# Trump's ban on transgender individuals in the military **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 26, 2017, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159 "2017-07-26T14:09:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Cheerful\_Pessimist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Cheerful\_Pessimist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheerful_Pessimist)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2017, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/221 "2017-07-27T00:46:15Z")
I apologize if this is hijack, but I feel the need to share… I work for a government agency in DC, not DoD, and was assigned to participate in a four day lockdown at the Pentagon this week (Tuesday thru Friday) to help form policy for transgender service members. Long story short, my time is valuable, and I didn’t feel my particular government programs would be affected by any TG policy(ies) implemented by DoD, so I pushed back, and managed to get out of the lockdown. Given the invitees to that lockdown, I now regret my efforts to weasel out of that meeting. I wish I had been there to see the reaction around the table as the “policy” tweets came down. I’ve been in contact with some of the attendees, and the reactions are reportedly priceless. Very high level DoD officials were taken off guard. As an aside, who in the ever loving fuck establishes policy via tweet? I’ve been in government policy for many years. Policy changes require vetting, planning, comms plans, buy in, etc. From my sources, none of that was done. From what I hear, it was all about a hold out on an amendment related to building that stupid wall. SERIOUSLY?!? ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2017, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/222 "2017-07-27T00:49:36Z")
The ACLU has a petition which, according to the webpage, requires 50,000 signatures. The page isn’t real clear why, or what the petition can accomplish, but if you feel like voicing your displeasure and you don’t mind sharing your name and e-mail address, here’s a link. \ ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2017, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/223 "2017-07-27T00:51:45Z")
> [@Cheerful\_Pessimist](#): > > I apologize if this is hijack, but I feel the need to share… I work for a government agency in DC, not DoD, and was assigned to participate in a four day lockdown at the Pentagon this week (Tuesday thru Friday) to help form policy for transgender service members. Thank you for your service. **bobot** , other than signing a petition, is there anything, practically speaking, we can do? I mean a call to representatives wouldn’t do any good, would it? ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2017, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/224 "2017-07-27T00:52:35Z")
> [@Cheerful\_Pessimist](#): > > … > > As an aside, who in the ever loving fuck establishes policy via tweet? … The Greatest American Republican Hero. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2017, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/225 "2017-07-27T00:57:11Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > Thank you for your service. > > **bobot** , other than signing a petition, is there anything, practically speaking, we can do? I mean a call to representatives wouldn’t do any good, would it? I don’t really know. I give money to the ACLU, and according to the info they send me they are quite busy fighting Trump in various ways. My opinion is that if you want to do something, anything, throw 20 bucks or something the ACLU’s way. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2017, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/226 "2017-07-27T01:00:01Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > I don’t really know. I give money to the ACLU, and according to the info they send me they are quite busy fighting Trump in various ways. My opinion is that if you want to do something, anything, throw 20 bucks or something the ACLU’s way. Yeah, I’m a fan of them too. It’s just shitty when someone can eliminate the rights of thousands of people with a single Tweet. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2017, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/227 "2017-07-27T01:06:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I wasn’t born yesterday. I know how this game works. I post the link to your post and everyone can read your words and the plain meaning of them. But you’re going to say that the plain reading is wrong and that everyone is an idiot for thinking that you meant what you wrote. > > When someone says, “But we have been doing X for a long time!” the only rational way to read it is as a defense of X. That is what you wrote about this situation, but apparently you are going to pretend that the words don’t mean what everyone thinks they do. Am I right? Yeah, just what I thought. No links from you, since you know you are wrong and now you have to twist words that you don’t even link to. A liar, and now a coward for not quoting anything that defends your own statements. Since you are a big coward, I’ve linked my own quotes for you from page one. Please point out which ones condone or agree with a ban on transgender people serving in the military: > [@Slash1972](#): > > How does this harm our national security? This is a simple question asking why the poster thinks a ban on transgender people harm national security. I cannot think of any way to twist this to “I am fine with a ban on transgender people” If you can, perhaps you can state it? > [@Slash1972](#): > > I’d go with “stupid” more than weird. But the military has been using stupid reasons to kick people out of the military for years. Why is this time such a threat to national security? This quote shows that I think the ban is “stupid” and not just “weird” as described by another poster. I also state that the military has kicked out people for stupid stuff before, and wonder why this time is such a threat to national security. Do you think this means I think banning transgender people is a good idea? I called the ban “stupid” right in my post. How could you possibly think I consider it a good idea? > [@Slash1972](#): > > I’m sure I can. However, it’s not relevant to my question of why this is harmful to national security? This quote reveals that I didn’t want to waste my time showing other times where the military was stupid to kick people out. Do you think that the military has never made bad decisions when it came to kicking people out? I don’t think that. Sometimes the DoD is stupid. Can you point to THIS statement as a proof that I think banning transgender people is a good idea? That would be a stretch. > [@Slash1972](#): > > I’m not the one who said this was harmful to national security. It seems to me that the person who made that statement should be the one to back it up. > > The only statement I made was that I think it is more stupid than weird in response to another posters statement. > > If you think this policy is harmful to national security, then show why it is. “Upwards of 15,000 people will be kicked out” is not a satisfying answer, since the Army drew down more than that in the last year alone. > > If you want to make this yet another case of “You don’t agree 100% with what I said, you are a horrible bigot who hates transgender people and puppies too, probably!” then fine, go ahead if that is what makes you feel better. I personally feel that this policy is stupid, and is harmful to transgender individuals that want to serve in their country’s military. I simply disagree that kicking them out is harmful to national security. This quote is asking the original poster for any sort of evidence that the ban is harmful to national security. Nowhere do I state the ban is a good idea, or think that it is “fine” > [@Slash1972](#): > > Nope, it’s not obvious to me. The Army drew down by 16,419 in the past year. Isn’t that 16,419 people with skills, talents, and experience? Did the loss of those people hurt the Army and thus our national security? There are plenty of categories of people who are potentially talented who could benefit the military, but are otherwise unable to serve. That still doesn’t harm national security, because there are plenty of people who are able to join that do. So, saying upwards of 15,000 people might be kicked out is not a convincing argument for why the policy is harmful to national security and neither is saying there are some people who won’t be allowed to join. Neither of these things is anything new, and somehow didn’t affect national security before. But now, because the group being talked about is transgender individuals, all of a sudden it harms national security? Doubtful at best. This quote expresses doubt that kicking out 15,000 people from the military harms national security. It really has nothing to do with transgender people, but more to do with the amount of people that can be kicked out of the military without affecting National Security. > [@Slash1972](#): > > This seems like a lot of “could be” and “maybe” and not a lot of analysis on the topic, although I see it has been moved to the Pit, so I guess I won’t expect much. > > Do you have any data, for instance, on how many transgender pilots there are in the Air Force? And what harm to National Security would arise if these pilots were kicked out? > > What about some other “very needed skills that are hard to find”? Any data on, say, Arabic linguists? How many transgender individuals are Arabic linguists? What affect on National Security would kicking them out have? > > So far you have got nothing except “It’s bad, therefore it’s harmful to national security” If you had stopped at “This is a cruel and stupid policy by the President that is directly harmful to the 15,000 transgender individuals that are currently serving in the military and to others who might like to join” then I would whole-heartedly agree with you. This quote is where I agree with the original poster that the ban is “a cruel and stupid policy by the President that is directly harmful to the 15,000 transgender individuals that are currently serving in the military and to others who might like to join” and I disagree that it harms National Security > [@Slash1972](#): > > Was he transgender? What rank was this person? > > The Captains of these submarines are more of a threat to National Security for allowing such shoddy LAN managers on their boats. This quote is where I blame the Captain of a submarine more for harming National Security than an enlisted LAN manager. So, this is the first page. Where you said “Back on page one, you were defending the military practice of kicking good troops out for stupid reasons” I find nothing in my statements that defends the military practice of kicking good troops out for stupid reasons. So again, back up what you say or admit you are a moron, a liar, and a coward. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2017, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/228 "2017-07-27T01:09:58Z")
> [@Claude\_Remains](#): > > Any stats on other countries military LGBT issues? I’m just not gonna do the Googling. The Canadian Forces has allowed LGBTQ members since 1992. Same-sex marriage has been permitted within the Canadian Forces since 2003. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2017, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/229 "2017-07-27T01:27:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK, **manson** – this may be a definitions gap here. > > To my understanding, “harm” to national security arises when the combat effectiveness of any armed service unit is decreased. That means that if 1st Battalion, 102nd Infantry Regiment of the 10th Mountain Division loses MAJ Smith, a highly qualified battalion XO, and Smith is replaced with CPT(P) Jones, a promotable captain with no staff experience, then national security is harmed, even though the Islamic hordes still don’t sweep over the Canadian border and seize Vermont. > > Do you disagree with that usage? Sorry, but I just saw this. Yes, I disagree. In my opinion, National Security is affected when units that are critical to National Security are declared Non Mission Capable (NMC). If a nuclear missile squadron is declared NMC, then yes, our National Security is affected. If a bomber squadron is declared NMC, then yes, our National Security is affected. If a Civil Engineering squadron is declared NMC, then no, our National Security is not affected in any meaningful way, because our National Security does not depend on Civil Engineering squadrons, in normal times. I’m sure you can devise scenarios where our entire country will fall to the Chinese unless this one Red Horse Squadron can get electrical power operational, but that is far fetched (I can also only speak for the Air Force, not the other services) And to reiterate, since some people apparently don’t know how to read, I think the ban is stupid and bigoted. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2017, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/230 "2017-07-27T01:28:29Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > There is a Poitico piece linked to in the GD thread that this was in order to get certain GOP Congresscritters on board with voting for a military spending bill-- they wanted to take out funding for Transgender medical costs. I think that makes the most sense. In that sense, the tweet seems consistent with Trump’s penchant for of-the-cuff expediency with little regard for consequences. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2017, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/231 "2017-07-27T01:41:07Z")
The Trump Presidency is like some kind of Fever-Dream induced Performance Art. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2017, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/232 "2017-07-27T01:50:21Z")
> [@Cheerful\_Pessimist](#): > > From what I hear, it was all about a hold out on an amendment related to building that stupid wall. SERIOUSLY?!? Every time that particular bit of nonsense comes up, every media outlet with a spine should interweave the story with a montage no less than a full minute in total length consisting of various iterations of the call-and-response from the campaign: > [@](#): > > **Orangeanus:** Who’s gonna pay for the wall? > **Derplorables:** MEXICO! ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2017, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/233 "2017-07-27T01:50:40Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Sorry, but I just saw this. Yes, I disagree. In my opinion, National Security is affected when units that are critical to National Security are declared Non Mission Capable (NMC). If a nuclear missile squadron is declared NMC, then yes, our National Security is affected. If a bomber squadron is declared NMC, then yes, our National Security is affected. If a Civil Engineering squadron is declared NMC, then no, our National Security is not affected in any meaningful way, because our National Security does not depend on Civil Engineering squadrons, in normal times. I’m sure you can devise scenarios where our entire country will fall to the Chinese unless this one Red Horse Squadron can get electrical power operational, but that is far fetched (I can also only speak for the Air Force, not the other services) > > And to reiterate, since some people apparently don’t know how to read, I think the ban is stupid and bigoted. Hey, thanks for jerking everyone around for almost 240 posts though. It couldn’t have been more obvious from very early on that everyone else was using a different definition, … _insult deleted_ ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2017, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/234 "2017-07-27T02:34:44Z")
[Moderating] **bobot** , posting links to petitions, protests, and other “calls to action” are against the terms of service for the board. Please avoid doing this in the future. I’ve removed the link from your post. No warning issued. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![purplehearingaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7bcc69/32.png) [@purplehearingaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/purplehearingaid)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2017, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/235 "2017-07-27T02:40:40Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Its quite simple. > > This was an Obama policy, and Trump is intent on destroying anything and everything Obama did. ``` You're so right about this ,trump is a piece of shit ! He went after Obama not being a citizen to try and get Obama impeach ! How the hell is this " making America great again "??? ``` ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2017, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/236 "2017-07-27T02:53:21Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > Hey, thanks for jerking everyone around for almost 240 posts though. It couldn’t have been more obvious from very early on that everyone else was using a different definition, … _insult deleted_ Really? What is your definition of harms National Security? A Captain instead of a Major in a command position in one military unit across the entire DoD? It’s not my fault that many people use a definition of National Security that has no bearing on real life military effectiveness. In retrospect, I guess the question of “What do you mean by harming National Security?” would be a prudent question, but one that I surmise would be answered similarly to “Why does that matter? This ban is wrong, and for you to question it means you are a transgender hater, and probably homophobic too!” :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2017, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/237 "2017-07-27T02:54:22Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > _insult deleted_ Was it a funny and witty insult? If so, I’d like to read it 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2017, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/238 "2017-07-27T03:24:02Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Was it a funny and witty insult? If so, I’d like to read it 🙂 It wasn’t, sadly. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2017, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/239 "2017-07-27T03:39:34Z")
I guess the one good thing about this is a lot of people will no longer have Trump for their boss. He’ll have to get someone else to commit the war crimes he promised. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2017, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/240 "2017-07-27T09:03:52Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > You can’t be so stupid as to think the loss of a couple of thousand people will affect an organization with over 2 million people in it. I posted a concrete example in this thread of how the loss of a few dozen people, discharged solely due to their sexuality, resulted in significant detriment to national security and endangered our troops. So perhaps you might want to hold off on calling other people stupid. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159.md?page=13)