MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

SCOTUS Says Trump’s Transgender Military Ban Can Take Effect…for Now

The Court voted along ideological lines.

Wikimedia CommonsWikimedia CommonsThe Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that the Trump administration's policy barring many transgender people from joining the military can take effect while lawsuits challenging the ban are ongoing.

The justices voted along ideological lines. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito voted to let the policy take effect. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer dissented.

President Donald Trump announced the policy via Twitter in July 2017. Transgender people would be barred from serving "in any capacity in the U.S. Military," he tweeted at the time. The announcement represented a reversal of an Obama administration policy that allowed transgender troops to serve openly.

The legal challenges soon followed. As Reason's Scott Shackford documented, various civil rights groups filed suits that the new policy violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fifth Amendment. In the midst of those lawsuits, the administration announced a modified policy last March. Under the new ban, transgender people can join and serve in the military as long as they publicly represent themselves by their biological sex and don't have a history of gender dysphoria. Transgender individuals who are already in the military can continue to do so, even if they pursue gender transition.

Implementation of the amended policy, however, had still been blocked by various trial courts around the country, according to The New York Times. But earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the policy should not have been blocked by one of those courts because it was not a "blanket ban."

"The government took substantial steps to cure the procedural deficiencies the court identified in the enjoined 2017 presidential memorandum," the appeals court said at the time, according to USA Today, adding that the ban "appears to permit some transgender individuals to serve in the military."

The Supreme Court's decision today addresses two other injunctions against the ban issued by district court judges in California and Washington State, the Times reported.

The policy can now be implemented pending a ruling on the ban's constitutionality from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court said. "If a writ of certiorari [following that ruling] is sought and the Court denies the petition, this order shall terminate automatically," the ruling reads. "If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgement."

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    If trannies are banned from serving in the military, who is next?

    Anorexics?

    Bulimics?

    Diabetics?

    Asthmatics?

    Flatfooted?

    What is the logical stopping point?

  • AustinRoth||

    None of your straw men are psychological pathologies. My list:

    Schizophrenia
    Dementia
    Alzheimer's
    Paranoid Delusia, a.k.a., SJW's, a.k.a., NPC's, etc.

    p.s. - flat feet can be disqualifying

  • JesseAz||

    Anorexia is...

  • Agammamon||

    Anorexia and bulimia are.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Diabetics are disqualified.

    Asthmatics are disqualified.

    These are medical conditions that prevent military folks from being 100% ready for war at short notice.

  • Nardz||

    I think that was the point: all those conditions are disqualifying, as are sleep disorders and some types of tattoos.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    *calibrating sarcasm gauge

  • Agammamon||

    Diabetics aren't disqualified. At least not if they develop diabetes while in. It may prevent you from getting in in the first place but even that's not guaranteed.

    They may not be eligible for some assignments (anyplace where reliable refrigeration won't be available) and that may force some specific ratings/MOS' out (or to change) because those ratings/MOS' serve in those places a lot.

    For the USN, diabetes is basically a non-issue - 90% of what we do we do in places with access to refrigeration. Of course, being so fat that you can't fit through the scuttle anymore, Chief, that tends to come along with adult-onset diabetes is still a problem.

  • Rossami||

    Mostly untrue, I'm afraid. Diabetes mellitus of any type is a disqualifier during your entrance exam.

    While you may be able to find a temporary duty station if you develop late-onset diabetes, that will be very temporary. You'll almost certainly be medically discharged as soon as practical (though I suppose there are probably examples of individuals allowed to run out their current term of enlistment so they can receive an honorable discharge instead).

  • John Rohan||

    Diabetics cannot serve in the Army if their a1c is above 7% (which means they need insulin). They can serve if they can get by on oral medication.

  • Rat on a train||

    Is it currently all asthmatics? At one time it was only asthmatics that required medication.

  • Rossami||

    The current diagnostic standards are:

    (1) Substantiated history of cough, wheeze, and/or dyspnea that persists or recurs over a prolonged period of time, generally more than 6 months.

    (2) If the diagnosis of asthma is in doubt, a test for reversible airflow obstruction (greater than a 15 percent increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEVI) following administration of an inhaled bronchodilator) or airway hyperactivity (exaggerated decrease in airflow induced by standard bronchoprovocation challenge such as methacholine inhalation or a demonstration of exercise-induced bronchospasm) must be performed.

    In other words, it doesn't matter if you "require" medication - if the medicine has a positive impact, that's evidence enough.

  • Rat on a train||

    That would be one disqualifier for me. There are probably others that I got a pass on but would disqualify today. I guess they aren't having as much difficulty recruiting these days.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    You know, maybe if we did not ban these people (diabetics, anorexics, asthmatics, etc.) from military service, there would be no precedent for banning trannies.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    And the military could become completely dysfunctional, instead of only partly.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    No one spoke up for the anorexic.

    No one spoke up for the bulimic.

    No one spoke up for the diabetic.

    No one spoke up for the asthmatic.

    Now there is no one left to speak for the trannie.

    Martin Niemoller was right.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You did not mention bone spurs.

    Illusory bone spurs, of course.

    Carry on, clingers. Not for much longer, though.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I thought Bill Clinton fled to Canada to avoid the Vietnam War?

    I didn't think Bill Clinton had bone spurs. Make sense that Bill had bone spurs removed and then Chelsea appeared.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    It would be ok if Trump "loathed the military".

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    What do Bill Clinton's phantom bone slurs have to do,with Webb Hubble's daughter?

  • ThomasD||

    Type I diabetics can enlist?

    Are you sure?

    Can color blind people serve in the Navy now too?

  • Just Say'n||

    I think this case is a good highlight of how bad progressives are on foreign policy. They don't take issue with the military bombing families with drones. Nor do they even care about our involvement in multiple wars abroad (hell, they were bitching about Trump pulling out of Syria and they're all in with war on Russia).

    All they really care about is that the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ (whatever other stupid acronym there is) aren't in on the action. They'd celebrate a drone attack that kills a bridal party, so long as the guy controlling the drone is the first gender non-conforming whatever.

  • Just Say'n||

    Imagine if this lawsuit involved the Democratic majority in the House suddenly demanding that the president present his "kill list" to Congress. Doesn't matter if Obama started the list, that would have actually been something useful. Instead we get complete non-issues like this shit.

  • John||

    They also don't care about whether we have a military that can actually do its job of winning wars. They see the militay like they do everything ellse, just something to be suberted into a weapon for advancing their politics. They could not care less about the effect on readiness this idiocy has. That would be bad enough, except that they also love going to war as you point out. They want want war but they also don't want a military capable of winning it. Insanity is too weak of a word for the left these days.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +100

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I see a ton of virtual signaling in this thread, yet not a single comment that actually specifies why a transgender person would not be qualified to serve in the military. In any case, I propose that such things should be evaluated on an individual basis, rather than a blanket judgment on a whole group of people.

    And yes, Just Sayin', many on the left are terrible and hypocritical on foreign policy.

  • Just Say'n||

    I'm not virtue signaling, I'm noting that this whole thing is a massive distraction and progressives are not hypocritical on foreign policy- they've always enjoyed a robust and expansive military abroad. The old Left, which is distinctly different from the progressive, is now just a rump.

  • Just Say'n||

    I agree on your individual analysis part, but I really don't care. I don't view it as progress that we bombed Syria with intersectional bombs. I care that we bombed Syria. This really is a completely stupid culture war. An amazing distraction from what should be the central issue.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Yeah, I agree. I hope the troops from Syria actually start coming home soon, as Trump promised.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump salutes remains of 4 Americans killed in Syria attack

    Here are 4 US Service Members that came home.

    You fucking asshole.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    For Baculum, of course.

  • Just Say'n||

    Dude, shut-up, loveconstitution. I don't even know what you're upset about. Chipper just said he hopes the troops from Syria come home, like everybody else.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If you cannot tell the difference between baculum's agenda and what Libertarians on here say, I don't know what to tell you.

    Since you dont know, Baculum is a shitbag.

  • Agammamon||

    Yeah, we should totally keep fucking around over there - because we don't want these 4 guys to have died for nothing.

    Nothing's worse than being the last guy who died for a bullshit war, amirite?

  • Peter Duncan||

    Since you don't know, LC1789 never misses an opportunity to tell us how sweet Trump's scaly, tumorous cock tastes.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Peter, you sound.........jealous. I'm sure if you beg Trump, and promise to offer it up sweet enough, he will give you what you need. Then call you 'sugar'.

  • Peter Duncan||

    You know, I'm certain glad you're last of the shit-for-brains as humanity may finally move beyond the petty tribalism you peddle around here just as soon as someone flushes the toilet your brain marinates in.

    Your own leg humping of Trump is as nauseaing as all of those Obama bitches, like Tony and the Reverend, telling us how he was the greatest president ever.

    How Progressive of you!

    You are nothing more than a putride, partisan, butt-hurt snowflake hack.

    Do you still masterbate while watching Hannity?

  • John||

    Gender disporia is a mental illness. It is just another medical condition for the military to spend money and time dealing with that takes away from what it does. Could some transgender serve? Sure. so could a lot of people with clinical depression or schitzophrena or any number of other mental disorders. We don't allow any of them in the miliary because it is a special job that requires special focus such that accomodation for such things cannot be done the way it can for other jobs.

    If they banned transgender from government employment, that would be a problem. But, service in the military is something entirely different.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You didn't answer my question. Not all mental disorders are automatically disqualifying. Many people that serve in the military probably have an anxiety disorder, for example. So what exactly is it about transgenders, besides the fact that they make you feel icky, that would prevent them from serving in the military?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    There's a fundamental difference between being unusually nervous, and being delusional, Transgenders are the latter.

  • John||

    Sure not all are. But this is a partuclarly serious one that is disqualifying. If you disagree with that, then elect a President who does as well and change the policy. The question is not whether this is a good or bad decision. We are never going to settle that because it is a value question of how much you think this affects readiness versus how much you think transgender bring to the table.

    The question is whether it is an issue which reasonable people can disagree such that the military can decide to do this even if not everyone agrees with it. If it is, then the court has no basis to overturn it. So explain to me how it is so unreasonable for the military to decide it doesn't want to mess with admitting transgender that the courts should overrule their judgement and force them to do it even though the lawfully elected Congress and the President both agree with the decision.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Libertarians for Statist Transgender-Bashing?

    or, more accurate,

    Authoritarians For Bigotry And Backwardness

  • Michael Ejercito||

    So you are on the side of trannie freaks.

  • Echospinner||

    In order to meet the criteria for diagnosis of gender dysphoria the individual must experience significant distress or problems functioning for at least six months.

    That would not include all transgender people.

  • Agammamon||

    What about homosexuality? Is that a mental illness too?

    Pretty much everything is a mental illness - we've set up this false line that says 'normal' and call everything that deviates from it 'illness'. What we should be asking ourselves is not 'are these people normal' but 'can these people do the job?'

    We didn't think non-whites could.

    We didn't think women could.

    We didn't think homosexuals could.

    And it turned out not only can they but that the side problems that were claimed would 'destroy morale' never surfaced.

  • John||

    Being gay was once considered a mental illness. Should it be? Maybe not. But the fact that it shouldn't for gays doesn't mean there is no such thing as mental illness or that transgender people don't suffer from one. Thinking your body is of the wrong sex seems to be a very strong delusion to me. Whatever your opinion, it is certainly orders of magnitude more serious than being gay.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Being gay was once considered a mental illness. Should it be? Maybe not

    Or maybe yes?

  • Kevin Smith||

    Gender dysphoria is the mental illness associated with being transgender, however not all transgender individuals have gender dysphoria, and even those that do are typically fully recovered once they have transitioned

  • BYODB||

    I notice two out of your three are genetic and only one is mental. Actually, scratch that. Are we saying being gay is a choice today? That can change the logic.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Because,

    1. They're nuttier than fruitcakes. Their insanity is not typically limited to thinking they're a different gender than they really are. The suicide rate alone ought to disqualify them from being anywhere near munitions.

    2. If they take their insanity to the point of surgically and hormonally mutilating themselves, they'll have specialized medical requirements that complicate logistics.

    3. They're crazy. Yes, I'm counting that twice, it's a big deal.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Transgender people have mental issues.

    Exhibit 1: There are only two genders and they are defined by which sets of Chromosomes you have at birth.

    If you dont have XY or XX Chromosomes, you are a defect in nature and those people tend to have health problems. Maybe those mutations will have super abilities, at which time we might change our minds to want them in the military.

    Until then, the military should be seeking the best and brightest. Not the most genetically deformed and the political Aluminum Goose.

  • Echospinner||

    Two sexes.

    Gender is not a biological term. It is a grammatical term coopted by sociologists.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Transgender is not a biological term. It is a grammatical term coopted by Psychiatrist John F. Oliven of Columbia University coined the term transgender in his 1965 reference work Sexual Hygiene and Pathology writing that the term which had previously been used, transsexualism, "is misleading; actually, 'transgenderism' is meant, because sexuality is not a major factor in primary transvestism."
    -Wikipedia "transgender"

  • Echospinner||

    "Exhibit 1: There are only two genders and they are defined by which sets of Chromosomes you have at birth."

    Is a false statement you mean sex not gender. The same is true for dogs. We don't talk about dogs having gender, although the terms are getting mixed up unfortunately.

    It is a bit pedantic but this is one of my issue topics.

    Words have gender. People, bless their hearts, have sex.

  • BYODB||

    Amusingly, trans people take issue with neutral phrasing.

  • Mickey Rat||

    There are the regular hormone drugs required. The rather thorny question of should the person's PE training be judged on the sex or their gender identity and with which sex they are housed. Those are a few problems off the top of one's head.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Chip, the military does not evaluate potential recruits disqualifying conditions. It isn't a jobs program that exists for the convenience of trannys, or any other group.

    Nor should trannys be admitted. At a minimum, the psychological issues involved are a disqualifier. Clinical depression is a significant problem, with a full third of TG individuals becoming suicidal at some point. Which would certainly be exacberated the stress and demands of military training and service. Especially during deployments. This doesn't even begin to cover TG people who are taking hormone therapy or other drug dependent treatments. Which is also another automatic disqualifier.

    FFS, a mild thyroid condition normally prevents enlistment, so why would anyone make an exception for this? To make these people feel special?

  • Eric H.||

    If the trans wants to join as their biological sex and agree to stay within the rules for dress and behavior then I don't see an issue. If the trans requires hormones and counseling and wants to join as their identified sex then it becomes an unnecessary burden on the tax payers and military due to the extra cost of health care. Then there becomes the issue of which barracks they get assigned to. Not much privacy in the military.

  • ThomasD||

    " ...a single comment that actually specifies why a transgender person would not be qualified to serve in the military."

    And none are necessary. At least not here. Because it really would not matter which ones we accepted or didn't accept. That is the prerogative of the military to decide. They being both best qualified to decide, and also Constitutionally vested with the decision power.

  • ||

    All they really care about is that the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ (whatever other stupid acronym there is) aren't in on the action. They'd celebrate a drone attack that kills a bridal party, so long as the guy controlling the drone is the first gender non-conforming whatever.

    They don't even care about that (See Selective Services). What they care about is telling the other side they were wrong.

  • DajjaI||

    I love transgender people, but they can also be bitter and self-destructive. I hate to say it but maybe it's better if they are not in the military dreaming up more efficient ways to kill people.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They might be nice people but they clearly have unresolved mental issues.

    Additionally, the military and Veterans Affair medical systems should not pick up the tab for all the medical care that they want. Its not worth it.

  • DajjaI||

    I knew a transgender woman who faked having cancer for years. Of course anyone can do that but it's more common among that population. Having said that, if I was born in the wrong body I'd be bitter and self-destructive too.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I feel bad for their mental issues but refuse to fall victim to their BS either.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    What do you think about ostensible adults who believe (or claim to believe) fairy tales are true?

  • creech||

    You mean there should be religious tests for holding office? e.g. belief in a god is disqualifying.

  • John||

    The Reverend has an IQ just above room temperature. Not only does he beleive that, he thinks the Constitution requires it. He is a special breed of stupid.

  • damikesc||

    The Reverend has an IQ just above room temperature.

    Really? Above room temperature now?

    Damn.

    His school DID improve him.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Damikec, that must be one heel of a pre school then.

    When is the Rev. due to graduate?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I mean that if we tolerate the rubes who believe in fairy tales, there should be plenty of tolerance to go around.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I mean that if we tolerate the rubes who believe in fairy tales, there should be plenty of tolerance to go around.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You mean there should be religious tests for holding office? e.g. belief in a god is disqualifying.

    I mean that transgendered service personnel should form a church, then claim religious privilege, tying the right-wing kooks into knots.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Um, do you think believing in an afterlife makes somebody a less effective soldier? I'm not seeing the reasoning here.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    No atheists in foxholes.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    One person can't distinguish fantasy from reality.

    The other perceives a gender different from that assigned at birth.

    America is great enough to tolerate both in the military. Conservatives apparently get to cling to their stale thinking a bit longer, apparently, in this single context.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I perceiver myself as Commandant of the United States Marine Corps.

  • Benitacanova||

    Let me guess -- cervical?

  • lap83||

    "Under the new ban, transgender people can join and serve in the military as long as they publicly represent themselves by their biological sex"

    IOW they have to conform and wear the uniform just like everyone else. So transphobic, I cant even...

  • BYODB||

    And don't ask, don't tell didn't last either. Just saying.

  • Tony||

    I doubt Trump even remembers this.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Uh-oh Lefties, the writing is on the wall.

    Did Ruth Bader Ginsburg have Nathan Phillips give her vote via drum beat?

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    RBG is perfectly healthy. Stop being sexist. It was unfair when people speculated about Hillary Clinton's health in 2016 and it's unfair now.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    RBG...Really Bitchy Grave.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    And people think I'm exaggerating when I say Drumpf is literally turning this country into The Handmaid's Tale. As a non-binary person I find this insulting. I haven't been this mad about any of Drumpf's military decisions since he announced the Syria withdrawal.

    #LibertariansForStayingInSyria
    #LetTransgenderTroopsServeThereToo

  • Ragnarredbeard||

    Literally? I don't think you know what that means.

  • Rich||

    I don't think you know what OBL means.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    YES. WE NEED MORE THOUGHT POLICE TO SUPPORT RICH AND RAGNARRBEARD.

    Trumpland Uber Alles

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    MAGA!

  • ByteRot||

    Unfortunately, literally literally means both literally and metaphorically, now. Multiple respective dictionaries have unironically recognized its formerly ironic use. I literally can't believe it, this world is literal garbage now.

    So it appears to be you that doesn't know what literal means, because it can literally mean anything you want it to, making language one step closer to being literally useless as a means for communicating ideas.

  • Kevin Smith||

    "Literally" literally doesn't mean literally anymore

  • ElvisIsReal||

    Next step, misusing "figuratively" enough that it will also literally mean "literally".

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    The president is literally turning this country muslim?

    Go Fuck yourself

  • Ragnarredbeard||

    Ask the military units who have to work with transgenders how they feel about it. You'll find that most people don't have a problem with trans serving, but all bets are off when they transition on active duty. They become long-term non-deployable and even when they are at work they have profiles that limit them. Every one else in the unit has to work more for them, and some poor sod is gonna get deployed extra.

    (was a flight chief at a USAF flying unit and had several people on long-term DNIF. Every one else had to pick up their flying schedule and once a guy is grounded for a more than a year people start not liking him much.)

  • John||

    It is just another distraction from the mission. Something else to spend time and mony on instead of spending it on readiness. No one has a "right to serve" in the military. The whole concept is absurd.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    What do you believe about taxpayer money that funds chaplains, the snowflake-coddling hand-holders for weak people who can't handle reality without an illusory crutch?

    Come to think of it, chaplains are a lot like emotional support animals, such as gerbils, peacocks, goats, marmosets, ducks, and turkeys.

  • John||

    Chaplains provide a valuable service to the people who serve. You can't expect people to serve to then give up their access to religious services as a condition of service. Transgenderism is a mental disorder. There is nothing about it that enhances readiness nor any reason to allow those who suffer from it to serve.

    Now go post something hateful, irrational and stupid somewhere else because I really am not in the mood for your backwoods brand of progressive ignorance.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And Father Mulcahy was always helping out in the OR. He was very helpful to Hawkeye and Trapper John.

  • ||

    Chaplains improve morale. That increases the chances of completing a unit's mission. This is why the military has chaplains.

  • BearOdinson||

    I just found out that the Army approved chaplains for Germanic neopaganism.

    Til Valhalla!

  • ThomasD||

    Dang, I'm about 40 years too late...

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Chaplains improve morale.

    Not among the reality-based personnel.

    Waste of taxpayer money. But one that old-timey right-wingers can cling to.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Arty, I have a news flash for you. Our military is almost entirely composed of right leaning people of faith. Not progtard faggot trash like you, who never have the guts to serve.

    This is why of you and your worthless friends ever push us into a civil war, you will lose quickly and horribly.

  • Peter Duncan||

    Wow, you're always looking to solve your problems with violence there, Shiteater.

    No surprise after all, because you really are a triggered little cunt.

    What the fuck are you so afraid of?

  • Rich||

    transgender people can join and serve in the military as long as they ... don't have a history of gender dysphoria.

    Hmm. That would appear to ban most.

  • Just Say'n||

    You're really bad at parody, Cathy.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I do not mind watching the Republican Party and conservatism brand themselves for generations with stale bigotry, because the long-term benefit -- rejection of right-wing positions as society continues to improve -- is likely to be greater than the short-term injustice associated with the intolerance, ignorance, and backwardness.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Eric H.||

    I hear this crap all the time about conservatives but here I am in a sea of conservatism (Alabama), from a family of conservatives (Eastern Oregon) and I don't know anybody in my family or my circle of (mostly conservative) friends that are bigoted, or intolerant and from your posts ignorance isn't owned by the right wing.

    You are simply pushing the left wing narrative without the data, empirical or even anecdotal, to support your position.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Why have you not moved to a successful, modern community?

    If you are younger than 18, please disregard the question and accept my hope you get out of that deplorable backwater as soon as you can.

  • ThomasD||

    Agreed, if he gets tired of living in a tolerant and accepting region he can always move to someplace like Portland or Boulder and experience hatred and envy firsthand.

  • Homple||

    Imagine the chaos if the Commander in Chief were allowed to set personnel policy for the military without court supervision.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    That's how we got transgenders in the military in the first place. It's not like letting them in was a longstanding policy. It was something the Obama administration did on its way out. Literally in the middle of 2016.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>The justices voted along ideological lines.

    Roberts has no ideology.

  • Ragnarredbeard||

    I suspect Roberts flips a coin in his chambers.

  • Tony||

    There's something so peculiar about the conservative brain. Jump at any chance to send hardened young men off to experience unspeakable horror and trauma and possibly die for the flag... but don't dare expose them to a chick with a dick. They might just fall apart.

  • Homple||

    The problem is that your "hardened young men" experiencing their unspeakable horror and trauma and perhaps dying are further burdened by looking after and dealing with the behavior of crazy people who should be in an asylum somewhere, not in combat.

  • Tony||

    Shoot other humans' heads off indiscriminately... for the country!

    Shower with a fag, crumble like a goddamn daisy. Maybe they should have some training to make them less squeamish. What with being soldiers and all.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I don't want to shower with fags. I would never want to be in the vicinity of a deviant piece of shit like you while naked. How do I know for sure? My unit had one. He had a habit of preying on the power drinkers in our unit and no.esrimg them when they passed out. There was an actual criminal investigation of this person. Unfortunately, as we all know, rape is very hard to prove. So he skated on the charges.

  • Tony||

    So you only want to get naked and soapy around heterosexual males.

  • BYODB||

    Logically, yes. No one will be turned on in that scenario.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No, but not showering with a deviant predator comparison shopping for his next victim is a plus.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony and his Lefty brethren like to pile more work onto military members.

    They used to just be ready to fight and die for their state.

    Now they have to always help women who cannot carry as much as average men, protect their fellow woman soldier from being captured lest she be impregnated by enemy soldiers, do extra work for transgender members who are unfit for duty, be careful not to say the wrong thing that might offend any of the above protected classes...

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Jump at any chance to send hardened young men off to experience unspeakable horror and trauma and possibly die for the flag

    Tony, try to keep up. We Clinton voters are now attacking Republicans on foreign policy by claiming they're not aggressive enough as demonstrated by our criticism of the Syria withdrawal. The idea that Republicans are too willing to bomb and occupy foreign countries is the pre-#TrumpRussia complaint.

    #StillWithHer

  • damikesc||

    Jump at any chance to send hardened young men off to experience unspeakable horror and trauma and possibly die for the flag

    Yet Dems shriek in horror at Trump pulling out of Syria...

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Damikesc, I am told Bill Clinton is a big fan of pulling out.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Damikesc, I am told Bill Clinton is a big fan of pulling out.

  • floridalegal||

    This was a procedural ruling, not a substantive ruling. The hyperventilating in the media and social media apparently is unaware of this or doesn't understand the distinction. SCOTUS is following fairly routine procedures of wanting issues to be ripe and appropriate for cert. There are NO appellate Court orders. There are no conflicts among the circuits. ONCE the Ninth Circuit makes a ruling that can be appealed, it is too soon for a District Court to make a global determination for the entire US.

  • Dillinger||

    also, whoever wants to be front lines, have a party dude. i can't believe we limit who can serve in uniform wtf.

  • John||

    We limit who can serve because some people take away from the mission more than they add.

  • Dillinger||

    how do you know that happens until it happens?

  • John||

    We don't. But we don't expect the military to sit around and wait until admitting someone gets someone killed to find out. We allow them to make reasonable assumptions and decisions. You think trannies are great and totatlly worth admitting to the military. The military disagrees. Why is their opinion on the matter so unreasonable that they should not have the right to make it?

  • Tony||

    What must it feel like to be on the wrong side of every issue? Does your comical all-encompassing bigotry entertain your grandchildren or what?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, how does it feel that you are wrong on every issue?

  • Tony||

    It's 9 pm in Moscow. Do you know where your handle of vodka is?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor Tony. Wrong on another issue and tries to deflect that he is a FSB agent by calling other people Russian agents.

    Genius Tony!

  • Dillinger||

    >>>You think trannies are great and totatlly worth admitting to the military.

    a stretch. I'd say innocuous and the study is inconclusive

    >>>The military disagrees. Why is their opinion on the matter so unreasonable that they should not have the right to make it?

    didn't say it was or they don't ... is there something to every military death so far being of a heterosexual?

  • John||

    Transgender is not about sexuality. Gays are a different topic.

  • ||

    You think trannies are great and totatlly worth admitting to the military. The military disagrees. Why is their opinion on the matter so unreasonable that they should not have the right to make it?

    It's so much worse than this and the fact that people want to let trannies serve openly in shows them to be pretty anti-standing military/NAP.

    The military routinely changes criteria for acceptance. It has since the draft and well before. If the military needs more warm bodies to send off into a meat grinder, it lowers its standards for what constitutes a warm body.

    The pro-trannie service community is little different than the open borders community. Sure, it makes the military intrinsically larger and less fit for purpose, sure it perpetuates the leviathan for abuse by current and future leaders, but what is all of that compared to the warm fuzzies we get by including people who, increasingly, won't physically fire a weapon at anyone?

  • John||

    Pretty much all that. If we ever were in a no kidding world war again and started to run out of people and got desparate enough, could we take transgendered? Sure. Hell we might have to in some circumstances. But we don't have to now. And the people claiming we should just want warm fuzzies and to shove their views down the country's throat and couldn't care less about the military or the people serving in it.

  • Tony||

    White heterosexual males aren't in fucking charge automatically you goddamn bigot.

  • ||

    White heterosexual males aren't in fucking charge automatically you goddamn bigot.

    Keep it up Tony. Next you'll be telling us that they should allow more trannies on police forces too.

  • John||

    So everyone who is black isn't straight? You just assume that you speak for black people and they all agree with you?

    Black people think you are crazy too Tony. And you are a racist on top that because you appearently think that they can't think or speak for themselves and need you to do it for them.

    Sometimes you even surprise me how hatful and bigoted you are.

  • Tony||

    John, spokesman for black people.

  • floridalegal||

    And they aren't automatically and always wrong and racist. Bigotry is not a respecter of race, creed, color, sex, or national origin. Progressives can not make decisions on the BASIS of race, creed or some other immutable characteristic. All whites do not think alike. All blacks do not think alike. Identity politics is built upon the foundation of all people in whatever group thinks and act the same. THAT's bigotry.

  • Tony||

    Bigotry is saying trans people shouldn't be allowed in the military. Are we sticking to the point or are you bringing up one of your own grievances?

  • John||

    Bigotry is saying trans people shouldn't be allowed in the military.

    Not if allowing those people into the military harms readiness. Is it bigotry to say that people with ALS shouldn't join?

    You really are unable to think about these issues or do anything but repeat whatever talking points you are fed. God it must be terrible to be that stupid.

  • Tony||

    Conservatards said the same words about blacks, women, and gays. They were wrong every time. Stop trying to justify your bigotry to me. I'm not going to buy it as anything else.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor Tony and his racism, sexism, and homophobia shine through again.

    Black patriots served in the Revolutionary War.
    Black Americans served in the Civil War for the North and few Uncle Toms for the South.
    Buffalo soldiers fought in Cuba during Spanish-American War.

    Democrats didnt want blacks serving in the military. That changed when FDR needed more soldiers to serve.

    Women are not as physically capable as men, so military standards were lowered for them.

    Who really cares about gay people but some military guys dont want other military guys trying to get with them. So it can be a morale issue.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, it's democrats that hate blacks. Republicans have always supported protecting their constitutional rights. Democrats have worked tirelessly for over a hundred and fifty years to destroy black Americans.

    You're no different.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No it isn't you stupid shit. This has all been explained. You're just too dumb to understand.

    And for the record, blacks tend to despise fags like you. Look at the demographics on prop 8.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Same we know that encircling an enemy is more effective than attacking head-on.

    Same way we know that women on average cannot carry as much as men on average.

    Same way we know that we need strong, fit, brave, adaptive, and trained military people to win.

  • BYODB||

    Bradley Manning ruined it for them all, you say?

  • Benitacanova||

    I told my aunt that I thought transism was a mental disorder. She said what? You think people would choose to be that way? I said what? Since when is mental illness a choice?

  • M.L.||

    Reminder: Trump is not preventing any transgender people from serving in the military. They are free to enlist. They'll just need to "identify" as, you know, the sex that they actually are, which is unchangeable.

    Lefties can't get this through their heads and keep bleating about how Trump is preventing willing persons from serving. So it needs repeating.

    The deranged denial of basic science is a bigger issue but at some point you can't fix stupid.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To be fair, transgender people likely wont be able to follow those guidelines.

    The have had a few years to embrace the insanity of the Left, who tell them that they are perfectly normal.

    Its like discussing ending government's role in marriage, thereby ending SCOTUS' unconstitutional endorsement of gay marriage. I have heard gay folks exclaim, "you ain't putting me back in the closet"!

    Its a cognitive dissonance really. Government staying out of who can get married is nothing like publicly forcing homosexuals to publicly act heterosexual.

  • John||

    That is an excellent point. This is not about transgenders serving in the military. This is about whether the military owes them any accomodation. And the answer to that is no for a lot of reasons. If nothing else, there is no way to do it in a fair way to females. If a man claims to be a woman, does he get to have female PT standards and blow the scale because he is biologically a man? If he does, women get screwed. PT scores matter a lot in the military. And there are significant rewards for having the best one in your unit or post. What about all of the women who get screwed out of such things because they are stuck competing with a biological man?

    Transgenderism has disproportionate affects on women. And in practice it ends up being very harmful to women. There are not any boys who are losing state championships in sorts becase some girl wants to claim to really be a boy. It is girls who are being screwed and women's sprots that is being destroyed. Same thing here.

  • Agammamon||

    Hey, I'm perfectly fine with 'no accommodation'. I'm all for that. Its what I've been preaching about serving with women (and having female subordinates) the whole time I was in. Set your standard and expect everyone to meet it. Any leeway you give will be taken and more demanded.

  • John||

    No accomodation means you treat them as their biological sex. And that seems to be what they are objecting to. I pretty much agree with you. If the guy does his job and is treated as and meets the same standards of his biological sex, then there isn't a problem. I don't care what he thinks he is or how he likes to dress and act off duty.

  • Just Say'n||

    This whole thread is a massive argument over one big distraction.

  • John||

    It is a massive argument involving people who know nothing about what they are saying. The spectacle of Tony lecturing the world about military readiness is a bit rich to say the least. The real question is does the military, the President and the Congress have the right to decide that having transgendered in the military is not worth the hassle. And the answer is clearly they do. If you think they have made a wrong decision, then elect a President and Congress that agrees with you. But whatever you think of the decision it is not so wrong that the courts have the duty to prevent them from making it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I am even fine with people discussing what the standards should be even without an election result. We discuss stuff all the time.

    The Lefties dont want discussions. They want to force accommodations on the military to signal to the loons in their Party that they are woke. They want to redistribute transgender medical costs onto all taxpayers.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Valid progtards like atony treat the military like some federal jobs program.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    'Vapid progtards'

  • Jalene||

    There used to be arguments whether women should be allowed to serve in the military. Later, once women were allowed to serve, it became whether women could serve in combat units, fly jets helicopters, drive tanks... These were all "distractions" too.

    So while I agree disagree with a great many comments in this thread, I do believe it's a conversation worth having.

  • Jalene||

    *So while I disagree with...*

    Sorry for mangling my last sentence...

  • John||

    And a lot of the predictions that were made about the effects of integrating women into the larger military have come true. The people who objected to ending the old WAC and WAVs and later ending segregated basic training said that mixing the sexes would produce all kinds of problems with harassment and sexual assault and they were largely right about that. They also said integrating women into combat units would lower the physical standards no matter how much we were assured that women would be held to the same standards. And they were right about that too. We now know that the first women graduates from Ranger School and Marine Corps Infantry training were allowed to pass despite failing to meet the physical requirements applied to men.

    Since we don't get to live the counter factual of now integrating women into the force, it is a completely open question whether it has helped readiness or not. The truth is that it likely has not. But, we are fortunate enough to have such a good military and have avoided any near peer wars to have not really paid a price for that

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Women get to be Rangers but dont have to get stuck in some godforsaken shithole training insurgents and then get captured only to get brutalized by the bad guys.

  • John||

    Sending women into combat zones risks getting them captured and being raped. That is a risk that while present is nowhere near as serious as it is with women. Also, sending women to combat zones risks taking both parents away from their children. The military does that all of the time. You would be shocked how many military couples end up both being deployed at the same time and their kids end up with grand parents.

    I think overall the integration of women into the support roles has been worth the price. But the price is a lot higher than the media or indeed the military will ever admit.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Meh. There are a bunch of lazy women in the military. They ruin it for the dedicated women who outshine some men. We already have a process for getting rid of lazy men.

    Its a social experiment unless men and women are treated the same in the military. Same physical standards. If you cannot do 50 situps and 25 pushups by the end of bootcamp, you're out. No exceptions for men or women.

    Adding one female restroom for 3 women on a SSN is ridiculous. Those subs are tight already.

    This kind of crap has to stop.

  • John||

    Women are never going to measure up physically to young men. So, if you want equality you should just go back to a segregated military. Again, the arguments for that are better than anyone wants to admit

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Did they lower the standards for men to only 25 pushups and 50 sit-ups? It was higher when I served. Back then I could max the push ups test at 82 push ups in under a minute out of the allotted two minutes.

  • Dillinger||

    Venn diagram of transgendered/want to serve can't be more than 14 people

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Nah, it's more than that, because they've been using military medical benefits to pay for the gender reassignment surgery.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I would say that if they want to serve, let them serve. Most issues I hear about seem to be solved with minor adjustments. Of course any "adjustments" proposed (ie ladies not required to shower with trans women) will no doubt be called transphobic and vehemently opposed but they can be made. I think the strongest argument against allowing combat roles to trans folks is the supposed much higher than normal rates of suicide in that population. I certainly don't want to collectivize the group and if you don't appear to be at risk than ok but given the rates of PTSD among combat veterans that seems like something that needs to be discussed.

  • AlmightyJB||

    One of many citations that anyone with the internet can find.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/...../31626633/

  • John||

    It is not about allowing them to serve. It is about making any accomodation for their condition. They can all serve now. What they cannot do is serve and have the military go along with their claims and treat them as different from their biology.

    When you think of it that way, the issue becomes a lot less benign than you think it is. Why should women be forced to shower and live with men just because said men claim they are women? Why are people who refuse to go along with this charade's interests always totally dismissed? How come transgendered count for everything and must be accomodated over any and all objections? Why should the military be paying money for hormone treatments and sex change operations when it doesn't take care of its veterans who are still sick from their service right now? The military is there to do a job that when it is not done well people get killed. Why should they be required to spend even a dime or a minute of effort accomodating the transgendered given those stakes?

  • AlmightyJB||

    So they can get more soldiers? And no I don't think women should be forced to shower with men which is why I specifically mentioned it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Women in the military should be prepared to shit/shower/shave with men, as sometimes you dont have time to build a nice powder room for women to be by themselves for hygiene roundup.

  • John||

    They can get plenty of soldiers. They don't need to bother with this to fill the ranks. And allowing them to shower with the other sex and be treated as they are the other sex is what this whole thing is about. If they don't demand to be accomodated, they don't have a problem.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I love to tell women, be careful what you wish for. You think you want "equality" between men and women. When you get it, you complain that you have to take showers with strange men, be in the same bathroom, do the same hard jobs, etc.

    Some women get upset that men dont hold doors open for them, be careful what is said around them in public, and avoid marriage.

    Certain things were done because men were men and women were women.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No. Bad idea. They're not a good fit for military service, which is not there in any way to adapt to incoming individuals. So many people who never served with such uninformed opinions.

  • Echospinner||

    So explain why a transgender person with a good service record and no disabling mental health issues cannot serve.

    I fail to see how the persons "public identity" matters. What is that exactly anyway?

    I hear a lot of "they are..." assertions going on here.

    Always focus on the individual.

  • John||

    As long as the person doesn't demand the military accomdate them, then there is no reason why they can't serve. If you are talking about kicking people out because they like to cross dress off duty, then I think there is a good case to be made that is a mistake. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the courts forcing the military to accomodate people who are transgendered such that they treat them as the other sex facts and biology be damned.

  • Jalene||

    Having read all of the comments, it seems that the majority of commenters view this issue solely as transgender women who want to serve and the affect that may have on cisgender women and men, when it may be that the majority of trans people who want to serve in the military are transgender men. So how does that fit into the narrative and discussion?

    But the points made about the military paying for gender reassignment surgery are salient. I don't personally think the military should be obligated to do that. On the other hand, if someone who has already transitioned fully wants to enlist, should we accept that and bear the costs of paying for the hormone treatments during their service?

  • John||

    I think it would be nearly entirely transgendered men. Transgender women won't be able to meet the male PT standards. Claiming to be a man when you are actually a woman makes things harder. I don't know of a single case of a transgendered woman demanding accommodation. Maybe one exists but I have never seen it.

    I think there is a better case to be made for true post op transgender. If they are fit to serve and truly pass as the other gender, then you just treat them as that gender. Why even ask or bother to know if the person was ever the other gender? But the activists would never agree to a compromise where only post op trans are admitted. That would be too sensible. They are just fanatics who want all transgender allowed to enlist so the military can be used as a way to force everyone to accept it.

  • Jalene||

    Are we mixing up the definitions of trans men and women here? I'm not sure. I think you're saying that trans men are men who transition into women. I meant trans men as women who transition into men, for the sake of clarity.

  • John||

    I think we are. When I say trans men, I mean men who want to be women. I think you mean the opposite.

  • Echospinner||

    What does biology have to do with it? A lot of sixth grade biology floating around. It is actually a complicated subject in research.

    We are not really talking about biology. By definition anything that occurs in nature is natural even if we do not understand it. Trans people have occurred throughout history and across cultures.

    So if the individual requires no special accommodation that is ok as it would be for anyone else who is somehow different. I can accept that as reasonable.

    Is this really about military efficiency? In the big picture it is about much more than that and we know it. We are talking about a small population. This is a social and political issue for most people.

    Trans people are already there even if they have to hide it and our military is not suffering, far from it.

  • John||

    Biology has everything to do with it. You may not think it matters but a lot of other people disagree. The Who think having a dick makes you a man and want privacy from you as a result, have a right to have their interests heard as well.

    And maybe they are serving now. But they are serving as their biological sex. They want to be able to serve by whatever sex they claim to be. So claiming that they are serving now doesn't answer the issue.

  • Echospinner||

    Same person however their outward appearance.

    Biology is a science. You are not talking about that.

  • John||

    Yes I am. They have a biological sex. Treat them accordingly. If the person thinks they are something else, as long as that doesn't affect their performance, that is their business.

  • Echospinner||

    Then you are not for the ban I take it.

  • John||

    I am for the "ban" because the "ban" is not a bad it is a refusal to accomodate.

  • Mickey Rat||

    How do you judge their PE performance? Based on their sex or their gender identity? What facilities used? What assignments?

    Transgenders bring a lot of logistical and organizational problems without much benefit.

  • $park¥ is the Worst||

    The more I think about it, the more I believe the most important determinant for military participation should be willingness to die for the cause. Secondary to that should be willingness to make the other person die for their cause.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Surely ability to make the other person die for their cause should figure into this, too? Normalized to equal cost, of course.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Well Slarky, you're an idiot who clearly knows nothing of military service.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I saw the title and I knew the comments were going to be full of comments about those mentally ill trannies unfit to serve because of their debilitating problems that they inflict on everyone else. I was not surprised.

  • John||

    Yes. You have been told biology doesn't matter and men really are women if only they believe they are. And being a complete conformist, you now have adopted the official lie. It is what you do

  • Echospinner||

    I keep hearing the word biology. I don't think it means what people think it means.

    All science can do is make observations and try to explain them. It has nothing at all to do with how you feel about it.

    Some percent of the human population are transgender. That is a scientific fact. There is some research but no agreed upon explanation for why that occurs. That is another fact. Biology pretty much ends there on the subject.

    Once again by bringing in a term like "official lie" it becomes about political and social attitudes and belief, not science.

  • John||

    Reality is what it is. Your feelings about it don't change that. The most striking thing about transgenderism is that it embraces a duality that would make the most dimwitted evangelical blush. We are not ghosts in a machine. Who we are is a product of our biology and our physical bodies. If your physical body is that of a female, then you are a female and vice versa. To say that you are not because you believe otherwise is to say that there is a you seperate from your body that can be different from it. You are literally a "man trapped in a woman's body" or vice versa. And that is utter nonsense.

    Who you are is not determined by whatever your base desires are. It is true that you can't choose what appeals to you. If pretending I am a woman and conforming to the social constructs and expectations surrounding being one appeals to me, that isn't something I choose. But my having those desires in no way makes me a woman or changes what or who I am. What I am is an objective reality of whatever my body is. My desire for it to be something else doesn't change that no matter how strong the desire.

  • John||

    The squirrels seem to be eating every other post today. So if this repeats I apologize. One of the things that is most strange about transgenderism is that it embraces a duality that would make even the most dimwitted evangelical blush. We are not ghosts in the machine. What we are is absolutely a product of our biology. To say that because I desire to be a female and enjoy living in the conventions and social constructs our society places around females makes me a female is to say that there is a "me" separate from my body such that it can be something entirely different from it. It is saying I am a one sex trapped in the body of another. And that is just straight up nonsense. if you are going to buy that, you better be prepared to believe in spiritualism because it is the same thing.

  • Tony||

    If John doesn't understand it, it ain't real.

  • John||

    I totally understand it. You clearly don't understand it. But you don't care to understand it because you don't have to understand it. it doesn't matter. All that matters is that you have been told to believe in it.

    You are a gay man or claim to be. There was a time when transgendered and gays got along about as well as snakes and mongoose. You would never admit it, so we will never know. But, I bet ten years ago or sometime in your past you loathed transgendered and thought the entire thing was nonsense. You only now claim it to be the most importantest thing ever because the progressive political line is that it is and you repeat any lie expected of you and reverse any position that you are told to reverse.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    True, Tony is a total follower. And the worst thing I've ever heard said about trannys came from homos.

  • Tony||

    I'm sorry I'm not as much of a bigot as you?

  • Echospinner||

    Nobody is saying that a person who is male or female sex is not.

    It may be that someone who identifies as the opposite or neither has some genetic or neurobiological difference or it might be purely environmental, prenatal, or something else to explain it. It is unknown.

    Of course we libertarians don't care one way or the other. I think this rule is bad for individual liberty because it will deny some capable people the opportunity to serve in the military for no compelling reason.

  • John||

    Nobody is saying that a person who is male or female sex is not.

    They absolutley are. If they are not saying that, then what are they saying? They may claim they are not saying that, but if you demand to be treated according to your stated "gender" with no regard to your biological sex, you are effectively saying biological sex no longer matters. What difference does it make that you claim that you still are a biological woman if you demand everyone treat you as if you were a man? None.

  • Echospinner||

    Treat people however you want.

    Everybody has demands these days.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Indeed Echo. Dio you know that I self identify as a billionaire industrialist superhero krytponiam? So I expect the govt. to hand me co troll of a mult billion dollar tech firm, a suit of flying battle ar or, and kryptoniam super powers.

    Anything less is racism.

  • Echospinner||

    I would go vibranium for the battle suit if you can get it.

  • John||

    It may be that someone who identifies as the opposite or neither has some genetic or neurobiological difference or it might be purely environmental, prenatal, or something else to explain it. It is unknown.

    Even if it were known, it would only explain the causes of their desires. It wouldn't make them different than they are. If you could find some genetic quirk that caused people to honestly believe they were wolves in a human's body and could fully explain the behavior, would that fact necessetate treating such people as wolves or make any difference in the debate over whether a person's "wolf self" is meaningful over and above their actual body? I don't think so.

    Of course we libertarians don't care one way or the other. I think this rule is bad for individual liberty because it will deny some capable people the opportunity to serve in the military for no compelling reason.

    There is a ton of compelling reasons for it. Things like PT standards and accomodation for the different sexes are based on biology. Allowing these people to serve as "transgender" means accomodating their desire to be the other sex with does real harm to both the standards and the other people, especially woman, involved.

  • Echospinner||

    People cannot be wolves. They can be transgender so I don't get your point.

    So far as accommodation. You don't think the military is capable of figuring out PT standards?

    Accommodating standards, harm to women, cmon. Pretty thin ice. The job is to destroy the enemy. These people have been here all along and we are very good at destruction.

  • John||

    People cannot be wolves. They can be transgender so I don't get your point.

    If thinking I am a woman makes me one in a way that negates what my biology says, then why doesn't thinking I am a wolf do the same thing. People cannot be wolves anymore than they can be a sex other than their biology. But they can sincerely believe they are anything. So what is so special about thinking you are the other sex as opposed to thinkink you are another species or anything else that is contrary to your biology? Nothing.

    Accommodating standards, harm to women, cmon. Pretty thin ice.

    Not it is not. women are forced to shower with men. Something most women find objectionable. Woman are faced with competing on the PT field with biological men. That matters directly affects women's careers. Having the top or near top PT score in a unit gets you a lot.

  • Echospinner||

    We can move a whole armored division halfway across the world but showers and PT scores for a handful of soldiers, we need a presidential directive to figure that out.

  • Tony||

    It makes John feel icky inside. What's not compelling about that?

  • Tony||

    These are supposed to be the people most ready for a world of free-wheeling liberty.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You're so fucking stupid Tony. Go drink your Drano.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online