive order today repealing former President Donald Trump's ban preventing transgender Americans from serving in the military.

The order brings an end to one of Trump's more unusual executive decisions, launched by a series of abrupt tweets in 2017 that left military leaders scrambling to comply. The order prompted lawsuits attempting to block implementation of the rule.

Under President Barack Obama, the military had begun allowing trans troops to serve openly. This created an environment where members of the military who were discovering they were trans could openly say so and transition without fear of being ejected. With the implementation of Trump's orders—which the Supreme Court allowed in 2019—all those troops suddenly faced ejection.

The full order is here. It reverses Trump's orders banning trans military members from serving, bars the military from discharging or refusing to reenlist servicemembers because of their gender identities, and essentially tells the military to adapt so trans troops can serve openly.

The Palm Center, a research institute known best for its analyses of public policy issues surrounding military service and LGBT citizens, put out a prepared statement by Director Aaron Belkin praising the move:

The ban will now be replaced with a single standard for everyone that, as in the successful previous policy, will apply equally to all service members. This is a major step in the defense not only of America but of American values. We look forward to a speedy implementation of inclusive policy.

Based on the Palm Center's research, the reversion to what the Obama administration started may happen quickly. According to a report the Center released last July (and updated later in 2020), the Department of Defense preserved enough of the work it had done adapting the military to support trans troops that it's not going to have to restart the process from scratch:

There will be no need to redevelop guidance, restudy options, redraft regulatory language, or retrain anybody. Everything needed already exists in current military guidance and remains a part of current military practice. The path to restoring inclusive policy is based on erasing separate tracks of grandfathered and non-grandfathered transgender personnel and returning to a single military standard that everyone, transgender or otherwise, is expected to meet. Consistent with decades of military research findings, the optimal framework will be to apply one standard to all, nothing more, nothing less.

The Palm Center believes the return to the previous trans-inclusive military policy could take place within 30 days.

This is great news for liberty. Being trans doesn't, on its own, mean an individual is unsuited for military service. There may be some individual trans people whose specific struggles mean that they aren't ready for military work. But they should be evaluated as individuals, not categorically rejected. As former Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.) noted on Twitter: "This is a win for equality before the law. Transgender persons should not be prohibited from serving in the Armed Forces on the sole basis of being transgender."

NEXT: Surely Rudy Giuliani's 'Conclusive Proof' of Machine-Based Election Fraud Will Save Him From Dominion's $1.3 Billion Defamation Lawsuit

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The basic mission of any military is being able to kill the enemy with your bare hands if necessary. How does help them do that?

    1. How does it prevent that?

      1. It diverts resources better used elsewhere for one.

        1. I get paid more than $160 to $170 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $16k from this without having online working skills.This is what I do.

          ========= Click here

          1. I am making a good salary from home $7300-$9600/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
            Here is what I do.-------> ­­­­Visit Here To Earn Dollars

        2. Not from being trans. If you want to argue they are weak, distracted, always in the hospital, etc - go ahead. But "trans" is about as useful as complaining about their shoe size.

          1. It's a mental disorder.
            There's A LOT that disqualifies people from military enlistment. Some relatively minor.
            A disorder of the magnitude that thinking you're "really" the opposite of what you are biologically is pretty severe.

            1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than DBC regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page….....MORE READ

            2. This.

              Body dysphoria is unquestionably a mental illness. If you are genetically and physically male, but truly believe that you're female in the wrong body, you are on the same level as someone who thinks they're a duck.

              1. I think the Romans saw this problem as an opportunity and sent the "ducks" in first.

            3. And as I said, he's wrong and that's one reason. The ones in service require significant medical resources, including Psychiatry.

              I wonder why he feels the need to lie.

          2. "Not from being trans"

            Yes actually, from being trans.

            It's like you are completely ignorant on the subject and decided to play dumb just to be contentious.

            They require medicstion and physicians. This is not debatable.

            You're irrefutably wrong, full atop.

          3. "always in the hospital, etc – go ahead."

            "It diverts resources better used elsewhere"

            I realize you're fucking stupid Brandybuck,


            Your moron ass just said "nu uh!!!!" then completely agreed with his assertion

            God dammit how fucking dumb ARE YOU?

        3. I get paid 95 $ each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however my old buddy is gaining 65k$/month to month ERbn by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how.

          Give it a shot on following website……Visit..........Home Profit System

      2. "Trans" idiots have special medical needs, such as hormone shots, so it increases logistical problems.

        Field medics can't assume what internal organs they'll be dealing with from looking at somebody's outside.

        As a general matter, almost all "trans" idiots will fail to be able to meet proper fitness standards, because they're either women taking testosterone, and not having the advantages of having had high levels since puberty, or men who've been gelded or taking testosterone blockers, depriving them of the present advantages of it.

        Look, they can refuse you for freaking FLAT FEET, in a world with arch supports! This is about ten thousand times more medically significant.

        1. "As a general matter, almost all “trans” idiots will fail to be able to meet proper fitness standards, because they’re either women taking testosterone, and not having the advantages of having had high levels since puberty, or men who’ve been gelded or taking testosterone blockers, depriving them of the present advantages of it."

          It is worse than that.

          The services have different fitness standards based upon sex.

          A trans male, who is to be treated as a male in all respects, is therefore supposed to exceed the male standards. Right?

          If so, then there won't be any. If not, then why not?

        2. And even this tacitly accepts the underlying oxymoron. Either women and men are equally fit and there's no combat-effective need to transition or somebody like Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf needs to explain to whichever gender is inferior why they aren't and/or why they need to transition in order to be as good as the other gender.

      3. Transgender people are far more likely to have mental issues that require treatment. They have medical needs that divert time and resources away from treating others. They are a disruptive force in communal barracks life and I certainly do not want to share a shelter half (pup tent) with one.

        The business of the military should not be distracted by introducing another sexual subset that requires their own unique social protocol and introduces a disruptive lifestyle. The miltary is not a social petre dish and it is obvious that both you and the uninformed idiot that authored this article have never served.

      4. I get paid 95 $ each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however my old buddy is gaining 65k$/month DTjv to month by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how.

        Give it a shot on following website……Visit..........Home Profit System

    2. Slap fighting and hair pulling will be added to the USMC's hand-to-hand training program.

      1. The enemy shall certainly cower to mobs of Twitter trans users.

      2. Eye-rolling and whining will be added to counter-intelligence.

      3. "Slap fighting and hair pulling will be added to the USMC’s hand-to-hand training program."

        Well, we need something to do after eating our mid-morning crayons.

    3. No more tactical groin shots. A man without testicles is a man who can't be kicked in the balls. If that doesn't improve combat effectiveness, I don't know what will. Hooah!

      1. Between mass rape being genocide and a general inability to do things like pee on a Quran, it seems like there are multiple rationales for making testicle shots a war crime.

        1. Hopefully the standards will remain high enough to keep idiots like you out.

          I'd love to see you stop by Fort Bragg; perhaps hang out in a bar in Fayetteville, and direct your comments to some of the tolerant members of the 82nd Airborne Division.

    4. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

    5. Make 6,000 dollar to 8,000 dollar A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And Choose Your Own Work Hours. Thanks A lot Here......USA TOP JOB.

    6. This is really stupid, calling this a win for equality is asinine. The policy says you can't say you need a procedure, then join the military. That's basically looking for the govt to pay for you sex change/hormone therapy. It does say if you're diagnosed while serving, that is fine. But to call it a "Ban" is BS. Way to jump on a liberal talking point Reason. Most libertarians applauded Trumps move.

      1. "Equality" is a Trojan horse enabling the capture of every institution in society. Destroying the effectiveness of national institutions doesn't matter to globalist oligarchs. All they want is control. "Let me in" becomes "I don't want to do that" becomes "You can't tell me to do anything" becomes "I tell you what you're allowed to do." Trans kids are mostly just consumerist pawns who want to feel important, but they and all the other useful idiots are still enabling the rise of genuine totalitarian fascism.

    7. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this site and then go through instructions to get started……….HERE? Check my site.

    8. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its HBHBVearnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

  2. But only if the trans troops pass a Democrat loyalty test

    1. That's it right there, superior Rev!

    2. Real online home based work to make more than $14k. Last month i have made $15738 from this home job. Very simple and easy to do and earnings RFDerf from this are just awesome for details. For more detail visit the given link……….Visit..........Home Profit System

  3. Can't wait until trannies start raping the women.

    1. Open position for everybody! Work from solace of your home, on your PC And you can work with your own working hours. You can work this work As low maintenance or As A regular work. You can procure from 65$ An hour to 1000$ A day! There is no impediments, everything depends from you And the amount you need to acquire every day.. Detail Of Work

    2. You act as if the men in the army don't already rape.

      1. They do, just generally not in the women's barracks, women's restrooms, etc.

        Just like with the stupidity surrounding gay marriage (and many other things the Gov't does), the failure of the institution is not a valid reason to expand its roles.

  4. Nothing builds an effective team like constant bickering over pronoun use.

    1. And admitting people that have a high incidence of clinical depression and frequently are dependent on perishable hormone therapy. Among other things.

    2. "Maggot" is gender-neutral.

  5. My understanding is that the military generally does not accept people who have chronic medical conditions that require maintenance that might not be available under field combat conditions, such as asthma.

    The idea that not accepting transgenders, with the physical maintenance of transitioning, as well as the associated mental health issues is a terrible injustice is odd.

    1. This was what I thought would be the only reasonable justification for the ban, unless maybe also if the military considers things like gender dysphoria an adverse psychological condition. There are practical considerations to service that transcend the cultural zeitgeist.

      1. Trying to acknowledge the nuance of complex situations is racist, sexist and trans phobic.

        Report to your nearest re-education camp for internment.

      2. This was what I thought would be the only reasonable justification for the ban, unless maybe also if the military considers things like gender dysphoria an adverse psychological condition.

        You mean the only critically relevant reason, right? Seems like the libertarian gold-standard argument of "We don't need a standing army." still applies.

      3. Start here:
        I support gay marriage, and anyone who chooses to 'identify' as anything they please; none of my business, affects me not in the least and 'doesn't seem to frighten the horses'.
        But then, I'm a taxpayer and anyone who has been in the service knows the amount of waste and bureaucracy attendant to the simplest function. Imagine how buying 1/4" bolts turns into a $500/unit function taking many approvals and many weeks, all for a product easily specified.
        Now imagine the amount of bureaucratic nonsense associated with defining/accommodating/assigning such an amorphous concept as 'transgender'.
        We're going to be spending fighter-pilot training costs on staff sargents.

    2. Correct. Psoriasis is an example of a medical condition that is grounds for dismissal because the skin condition causes rough sores that can easily bleed. However, a trans-woman's neovagina, that requires daily dilation to keep depth, is perfectly suited to a combat zone according to the Biden administration.

      1. But I have read they are finding it difficult to locate volunteers to keep those things dilated. Count me out, for sure!

      2. Might need to reintroduce the Vietnam era wooden straight handled entrenching tool. I think the hand grip on the modern one might be unsuitable for facilitating the alternative dilation ritual.

  6. "who were discovering they were trans"

    Not to get into a stupid, in-depth discussion about it, but that's kind of a funny statement right there.

    "Hey Joe, guess what? Someone cut my dick off. Yeah, I just noticed this morning when I was trying on braziers in the JC Penney fitting room."

    1. "trying on braziers"

      sounds painful

      1. Ha, touche.


        (or maybe braziers, there's a fetish for everything)

      2. sounds painful

        You must not be married. /JC Penney's joke

  7. I don't see a definition of Trans here. So perhaps this might be a way to finally get women to qualify for combat duty. Have a bunch of dudes who "identify" as women will start passing the more rigorous physical tests. However, having a bunch of dudes thrown in with female troops, living in their barracks etc. merely because they "identify as" without having gone through any kind of medical transition might raise some hackles.

    1. Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked if some guys in the military "transition" in order to get the less demanding female PT test, then go back to being dudes when they get out and just call themselves "binary" or "non-gendered" so they don't have to admit they couldn't handle the regular male PT test.

      1. The article references moving to a "single standard" (I assume for male, female, and anything in-between). Does that apply to physical requirements as well? I think that would actually be a good thing. It should have already been that way, at least for combat troops.

        They should move to a "Starship Troopers" type system, where everyone gets to see Dizzy's tits in the showers.

        1. I suspect that movie wasn't based on the most up-to-date research on military efficiency.

          1. Even worse, it was only barely based on the most up-to-date edition of the Heinlein novel of the same title.

            1. But she did have nice tits.

              1. You so beat me to it.

        2. No, it's a bad thing, because they'll have to lower the standards to have a common standard, or reject almost all the women.

          1. Correct. This is why I laughed at people arguing that women could be just as effective in combat as men.

            Sure, there have been cases of that, but there's a reason every single dominant civilization has had male armies. Every time I proposed that having women in combat roles is fine, as long as they can pass the male PT test, these people had no answer because they know about 3/4 or more of the female military force would dissolve. Most women join the military because they're trying to get the GI Bill for college, or get experience in the medical field. They rarely join for the opportunity to shoot things, other than your rare cop who volunteers for convoy duty.

            1. I'd argue that most civilizations have male armies not just for physical standards, but because it seems a lot easier to switch the 'psycopathic rage monster killing machine' switch on men between 16-25.

              1. Hormones do matter, testosterone is a helluva drug.

              2. More like there's no need for excess men in a stable breeding population. Women are precious, men are expendable.

              3. Fast twitch muscles are a thing and men have a lot more of them because of testosterone.

          2. "they'll have to lower the standards"

            They don't have to, and they shouldn't. If anything the standards (currently for men) should be raised. It's actually kind of embarrassing how low the physical standards are. And yes, women should have to meet those standards, also, or find a different line of work... no favoritism.

            1. No, actually they do have to, because the rationale for this is politics, with actual military criteria already designated to be compromised to achieve the political end.

              The logic of doing it in the first place dictates lowering the standards.

  8. I'll give Shackford the benefit of doubt here and assume this story bears so much ignorance because he never served in the armed forces. Otherwise, I'd have to believe he was being mendacious.

  9. The army has already made modifications to basic training in order to comply.

      1. That article and the repliesfollow almost exactly the argument that those of us who were against allowing females into the combat arms predicted would happen.

        Females were allowed into the infantry, armor, etc and due to the physically demanding nature of those MOSs they fell behind the males. So now the argument is being made that we should change the standards expected in those areas.

        Of course there is a high standard of physical training in the combat arms because that helps maintain high combat performance and helps to keep soldiers alive.

        But apparently that isn’t as important as “inclusion”, why do we have an Army and Marine Corps again?

        1. Did physical strength defeat fascism in Germany? Did physical strength defeat fascism in Korea? Did physical strength defeat fascism in Vietnam? No! Human wave tactics (aka "Zerg rush") are the future of infantry combat and we need every man, woman, tranny, and gender fluid otherkin in that human wave when we charge the enemy's line! Hooah!

          1. I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down.
            Zap Brannigan

        2. The marines did a whole study with mixed gender and all male units doing field exercise and measuring the outcomes. Very scientific and all. The results were as expected, all male units way outperform mixed sex or all female units by a healthy margin. The Sec Def said do it anyway. And here we are, with well over half of women washing out from infantry basic, at great cost and for no good reason.

  10. Thanks to Biden's new policy, thousands of sexually confused teenage boys will now enlist in the military so US taxpayers can pay for their estrogen injections and penis/scrotum removals.

    BTW Will transgenders in the military have to remove their penis and scrotum to be legally classified or considered trans?

    It seems reasonable that in order to be considered transgender, one should remove their original genitalia.

    Bruce Jenner wants to be considered a woman, but also wants to continue using his pecker. Isn't that multigender instead of transgender?

    1. This is my dilator! There are many like it but this one is mine! Without me, my dilator is nothing. Without my dilator, I am not a trans-woman. Hooah!

    2. Jenner wants to retain his girlpenis.

      1. I wish Skylar Piela kept her girlpenis. She was way hotter with the dick imo.

    3. The answer to your question is no, a person may go through the counseling, dressing and grooming to the "preferred" gender, and have the gender officially changed in DEERS, while keeping his or her original body parts. However once changed, he or she MUST adhere to the new gender rules. Hence the discomfort among female servicemembers when told they will have to share billeting and hygiene facilities and may not ask for any accommodations for privacy. Also leads to interesting scenarios commanders get to deal with like pregnant "men" and what to do when your guy with a female body takes a swim test. God I'm glad I'm retired.

  11. This article REALLY leaves out some key facts. I worked for the military under Obama, Trump, and now Biden. No one was "scrambling" to implement Trump's order. Quite the opposite. Obama allowed transgenders to serve, but only did so 6 months before he was about to leave office, while the election was underway.

    In fact, it was the military that had to "scramble" under Obama. Late 2016, everyone was required to get this ridiculous transgender briefing, that told us what to do if we have a "pregnant man" in the unit and other nonsense. Everyone was hostile to the training, and the trainers themselves looked uncomfortable and embarrassed to do it. They clearly didn't want to be there but were just following orders.

    I have nothing against transgenders serving in the military, as long as they serve under their SEX, not perceived gender. What will they do for people who claim they are "non binary"?

    So if I were going to join the military today, certainly I would check the female box instead of the male one, and so get to live in female barracks and only have to meet female physical fitness standards. Why not? I'm not sure what they would do about my mandatory gyno exams, but they will figure out something. This is a trainwreck in the making.

    1. In fact, it was the military that had to “scramble” under Obama. Late 2016, everyone was required to get this ridiculous transgender briefing, that told us what to do if we have a “pregnant man” in the unit and other nonsense.

      At this point, the best thing that could happen to this country is to have ISIS smuggle in a nuclear bomb in to DC, set it off, and help remind America about what's fucking important here.

      1. The Pentagon deserved two cruise missiles fired by CIA agents in my opinion.

      2. It was a common joke in Air Force circles, back when I was in ROTC, that the Soviet strategic nuclear plan exempted DC from bombing, in order to slow down our recovery after the war.

        1. How hilarious it was back in the 80s joking about how government just can’t get anything right.

          Little did we know that the same people who said that ended up believing that this same government could be run with only the experience and skills of a common grifter.

          1. "How hilarious it was back in the 80s joking about how government just can’t get anything right.

            Little did we know that the same people who said that ended up believing that this same government could be run with only the experience and skills of a common grifter."

            If it doesn't work, keep trying the same thing- Tony

    2. What about intersex people, like those with Klinefelter's syndrome? Their sex is valid and worthy of celebration, bigot.

      1. Snark aside, people born intersex is something that is worthy of debate. Intersex people are a miniscule percentage of the population.

        But some dude who slaps some lipstick on, throws on a dress and some high heels isn't "a woman". Being a woman isn't a fucking performative act. To suggest so is incredibly disrespectful to women, and wholly misogynistic.

        1. "Being a woman isn’t a fucking performative act."

          It's appalling that requires saying.

        2. Snark aside, people born intersex is something that is worthy of debate.

          I disagree from a military-readiness perspective and a bit from a larger biological perspective. Biologically-speaking (explicitly setting aside newspeak), there is a distinction between intersex and hemaphroditism. People born intersex have many of their issues permanently sorted out for them, typically in the least burdensome manner possible, well before most transgendered people decide they'd like to try on a different outfit. Not saying being intersex is easy, just that missing a few hormone shots while on deployment is different for someone who's been getting treated since they "lost" half their sex organs at <6 mos. old relative to someone who's generally had one set of normally functioning sex organs and only started taking hormone injections 6 mos. ago.

          1. In all of human history, there has never actually been a hermaphrodite. No one has ever been fertile as both sexes. Everyone has a sex, one sex, even if it's not obviously apparent at first.

            1. My Japanese futanari comics would suggest otherwise...

              1. Looked it up,
                it’s umm, different.

          2. Intersex people are a difficult peg to square. Should radical surgery even be considered for an infant that cannot consent? What happens if that intersex child made into a girl actually identified as a male later in life? How can genetic abnormalities be that result in intersex individuals be aligned with a binary gender spectrum. I'm more sympathetic to the individuals born with genetic or hormonal abnormalities than the ones who decided at age 15+ that they were another gender, although even those mentally ill people deserve our sympathy too.

            1. Should radical surgery even be considered for an infant that cannot consent?

              Birth is more risky and no one ever gives consent. You brought consent to a mechanical/biological determinism fight.

              How can genetic abnormalities be that result in intersex individuals be aligned with a binary gender spectrum.

              Go learn what the word abnormality means. 'Abnormal' is how you align them with what is 'normal'.

              I’m more sympathetic to the individuals born with genetic or hormonal abnormalities than the ones who decided at age 15+ that they were another gender, although even those mentally ill people deserve our sympathy too.

              Go learn what the words 'sympathy' means. You can't *sym**path*ise with an octopus whose tentacles become knotted anymore than a snake can sympathise with you when you stub your toe. You can feel sorry for their predicament but it is, deterministically, condescention.

              1. Birth is more risky and no one ever gives consent.

                You appear to not grasp the difference between an option and an unavoidable inevitability. A baby in the womb will either be born or will die before that. Calling the former "risky" when the alternative is death is to render the word utterly meaningless.

        3. Corporal Klinger disagrees.

      2. People with Klinefelter's are male.

      3. Let's not celebrate anyone's gender and call it a day.

    3. Me too - I served in the military from Reagan to Trump. I remember the "training" which consisted of "this is how it's going to be, get over it". The female servicemembers were not happy. I'm sure you've also read the policies and guidance for commanders that is still available online. Besides dealing with your pregnant " male" servicemember, they address how to clothe a group of trainees for swimming (i.e. a swim test or training) when one is a transgender male with female anatomy (swim trunks alone would not be appropriate; he can't wear a women's swim suit, and you can NEVER single out the transgender person, for example by asking him to wear a t-shirt, so everyone has to wear a t-shirt);
      Privacy concerns (but only affecting the transgender person; others who do not want to share billeting and hygiene facilities with someone of the opposite sex, too bad. Not to mention the need for time off from work and unavailability for deployment. Never mind that there are hundreds of other conditions that are disqualifying for that exact same reason. You can't enlist without a waiver if you have many other chronic or active medical or psychological conditions. It's ridiculous.

      1. Does everyone also get a tactical dilator to keep the neo-vagina's depth? Hooah?

      2. Getting a large population of people to parrot a lie is incredibly demoralizing.

        1. But at least it is the free market that is promoting the lie and firing anyone who questions it publicly. How can private corporations be totalitarian?

          1. Well we know they can't censor, so you may have a point.

        2. No shit.

          Countries are lies. Service is a lie. A paycheck is a lie. Gender is a lie. These are all lies we tell ourselves, and the only reason they have any power is because we agree not to talk about how it’s all lies, and all equally so.

          This society will soon indulge the lie that trans people have the same rights as anyone else, which are also lies.

          But at least it leaves people feeling better than your lies do, you know, the ones about how climate change is a hoax and Donald Trump is an exemplary public servant?

          I don’t know why you people even show your faces.

            1. The value of democracy certainly is, but votes can be counted. I never said everything was a lie, did I? A number is a number. A is A. I thought Ayn Rand taught you at least that much.

              1. Numbers are figments of your imagination.

                1. True, but they’re very useful ones. We’re just comparing like with like. Eleven thousand votes is eleven thousand votes. What do you want from me, more fascism?

                  We can throw math out the window if you want, but I don’t want to. Why would I? I don’t throw obviously useful concepts out. I don’t throw my cats out either, even though they are preying on my ape feelings and don’t really love me.

                    1. Naturally, yet here I am, in a big house, and it didn’t fall on top of me. I like my house. The only difference between what you and I believe is that I know I didn’t “earn” it, I just played by the often arbitrary rules of the game in order to get it.

                      The key is not to feel bad about cultural constructs being fiction, but to feel good about it. If I wanted conservatism, fearful adherence to superstition for its own sake, why would I be a libertarian? Isn’t the point to let a thousand freedoms bloom?

                      Except those icky trans, of course.

                    2. Your wants are lies.

                    3. The argument “I earned it” is just as much of a lie as the argument “You did not earn it.”

                    4. Let me break this down thoroughly, because I’m enjoying this.

                      If all social constructs are fiction, they can’t be false in an objective sense, because that would affirm some social constructs as being true.

                      For example, if I say “taxes should never be raised”, and you say “taxes should be raised sometimes.” We can’t both be wrong, because one wrong implies the other right. So the solution relativists come up with is to conclude these statements carry no objective value: hence, relative, as opposed to objective.

                      Problem is, you have a really hard time acting like you believe that. For example, if you say I acquired something through “arbitrary rules of a game we’re playing”, then you’re describing a social construct. So your statement is meaningless.

                      The biggest contradiction of all is believing these things and trying to convince someone else to believe them, too, since that’s a huge performance contradiction: I can’t be wrong if I can’t be right.

                      In fact, logic itself is a social construct, so when you say “numbers are numbers, a is a”, “science is good”, you’re already conceding logic and reason. The fact that you don’t believe in god doesn’t prevent you from conceding these assumptions.

                      In fact, if you really believed the things you’re saying, the most consistent thing to do would be to not talk at all. But you’ve been here for a decade now, trying to explain to everyone how wrong they are. You are your own counter-proof.

                      I’m sorry, but the only alternative is to abandon logic altogether, and I like it too much.

                      Also, the more you try to prove me wrong, the more you prove me right.

                    5. But I never said it's a bad thing that culture is a collection of narratives that we convince ourselves have meaning. We all must live this way. It's how nature designed us. It's our essential trait, the thing that makes us unlike all other animals. It is intelligence and problem solving.

                      You know this is the case if you think about it. Objective meaning in cultural traditions, some of them perfectly recent? How?

                      "It's bad to murder" is an ethical claim. Ethics is a cultural construction. Chimps don't have ethics, and neither do infants. No infant has an opinion on gender.

                      We only have fact relationships. It's bad to murder because I live according to the premise that I don't want to die in a cage or anyone else to murder me, or just because I feel that way and it works. A person with a penis should wear trousers and not chiffon eveningwear. Says what stone tablet? A man is a cultural construct, even if a penis isn't.

                      We're lucky we don't have to state all our premises before believing things. Some are safely assumed. The only point I want to get across is that it's a good thing when you recognize which of your premises are ill-motivated, which is entirely possible, because they aren't actually based on anything.

                    6. But you are saying that social contradicts are fiction. Yet, your embracement of them proves you wrong.

                      The more you try to convince me of something, you concede the concepts of wrong and right. I can’t be wrong unless truth and falsehood are mutually exclusive. A is a, and a cannot be not a. Thus, you’re conceding logic and reason. Thus, you are appealing to social constructs. Thus, you are conceding the objective validity of social constructs.

                      The fact that you don’t have a preference for your incoherent claims doesn’t make them coherent.

                    7. Nature is under no obligation to conform to our assumptions. If right and wrong didn't exist until human brains existed, then they are constructs of human brains, are they not?

                      Not a negative construct, necessarily. This all exists because of Darwinian selection, after all.

                      I just think the problem right now is not too many people abandoning right and wrong, it's too many people willing to commit murder over a statue of Christopher Columbus. A statue is a symbol of a symbol. That's what's absurd, and what gets right and wrong so wrong.

                    8. You’re right. Nature is under no requirement to conform to our assumptions.

                      Social constructs are from human brains. Brains are also natural. What’s your point?

                      I’m glad you’ve dropped the “social constructs are lies” bit.

                      In terms of problems: maybe people wouldn’t kill so many other people in the name of God, Christopher Columbus, or whatever, if there were fewer people running around saying that ethics are lies. Just saying.

                    9. Lies is too opaque a word, perhaps, so I prefer "fictions." Is a novel a lie? In a sense, but it's not how we use the word. Culture is a fiction, like a novel. The point is the narrative. We evolved in tribes on the Savannah. We cope with our big brains by telling ourselves stories to make sense of the world.

                      I don't know what point you're arguing. That if there were no humans, it would still be wrong to murder? That there's got to be a mote of mystical goo somewhere at the center of all this?

                      I don't want people to abandon ethical behavior, I want them to understand rationally why their behavior is either ethical or unethical, so that they avoid the latter. You can argue that people being educated is a threat, but I would say there's obviously no guarantees if you want to go the route of hoping everyone believes the correct lies.

                    10. I’m arguing that you already concede the objective value of social constructs.

                      I’m not saying anything about counter-factual universes. It’s really quite tedious when you go off like that.

                    11. I think educating people is great. Otherwise, someone might say to them something like “all social constructs are lies” and they won’t be smart enough to see how self-contradictory that person is.

                    12. Here’s a question you can answer about narratives:

                      The Diary of Anne Frank: is that fiction?

                    13. I think it's considered an embellished autobiography.

                      The fiction is why Anne Frank matters.

                      The stories we tell ourselves are often quite pleasing to us. And I reiterate, they are not always useless. It's just that there's nothing we can do about the fact of what they are, so the more you understand about that, the better the choices you can make.

                      How many times have we caught ourselves defending something just because that's what we're supposed to do, because of our tribe or a set of flawed assumptions? All I'm advocating for is understanding why we believe things so that we can make better choices about what we believe.

                      I'm in a place where people started falling for history's most obvious fascist, people who are supposed to care about individual freedoms, just because of his partisan affiliation. If people can believe all that shit at once, then I am not the problem here.

    4. So you’re saying that Shackford is being dishonest and covering for Obama and blaming Trump for something he shouldn’t be?

      Color me shocked.

  12. What we need is a war so that trans troops can prove their fighting mettle and win universal acceptance.

    This is urgently needed for purposes of social justice. Maybe China can furnish us with a good war?

    1. If a bunch of men join up and identify as women, we'll be perfectly fine.

  13. "It reverses Trump's orders banning trans military members from serving ..."

    Trump never banned trannies from serving. Shackford is a fucking retard. Would it kill Reason and its brigade of third-rate journalists to actually research the issues they write about, instead of just quoting Twitter?

    1. ^This. The ban on was on fully integrating the sexes based on identity. I man who said he was a woman still had to be treated as a man. This is NOT the same as saying they were banned and it also completely reasonable to keep the separation. Plenty of military women weren't too thrilled when Obama made so that they were showering next to hairy dudes with their junk swinging around.

      You want to play Klinger that's one thing.

      1. The goyim know. Shut it down, Rabbi.

        1. Bad goy! I'm calling Jonathan Greenblatt and we're gonna ruin your life for your anti-Semitic tirade!

    2. Would it kill Reason

      You can't kill that which has been essentially dead for some time now.

  14. "Being trans doesn't, on its own, mean an individual is unsuited for military service."

    Fuck yes it does. If you can't tell a dick apart from a vagina, and cannot square your own genitalia and existence with biological reality, you have no business serving in the armed forces, or serving coffee.

    Glad we're all back to pretending trannies are normal people. They are not.

  15. Consistent with decades of military research findings, the optimal framework will be to apply one standard to all, nothing more, nothing less.

    And I'm sure that's exactly what is about to happen.

  16. The order brings an end to one of Trump's more unusual executive decisions

    The CIC not allowing trannies to openly serve in the military is “unusual”. Fascinating times we live in.

    Let me know when trannies are allowed to openly serve in the Secret Service, Biden. Show some commitment to social justice.

  17. The number of transexuals doing patrol duty in Afghanistan is infinitesimally small, but I'd bet a dollar that the number of people "discovering" they are transexual the moment they qualify for the Uncle Sam to pay for their cosmetic surgeries and hormones and what not is quite high. The probably quit relatively quickly. It is, like most government handouts, simply a scam.

    1. Support our trans-troops, bigot!

  18. Many of the trans people who want to go into the military were military before they transitioned. If they can manage their hormone medication regimen and still do their duties it's not a big deal. There are a lot of jobs in the military which are not boots-on-the-ground marching-in-the-desert types of jobs. Plus this is a tiny number of people. All the fuss is symbolic on both sides.

    1. Good comment. Agreed.

      1. no one is surprised you agree with your own sock

      2. Stupid comment, but your agreement is assumed, stupid shit.

    2. Many of the trans people who want to go into the military were military before they transitioned.

      I'm sure many of the sentences in your head make sense until you type them out too.

    3. Their medical bills are high. I do not want to be forced to pay for their medical bills. Hello, are there any libertarians left here?

      1. If you want to pinch pennies in the defense sector, there are plenty of things you could cut before prying into some class of people’s healthcare needs.

        1. "If you want to pinch pennies in the defense sector, there are plenty of things you could cut before prying into some class of people’s healthcare needs."

          Typical bullshit; this is the first place to cut.

        2. Cosmetic surgery is not health care, moron.

          1. Sure it is, it’s mental healthcare.

            Taxpayer, you will pay for the dick removal of strangers. You will because you will be forced at metaphorical gunpoint by the all-seeing state.

            But don’t worry, it won’t happen until a good 60% of the country is good and ready. It’s jus’ democracy.

            1. Sure it is, it’s mental healthcare.

              So you're saying that they're mentally unwell. Bigot.

              1. I think people should get to decide for themselves what makes them happy, as long as they don’t hurt anyone. What do you believe?

    4. "If they can manage their hormone medication regimen and still do their duties it’s not a big deal."

      Until they get deployed. Then it's a huge fucking deal.

      1. Pack your own tampons, snowflake. If you want to be a bigot, just be a bigot. Nobody’s going to buy your “logic.”

        1. Nobody's buying your steaming pile of lefty shit, asshole.

    5. "...There are a lot of jobs in the military which are not boots-on-the-ground marching-in-the-desert types of jobs..."
      And assigning trannies to those will be found to be bigoted.

      "Plus this is a tiny number of people."
      With a very good-sized legal staff.

  19. Trump is an unusually open-minded person on sexual matters, oout of persons who've entered politics in the USA. He's about as far from a bigot as they come. He cut thru the bull shit during the campaign when he simply said he thought they should use whatever bathroom they wanted, instead of overly complicating the issue as the other politicians were doing.

    So I've got to believe that if Trump didn't want trans in the US armed forces, it was for some good reason rather than bigotry. Like maybe there was more to adapting than simple acquiescence. That it was more complicated than the toilet issue.

    1. Just throwing this out there: he might have considered how well it would play with his base.

      1. You got banned lololol

      2. Just throwing this out: You're a TDS-addled lefty shit. Fuck off.

    2. So you think Trump is not a bigot, but is competent.

      They really do the deep investigative stuff over at Newsmax, huh?

      1. Shitstain, he is not a bigot and is competent.
        You, OTOH.....

  20. Democrats: "Trans women have no innate physical advantage over biological women and should be allowed to compete with them in sports"

    Also Democrats: "Trans women and trans men aren't at a physical disadvantage compared to the young men in peak physical condition who make up the military and shouldn't be banned from fighting alongside them"

    2+2=5, bigot!

  21. Reversing a bad policy launched by tweets

    How exactly was it a bad policy? This is presented as a given without any explication.

    1. How exactly was it a bad policy? This is presented as a given without any explication.

      In before the name change from Reason to Dogma.

  22. Today in Libertarian Commentary.

    I love the can-do optimism of our American cousins. Last week it was hard not to get swept up by their enthusiasm in welcoming a senile hair-sniffer to the White House. But as a Brit, not only do I feel privileged to enjoy free healthcare and cynicism but also the right to name women as ‘adult human females.’ On 20 January, on his first day in office, one of President Biden’s first actions was to sign off an executive order entitled ‘Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation’, which effectively removed the rights of the four million women who work in the federal government, and more who rely on statutory services.

    Within hours of the executive order being passed, the hashtag #bidenerasedwomen was trending across social media. With a virtue-signalling flick of the pen, Democrat Biden had managed to do what no neocon Republican had ever managed before: he effectively took away women’s single-sex bathrooms, shelters and sports.

    1. Snowflake hysteria is OK as long as it’s disingenuous?

      There may have been a theoretical right to a public bathroom free of trans people, but there won’t be much longer. You’ll get over it.

      1. Steaming piles of lefty shit is OK so long as a shitstain delivers it?
        Fuck off and die.

      2. At least the WNBA might be entertaining once Juwanna Mann posterizes Britney Griner.

        1. You too will become one with the progressive state. Resistance is so futile. Like we’re just going to stop developing and inventing more inclusive ethics. What’s going to stop us? Nothing but nuclear war or climate change.

          Is that why you want those things to happen so much? So you don’t have to spend 5 minutes being uncomfortable before you... kind of get into it?

          Wagering all of civilization on the durability of a feeling every growing young man gets past once he discovers Japanese pornography?

  23. Court marshal for yelling 'Sir, yes, sir!' when it should be 'Ma'am, yes, Ma'am!'. This is sure to win us a few wars.

    1. martial

    2. Too sensible. Court martials for yelling "Sir, yes, ma'am!" when it should be "Ma'am, yes, sir!".

  24. Democrats mandate taxpayer-funded cosmetic surgeries, and Reason's headline portrays it as a freedom.

  25. Make steroid injections legally available for every single soldier. Problem solved. Good way to use the budget. Meanwhile, by accepting trans people, you create more patriots.

    1. If you don't wanna use roids, you will be hellishly out-competed. If you use too much, you will fail stamina tests. Really, just give em roids and forget about what they think their gender is.

    2. Because nobody gives a shit about your snowflakery when you serve.

  26. “This created an environment where members of the military who were discovering they were trans could openly say so and transition without fear of being ejected.”

    If you want the US Armed Forces to waste time working against this, you have to explain why.

    Trans identity isn’t a mental disorder. If you keep saying this, your just being a bigot. The only problem trans people have is you, so fix yourself and shut up.

    You people are terrible at freedom. Absolutely the shittiest people for freedom in the country. Why are you here?

    1. You can't drive, you get no drivers license, you are not allowed to drive. You aren't "free" to drive anyways.

      You don't fulfill the physical standards of being a soldier, you are not "free" to become one anyways. You are also not "free" to be the weak link in your squat and put everyone at risk of getting killed. Your gender doesn't matter.

      Open the military and end steroid prohibition. Military needs competition to get the best out of everyone.

      1. I just don’t understand why the people whose very political identity is about maximizing individual liberty are constantly explaining why it’s OK for the US government to take people’s liberties away, even ones it has no demonstrable interest in.

        I feel like I can go to Stormfront if I want a hateful genocidal asshole’s take.

        1. Who is a genocidal asshole? People who want to lower standards and get more soldiers killed?

          1. If you need a soldier to engage in a street brawl with an insurgent, sure, probably don’t go with a woman.

            1. Cardio queens and weekend lifters are among my favorite casualties in the war against reality.

              1. We’re all worm food in the end.

                I simply don’t like gyms because I prefer to have sex in private, but to each his own, that’s what I say.

                1. "We’re all worm food in the end. "

                  Volunteer now, shitstain.

                  1. You don’t seem to take criticism of your dumbfuck redneck worldview very well, do you?

        2. "I just don’t understand..."

          That's the story of your life, shitstain; you are too fucking stupid to understand much of anything.

    2. So no gender-specific fitness standards either. And trans people who can pass are allowed in without question.

      1. Maybe letting more women in serves a greater public interest than stricter physical requirements do. Our soldiers mostly push buttons these days anyway.

        1. I think you never served.

          High standards and competition. Women who really want to do it will not be whiny snowflakes about being required to be physically fit. Otherwise they will be human shields, because battlefield reality doesn't care about leftists whining.

          1. Maybe battlefield reality in ‘Nam.

            I don’t know much, I just know that there is more public interest involved in the military than having the biggest beefcakes. Like setting an example for society, as it did with race. Why the hell not? We pay a lot of money for it. So much we hardly even need it for its primary function anymore. It’s supposed to be the shield of freedom around the world. Nothing wrong with demonstrating the benefits of a little freedom, say for places like Saudi Arabia?

            Battlefield reality anywhere is human beings getting turned into goo in service of a made-up story we tell ourselves, like a nation, or a god, or a principle. Every military exists for rational reasons, but nothing a military does is ever in service of rationality. Countries are lines drawn in a map. A flag is a piece of cloth. An economic system is just some guy’s flawed idea of what to do with a few ones and zeroes. There’s simply no reason whatsoever to fight over any of this.

            1. The military’s sole purpose is to defend our borders. Often in a physical and protracted fight with an enemy. The vast majority of our enemies are going to be using athletic highly trained men. Making the military anything other than prepared for this fight for their literal lives is a gross misuse of public resources and manslaughter charges should be brought against the cretins who weakened our military and allowed more people than necessary to die.

              1. I don’t understand why you need only meatheads in the military when the only attacks coming from across the border are coming via cables under the ocean.

                Did we fail so completely at preventing the latest foreign attack because we had a bias toward guys who could only fight on a form of battlefield that no longer exists?

                Or it could have just been the traitor in the White House working with the enemy. Either way, my point is you don’t win wars with stupid alone.

                1. The enemy will attack you where you are weak. The Vietcong fought in the jungles to deny superior American firepower. You’re probably not aware of this but the military don’t want meat heads. Most of the strength required of the men who fight isn’t required for hand to hand fighting, and instances of hand to hand fighting mostly involve bayonet charges. The strength is required to move you, and all your shot you have to carry over adverse terrain. Extreme fitness is required as movement is what confounds the enemy and a slow soldier is a dead soldier.

                  1. Also Tony it’s ok to say that you have zero military experience and these decisions are best left to people who serve.

                    1. I have no military experience, but there’s a reason they put civilians in charge of the military.

                      So you’re saying the US’s weak spot is cyber security, and that explains why we were so devastatingly attacked during the last administration, both at the beginning of it and the end of it. Just like I said.

                    2. Second that. I didn't have time or energy to engage in this BS with Tony yesterday. Thanks

                    3. @Tony your woke re-allocation proposals WILL re-create weak spots that have been checked off as largely fixed in the past. Really the left needs to keep their hands out of matters that have this much to do with raw reality.

                    4. Really? Because “the left” got Osama bin Laden and “the right” invited Putin in to take everything he wanted and make sure to trash the place before he left.

                    5. I think we could argue that Osama got killed despite the left. If we implement more leftist policy in the military, this was the Osama we ever managed to get rid of.

                    6. Edit: Last Osama we ever managed to get rid of

            2. OMG Tony we dont need it for its primary function anymore BECAUSE we are putting so much money in it. Stay on top and strong or the international reality of being overpowered will eat you alive. It's really a no brainer

              1. But that’s what I said.

                They’re not fighting any wars, because no wars are starting, largely because they are a deterrence.

                So they have plenty of time to work on other problems, don’t they? We’re paying them either way.

                1. Well you can keep putting money in and then just allocate it in ways that get squads killed because it amplifies the existence of weak links. So yea, just allow roids and dont worry about their gender anymore. As virologist said, if you overdo it you end up with useless meatheads anyways.

                  What's the problem with holding people to the same physical standards regardless of gender? If they pass, they will really feel like they belong. And so would everyone else, I'm telling ya. Most soldiers don't give a dang about your gender identity. Just be useful. I don't want to ban transgenders.

      1. What counts as a disorder is just a story we tell ourselves. Of course, so is gender.

        We’re not going to be committing genocide against trans people, so you better just get used to the idea. If someone can have a stable income and personal life, they don’t have a mental disorder in our system. Something making you feel icky in your tum tum doesn’t count, because you’re just some guy.

        1. If we wanted trans people to die, we wouldn't need to commit genocide, we would just need to wait. 41%. If it's not a disorder, explain that number.

          1. Bigots making their lives miserable?

            Have you ever chosen to join a group that automatically makes you more prone to suicide? Why or why not?

            Or it’s not a choice and these are actually sick people, in which case... you want to spend how many zeroes of public dollars helping them again?

            1. Yes, they are sick people. That's exactly the point I was making, honestly surprised you're keeping up. I'm a libertarian though, so I don't believe there's any such thing as "public dollars". Those are stolen dollars you're talking about, and I would prefer that they not be stolen.

              1. Presumably your only opinion on what the military does with trans people, then, is to tell them don’t bother applying because they’re going out of business?

                1. If I were running things, yes.

                  1. Think of all the science we could pay for with 700 billion dollars.

            2. Bigots making their lives miserable?

              No, looking in the mirror every day trying not to say, "My god, what have I done to myself?" does that.

              You can say the sky is green and the grass is blue, but that doesn't make it so. Neither does saying that someone born a male is actually a female.

              1. Your provincial attachments to primitive categories is charming I’m sure. But they’re just fictions we tell ourselves.

                There is no rulebook of nature that says what people born with penises must wear, must feel, or must do to their body. You’re just repeating some stuff you heard as a child.

                You’re supposed to be the freedom people, remember? How many types of people will be ethnically cleaned before Libertopia is just right?

                1. Nobody thinks you're a libertarian, but nice job ousting yourself as someone who doesn't even believe in natural law. You don't need to have society to make 41%ers become a statistic. They do it themselves with all the support in the world because YWNBAW. Nobody has to tell them because they're telling themselves every single day.

                  1. You must explain to me what “natural law” is. I suspect it doesn’t have anything to do with conserved quantities in physics, but more to do with bedtime stories your mommy told you that you forgot to re-examine as you became a grownup.

                    If you endorse genocide against trans people, that’s certainly a political position with a long and storied history. But there’s no half-measure. You don’t get to expect that people will be left alone to make their own free choices and then demand that they only do so out of your earshot. You’re not going to convince people to give up on what makes them happy for the sake of you not having to think about anything that makes you uncomfortable.

                    So let’s just be clear in our policy goals, shall we, and tell me when you expect to begin the executions.

            3. Bigots making their lives miserable?

              Why is not the suicide rate among black people 41%?

              1. Black people are at least accepted by their families.

                Imagine what kind of person sees a statistic like that and concludes that the real problem is how people in that situation annoy you.

    3. For all your worship of Science!, you're quite keen on denying scientific biology.

      1. Here’s what biology has to say about gender: “The anthropology department is down the hall.”

        Just think about it a little and you’ll understand. Everything you so casually dismiss as cosmetic nevertheless sends deep cultural signals. That’s why trans people dress as their preferred gender: to present as such. It has nothing to do with biology, except for the fact that we are animals that wear clothes. Bigger men then you have worn skirts and heels and powdered wigs. Louis XIV, the Sun King for God’s sake, was a testosterone machine in a wig, gown, and dainty little heels.

        So what are you talking about? Other people’s genitals and DNA?

        Out of curiosity, when I apply for citizenship of your laissez-faire paradise, will there be forceps involved, or just a mild groping?

        1. "Gender" is a social construct invented by John Money, a demented pedophile and degenerate who raped two young boys and brainwashed them into reassignment surgery. The boys later commit suicide.

          The whitewashed version of gender that you're trying to peddle is just sex traits dressed up. You think it's just a cultural signal that boys prefer objects and girls prefer people? Sorry bucko, but that's a sex trait that exists across all cultures, even the most gender neutral cultures we're supposed to be emulating.

          1. So how much violence do you suggest society employ to enforce your notions of traditional gender expression?

            And, again, please, figure out what you’re talking about. Trans people want to express stereotypical gender cues. That’s the entire reason people feel uncomfortable about them.

            They’re not trying to erase gender, they’re trying to conform to it. With one tiny difference. Well, not tiny.

  27. Libertarians seeking to expand the military.


    1. If a solid military is the basis of freedom inside the country it protects, yes, no problem there.

      1. When was the last time the US military protected the US? They're too busy supporting wars of genocide in third world countries.

        1. They don't just support genocide in 3rd world countries, they spend loads of time and resources influencing the policies of first-world countries too.

        2. Im so happy the military still has such a high standing with people across all demographics. If they don't have to directly protect the country anymore (baseless claim, you may just not see it), that means a good job has been done.

  28. I also think that schizophrenics should be in the military.

    1. ONLY schizophrenics.

  29. Interviewer: And next the men of the Second Armoured Division regale us with their famous close order swanning about.

    Cut to sergeant with eight soldiers.

    Sergeant: Squad. Camp it ... up!

    Soldiers: (mincing in unison) Oooh get her! Whoops! I've got your number ducky. You couldn't afford me, dear. Two three. I'd scratch your eyes out. Don't come the brigadier bit with us, dear, we all know where you've been, you military fairy. Whoops, don't look now girls the major's just minced in with that dolly colour sergeant, two, three, ooh-ho!

  30. The easiest, most painless way to get trans troops integrated into the military is to have the country invaded by an enemy force. We would quickly put aside our tedious bickering over identity politics and get down to fighting, stripped naked, if need be, as god intended. The NVA, the Red army welcomed soldiers of all sexes and genders and won.

    1. But what if the most hardened, battle-ready warriors in the history of God’s green earth have to feel uncomfortable in the shower once?

      1. "Dear Women Of The Armed Forces,

        If you get raped in the showers, it was your fault for asking for it. You should've been more battle-ready. But not, you know, paranoid about men in the showers battle-ready... some other kind of battle-ready that I don't have the first clue about.


        1. I’m the only one here assuming soldiers have a modicum of discipline.

          I must say I was impressed how long you guys were able to stand on the argument that soldiers were squeamish little princesses. Sure they can live around death all day, but God help us if someone gets a boner in the shower.

          Straight men have been arguing for decades that they deserve all the power because they’re the psychologically weakest of us all. Doesn’t really compute, if you think about it.

          1. Straight men are the psychologically weakest? You must have been beaten into believing that, victim.

            1. I've never once complained about who was in the shower with me.

    2. We’re not very likely to be invaded by the Vietnamese.

      The Chinese, on the other hand, are incredibly homophobic and commit genocide.

      1. We all commit a little genocide sometimes.

        We can’t stop telling ourselves lies about categories we put people in.

        When we’re born vacant, screaming apes, not races or genders or citizens.

        How curious that we let lies dictate so much of our life, when there’s so precious little of it.

        1. False, and we’re not all committing genocide right now. China is.

      2. "The Chinese, on the other hand, are incredibly homophobic and commit genocide."

        Ernesto 'Che' Guevara was notoriously homophobic. He lost. His adventures in Africa and Bolivia were unsuccessful.

        1. The entire planet was notoriously homophobic until about 2008. There are pockets where there’s still work to be done, like everywhere that’s not a major city in the West.

          Americans should feel proud that they led the way on much of it, acting almost as quickly as your average Scandinavian country.

          If you want to know how to do successful and smart politics, ask a gay. We didn’t even have to fire a shot, and all of a sudden you can’t be casually homophobic with your chums anymore.

          I love the taste of power.

          1. So you are an evil cancerous totalitarian. Kill yourself

            1. I probably would be if I had an army. But they only give those to wise stewards of democracy like Donald Trump.

  31. As former military, I don't have a problem with a Transgender (identifies differently than the biological sex they were born with) person serving in the military. This is assuming that they don't have any other disqualifying aspects that would be applied to every person (psychological, physical, health related, etc.). After all the majority of the time all military personal wear uniforms and personal time is, personal time.

    With a Transexual (undergoing sex assignment surgery) it is a bit trickier. No issues prior to the treatment to alter their sex as this would be basically the same as a Transgender (identifies differently than the biological sex they were born with). After their sex has been altered is also basically the same as well, however during the time frame when the actual transformation is done would be difficult to support.

    As a libertarian, the expense of the sex transformation should be the burden of the Transexual undergoing sex assignment surgery and not the taxpayer. This would be a personal decision which should be funded personally. People who ideologically oppose sex assignment surgery should not be forced to fund the elective choices of other people.

    1. Nonsense, you are not a 'libertarian' unless you want to use the coercive power of the Federal government to force acceptance of fringe elements of society upon everyone else.

      Mainstreaming mental illness is the way to make everything better!!!

    2. "People who ideologically oppose sex assignment surgery should not be forced to fund the elective choices of other people."

      What's to stop people who are not ideologically opposed to sex assignment surgery pretending to be ideologically opposed to it just to get out of paying for it? Or ideological opposition to any medical procedure, come to think of it.

  32. Why were people being banned from military service for conditions not their fault in the first place?

    Can you imagine the uproar if this was done to anorexics, asthmatics, diabetics, or flatfooted?

    1. Anorexics
      The mentally handicapped

      The military really needs to get its act together, stop discriminating based on the conditions of someone's birth (or a decision they made in their late teens), follow the ADA, and get more retarded quadraplegics into combat roles. If they have to be carried into battle, drooling on the backs of fighting men and women more capable than they are, well then those fighting men and women need to just get over their predilections about carrying dead weight and being drooled on. That's the equality that's owed to them.

      On a related note, combat units have been proven to be more effective when women don't have to carry quadraplegic retards into battle. Units are even more effective when men don't have to carry them into battle, but they have to be carried into battle and assigning women to care for them exclusively would be unfairly discriminatory. Duty rosters will be changed accordingly.

      *Scratches head when even fewer people, men and women, join the military this year than last for the next decade.*

  33. Normal Reason- the bigots are out in full force.

    1. I know right. They attract you hard, don't they?

  34. Filtering out 41%ers, HRT patients and dilaters from the military is common sense. Military is about combat readiness and nothing else. It's the same reason you don't see people in wheelchairs and autism awareness hats.

    1. "you don’t see people in wheelchairs and autism awareness hats."

      You do see a lot of pencil pushers and desk jockeys of all ranks. Perhaps there's an opening. If the military were serious about putting together a serious fighting force, they'd recruit Taliban.

  35. The military is not some sort of social laboratory; it is intended to kill people and break things when called on to do so. If someone is willing and able to do that, fine. However, if they cannot without first receiving some costly and complicated surgical procedures, they should not be hired. I don’t want to see military medical resources wasted on sex reassignment surgery. That’s not what it’s for and not part of the military’s mission. Just like I don’t see the NBA paying for surgery to make some short guy taller so he can play power forward, the military should not pay for surgery for some woman to become a man (or vice versa) so they can carry a machine gun. Stick to fighting.

    1. "The military is not some sort of social laboratory;"

      Of course it is. A few hours watching their TV broadcasting is all it takes to disabuse you of that foolishness.

      And what's all this fussing over what medical treatment is appropriate for which kind of sexual disposition? It's crass and unseemly, if you ask me.

    2. I don't ever want to pay for anyone's sex reassignment surgery for any reason.
      People have a right to embrace their delusions if they can find a surgeon unethical enough to do the job.
      But they need to pay for it themselves

      1. It doesn’t matter what you want, it matters how much you’re going to resist when you’re forced. Are chicks with dicks your line in the sand?

        It’s just a cause. You decide for yourself whether you want to die for it. Otherwise stock up on lube because we’re not doing it your way anymore.

  36. So we're going back to allowing mentally ill people with a delusion about their gender to serve in our armed forces.
    How does this strengthen our war fighting capability exactly?
    Our enemies are mocking at this moment

    1. Yes just the way they mock the Israeli Defense Force which never cared about any of that.

      Like they can’t fight.

    2. Our enemies are the people who gain power by engendering bigotry. Our enemies were invited into the White House for four straight years. Our enemies are Donald Trump and, on occasion, his puppet master Putin. I know because they both physically attacked the country.

  37. China will sort things out after WWIII

  38. Good. True libertarians oppose discrimination by government.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.