# 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:** 6
**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 26, 2017, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/101 "2017-07-26T17:24:08Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Yes. Ok, great. I’m actually in Communications, and that was my AFSC when I was in. And I’ve never been in a unit where the entire communications infrastructure depended on one person. What if your so-called greatest LAN Manager in the history of LAN Managers got sick on the boat and died? Our entire National Security would be harmed by that ONE person getting sick and dying? Surely you have to see how ludicrous that sounds. If that person had died, would the Captain mark your boat as “NMC”? If not, then his death would not affect National Security, no matter HOW much he knew/did. And if the Captain allowed his boat to sail knowing that if that one particular person died, his entire boat would become NMC, then the Captain is more of a threat to National Security. As I said, maybe you are not aware of what National Security means, or what it takes to harm it. ---
**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 26, 2017, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/102 "2017-07-26T17:25:50Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > To say it another way, it’s one thing if your company fires someone. It’s another thing if that person leaves and they don’t hire a replacement Is it? How is the company in any better or worse position if the guy leaves and they don’t hire a replacement or the guy gets fired? ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/103 "2017-07-26T17:25:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > To add another point to your consideration, Trump said (I use that term loosely, because who the hell knows if he even has a point) that his decision was based on the cost of trans troops to the military. The RAND report estimates that the potential bill for gender reassignment surgery would be expected to be less than $8 million per year. > > Guess how much the military spends on Viagra and related drugs? $84 million. I absolutely agree that the RAND study supports the view that the medical costs of allowing transgendered individuals will be low, because fairly few military personnel will choose to undergo medical transition. And I’m not suggesting that the limited additional cost isn’t outweighed by the value of allowing them to serve. (Tangentially, I know a number of people who were disqualified from military service ostensibly because they had medical conditions that might lead to high medical costs–which the military/VA would bear–but would not affect their ability to serve in the short term. I don’t know if they were being honest. But, I do concede that increased medical costs are a legitimate consideration). Obviously, the RAND report demonstrates that, even during the Obama administration, the medical cost was a concern or it would not have spent so much time on the question. What I’m curious about is the factual support for the claim, which pervades this thread, that thousands, even 15,000, servicemembers are going to be summarily dismissed under the new policy. ---
**Author:** ![Arrogantly\_Ignorant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Arrogantly\_Ignorant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arrogantly_Ignorant)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/104 "2017-07-26T17:29:10Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I don’t agree with the ban, and think it is stupid. I don’t know how much clearer I could put it. I also don’t see it happening. But I don’t feel it harms National Security for 15,000 (at the maximum) to be kicked out of a military of 2 million people. If you do think so, then you should be whole-heartedly agreeing with Trump that we need an increase in the military budget, since apparently, our military is so weak that our National Security is harmed simply by 15,000 people being kicked out. Except you seem to be ignoring something pretty damn important and obvious: the ban doesn’t just affect current trans military personnel, it affects any future trans people who would have gone into the military. It’s placing an arbitrary restriction on who can join the military; eliminating any future benefit trans personnel could have contributed. That quite obviously affects national security. It’s not just about the immediate impact. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/105 "2017-07-26T17:31:24Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Ok, great. I’m actually in Communications, and that was my AFSC when I was in. And I’ve never been in a unit where the entire communications infrastructure depended on one person. What if your so-called greatest LAN Manager in the history of LAN Managers got sick on the boat and died? Our entire National Security would be harmed by that ONE person getting sick and dying? Surely you have to see how ludicrous that sounds. > > If that person had died, would the Captain mark your boat as “NMC”? If not, then his death would not affect National Security, no matter HOW much he knew/did. And if the Captain allowed his boat to sail knowing that if that one particular person died, his entire boat would become NMC, then the Captain is more of a threat to National Security. > > As I said, maybe you are not aware of what National Security means, or what it takes to harm it. National Security includes a lot of things. Yes, the loss of a single LAN manager, or even a single submarine, doesn’t place us under massive risk of ceasing to be a nation. But a crappy LAN manager might reduce the effectiveness and readiness of a submarine, and less effective submarine might reduce the effectiveness and readiness of a carrier task group, and a less effective carrier task group might harm our national security to some small but still significant degree. Not end-of-the-country harm, but harm nonetheless. All these sorts of little harms can add up. This is an own goal – a pointless policy that helps nothing and can only harm our security, even if it’s not massive, monumental harm. We shouldn’t be shooting goals on our own goalie even if we’re up 10 to nothing. National security is a big and broad topic. It’s reasonable to discuss relatively small things that nonetheless might cause a small bit of harm to our security. It’s ridiculous to dismiss these concerns because they’re relatively small. And yes, when I served, a submarine had a single LAN manager. They probably should have had more, but that’s a separate issue than banning trans people. ---
**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 26, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/106 "2017-07-26T17:31:30Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > What you had just said is that you think randomly choosing people would be worse than careful selection. But you’re demanding proof that Donald’s random kicking out of military personnel is any worse than a normal draw down of forces, which carefully selects. Probably not better, I would say. I certainly never said it wasn’t worse. I simply was looking for some sort of proof that it would harm National Security. So far, the argument seems to be “Of course it harms National Security, you stupid, stupid head” and “Trump will next ban everyone except rich white guys from the military” and “Shut the fuck up!” None of which seem adequate to me to explain how this will harm National Security. The Army alone lost 16,000 people last year, and probably that many the year before. And the year before. Not sure how many the Marines, Air Force, and Navy lost, but I could look it up if I had to. But it’s not my argument to make. And if you think that our military couldn’t withstand the loss of 15,000 additional people, you better damn well get behind the budget increase, because that would be a sad state for our military to be in. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/107 "2017-07-26T17:31:40Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > They continued the drawdown and it is still on-going. Not anymore it isn’t. > [@](#): > > You know, it seems weird to me that the same people complaining about Trump’s budget increase for the military seem to think that our National Security is just fine, but when a never-gonna-happen plan to kick out some unknown amount of people is tweeted by this same Trump, all of a sudden it’s a threat to National Security. If the government decides that shrinking the military is needed to accommodate higher priorities (like deficit reduction or more funding for the arts), then there’s a reasonable debate to be had on whether that’s a good idea. There’s surely pros and cons. And if a service member is kicked out of the military because of some serious injury or disease, that’s unfortunate for the person, but it is understandable on the principle that the person probably can’t do his or her job. But kicking people out because of their gender identity? I can’t see how it even makes sense, other than as a form of bigotry. And I will be the first to say that having transgendered people in the service presents some new and sometimes difficult issues. Like, I have been told that Marines in basic training still use communal showers. It will cost time, effort and money to address things like that, and I’m sure there are other issues that need to be thought out. But I don’t see how issues like that are show-stoppers. I recently talked with someone who worked on gender integration issues for one of the armed services. Basically, this service got a bunch of men together to figure out how to integrate women into certain quarters. (Incidentally, it took a long time for them to think that they really needed a woman on the panel, who immediately raised issues the men never thought of, like disposal of feminine hygiene products.) But if we can figure out how to get women serving in a challenging environment like a submarine, I’m sure we can figure out how to deal with trans service members serving in places are ho-hum as the Pentagon, while figuring out the other issues along the way. Which of course we can do. It’s really only intolerance that is at the heart of any argument to the contrary. ---
**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 26, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/108 "2017-07-26T17:31:46Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I am not defending this move but that 15,000 number seems pretty darn hard to believe. manson’s being either stupid or disingenuous, but I admit the 15,000 number seems high to me as well. I’ve seen estimates for the American population overall as being 0.1% to 0.3% transgendered (for the broadest use of the term). Is this being extrapolated to the number of people in the U.S. military? ---
**Author:** ![Living\_Well\_Is\_Best\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6bbea6/32.png) [@Living\_Well\_Is\_Best\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Living_Well_Is_Best_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/109 "2017-07-26T17:33:01Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Do you really not get that any blanket ban and thus randomly-kicking-people-out-regardless of skills is likely to be harmful? Oh he gets it. This is his usual shtick where he plays “devil’s advocate” and pretends he is clever. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/110 "2017-07-26T17:33:58Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Yes, and because it was SOOO harmful to national security, they immediately stopped the draw down and signed all those that were forced out back up for enlistment! Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. The argument is that it’s harmful to national security, not fatal to national security. ---
**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 26, 2017, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/111 "2017-07-26T17:35:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 1. CNN is saying there are between 1,320 - 6,630 Transgendered individuals serving in the military currently (according to Rand, Corp.). Why are the error bars on that number so enormous? Do we really not know? There are obvious difficulties in counting people who aren’t confident that it’s safe to stand up and be counted. ---
**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 26, 2017, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/112 "2017-07-26T17:37:17Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So if I pointed out some trans service-_ **folks with critical skills** _, you’d change your opinion? That’s all that it takes? > [@Slash1972](#): > > No of course not. You’d then have to prove how losing those folks would harm National Security. I really don’t know if the above emphasis is sufficient. Is there a way to get blink tags to work here? ---
**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 26, 2017, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/113 "2017-07-26T17:37:32Z")
> [@Arrogantly\_Ignorant](#): > > Except you seem to be ignoring something pretty damn important and obvious: the ban doesn’t just affect current trans military personnel, it affects any future trans people who would have gone into the military. It’s placing an arbitrary restriction on who can join the military; eliminating any future benefit trans personnel could have contributed. That quite obviously affects national security. It’s not just about the immediate impact. Really? There are approximately 2 million amputees in the US who are not allowed to join the military. Obviously, amputees are able to serve in the military since there are amputees serving in the military right now. Do you think prohibiting amputees from serving in the military affects National Security? I’m gonna say no. Limiting the ability of a small subset of people from enlisting in the military does not affect National Security, no matter how bad, stupid, cruel, inhumane the ban is. Again, I don’t agree with the ban, I don’t think it’s “fine”, I don’t think it should be done. I also don’t think it will happen. But even if by some retarded miracle it does, our National Security will not be affected. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/114 "2017-07-26T17:38:43Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > manson’s being either stupid or disingenuous, but I admit the 15,000 number seems high to me as well. I’ve seen estimates for the American population overall as being 0.1% to 0.3% transgendered (for the broadest use of the term). Is this being extrapolated to the number of people in the U.S. military? As I understand it, that’s exactly how it’s done. And then there is a “bonus” for the fact that male-to-female transitions are more common than female-to-male and (therefore) a disproportionately male environment would have a higher percentage of transgendered individuals. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/115 "2017-07-26T17:39:22Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > manson’s being either stupid or disingenuous, but I admit the 15,000 number seems high to me as well. I’ve seen estimates for the American population overall as being 0.1% to 0.3% transgendered (for the broadest use of the term). Is this being extrapolated to the number of people in the U.S. military? Falchion mentioned upthread that the higher number may be due to the high percentage of males in the military coupled with a higher ratio of bio men being transgendered compared to women as one possible reason. But the biggest reason for that 15,000 number would be because the 2014 Williams study put the ratio way over earlier studies, at a national average of about .6% transgendered. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/116 "2017-07-26T17:41:14Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Is it? How is the company in any better or worse position if the guy leaves and they don’t hire a replacement or the guy gets fired? This comment has nothing to do with your view of LGBT issues, because I have no idea what you think about such issues overall: you can’t be this fucking stupid. In any large organization, there’s going to be a certain amount of churn of people leaving for their own reasons. Sometimes the organization will attempt to lure some of those people back with higher pay, especially if they are very valuable. The organization may or may not replace people who depart with new hires, depending on various factors. This routine fact of life has virtually no relevance to the organization firing people for no real purpose at all. To use an example, let’s say Microsoft’s business is slightly off this year and through attrition, it shrinks its overall workforce by a few thousand, using strategies to try to retain valuable people, replace critical positions, and leaving lower priority positions unfilled. You can’t honestly claim that this bread-and-butter human resources management is in any way comparable to Microsoft firing its Irish-American employees as a blanket policy because they smell too much like potatoes and beer. ---
**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 26, 2017, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/117 "2017-07-26T17:41:40Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > manson’s being either stupid or disingenuous, but I admit the 15,000 number seems high to me as well. I’ve seen estimates for the American population overall as being 0.1% to 0.3% transgendered (for the broadest use of the term). Is this being extrapolated to the number of people in the U.S. military? Am I the one who introduced the 15,000 number? No, I am not. You are being either stupid or disingenuous. I’m going to go with stupid. And Canadian! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/118 "2017-07-26T17:42:18Z")
The number of transgender individuals in the US military were very small in proportion to total numbers (not that an injustice to even a small minority is a good thing!). According to the study: > [@](#): > > The study estimates the number of transgender individuals currently serving in the active component of the U.S. military at between 1,320 and 6,630 out of a total of about 1.3 million service members. However, not all of these transgender service members would be expected to seek medical treatment related to their gender status or become nondeployable. [https://www.rand.org/news/press/2016/06/30.html](https://www.rand.org/news/press/2016/06/30.html) To my mind, the most important part of the study as reported in the press release is the comparative part: plenty of other first world militaries have transgender friendly policies without any problems, including (for example) the Israeli army, which faces regular military threats. > [@](#): > > Eighteen countries allow transgender personnel to serve openly in their militaries. RAND researchers focused on the policies of four with the most well developed and publicly available policies on transgender military personnel: Australia, Canada, Israel and the United Kingdom. > > In these militaries, a service member’s gender is considered to have shifted in terms of housing, uniforms, identification cards, showers and restrooms when a service member publicly discloses an intention to live as the target gender and receives a diagnosis of gender incongruence. However, physical fitness standards typically do not fully shift until the gender transition is medically complete. In no case did the RAND team find evidence of an effect on operational effectiveness, operational readiness or cohesion. [Emphasis added] In summary: it will affect few people; the costs are miniscule; other countries already have transgender friendly policies - without any effect on “operational effectiveness, operational readiness or cohesion”. Conclusion: banning the transgendered has no real-world factual support. ---
**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 26, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/119 "2017-07-26T17:43:39Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Am I the one who introduced the 15,000 number? He’s not saying you did, dipshit. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/120 "2017-07-26T17:44:21Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Really? There are approximately 2 million amputees in the US who are not allowed to join the military. Obviously, amputees are able to serve in the military since there are amputees serving in the military right now. Do you think prohibiting amputees from serving in the military affects National Security? I’m gonna say no. Limiting the ability of a small subset of people from enlisting in the military does not affect National Security, no matter how bad, stupid, cruel, inhumane the ban is. > > Again, I don’t agree with the ban, I don’t think it’s “fine”, I don’t think it should be done. I also don’t think it will happen. But even if by some retarded miracle it does, our National Security will not be affected. Just popped by to say that your “arguments” on this topic are some of the shittiest I have seen for quite some time. Just dumb. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159.md?page=7)