# 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:** 7
**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, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/121 "2017-07-26T17:45:24Z")
Small harm – even very small harm – is still harm. Own goals are still own goals, even if we’re up by 10. Removing talented people from the military for reasons of bigotry might be small harm, or even very small harm, but it’s still harm to our national security, in the same way that losing a great programmer from a computer company might be mildly harmful to their company mission, or losing a great doctor from a hospital might be mildly harmful to their ability to treat and heal people. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/122 "2017-07-26T17:46:35Z")
> [@Living\_Well\_Is\_Best\_Revenge](#): > > Oh he gets it. This is his usual shtick where he plays “devil’s advocate” and pretends he is clever. +1 manson doesn’t argue honestly so there’s little point in engaging with him. ---
**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, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/123 "2017-07-26T17:47:48Z")
I doubt Trump cares about the issue (though obviously a great many republicans and their voters do) so what new development in the ongoing Russian epic are we supposed to be getting distracted from? ---
**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, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/124 "2017-07-26T17:47:49Z")
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§ 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? ---
**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, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/125 "2017-07-26T17:48:45Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/126 "2017-07-26T17:51:04Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > 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!). Some within DoD look at this differently. The number of transgender individuals in the US military is very small, and the number of transgender’s with the propensity to joint the military is small. And the management and policy end to have this small amount of people is significant. If that’s the case, is the cost worth the effort? Especially in a time (a few years ago) when the military was getting smaller. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/127 "2017-07-26T17:51:18Z")
Can someone explain what Trump means by “tremendous medical costs and disruption.” Is he speaking of operations to change gender? Do people really enlist and then get the military to pay for the operation? That sounds unlikely. I guess if thousands of transgenders were doing that then it would be disruptive but are they? What does Trump mean by this? ---
**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, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/128 "2017-07-26T17:52:36Z")
> [@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. This word “affect” – I don’t think it means what you think it means. Same for “harm” above. ---
**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, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/129 "2017-07-26T17:52:58Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Small harm – even very small harm – is still harm. Own goals are still own goals, even if we’re up by 10. Removing talented people from the military for reasons of bigotry might be small harm, or even very small harm, but it’s still harm to our national security, in the same way that losing a great programmer from a computer company might be mildly harmful to their company mission, or losing a great doctor from a hospital might be mildly harmful to their ability to treat and heal people. Yeah, might. Might not. You don’t know, while pretending that you do. And chastising anyone who disagrees with your “gut feeling” ---
**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, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/130 "2017-07-26T17:53:34Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > 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? Considering that General Eric Shinseki didn’t have a foot when he served as Army Chief of Staff, a blanket policy that amputees are not allowed in the Army would be a dumb policy. A policy that evaluates whether a person can do the job is of course reasonable, and is what allowed the Army to have an outstanding Chief of Staff who had significant achievements, like forcing the Army to buy Stryker armored vehicles that are generally judged to be quite a useful military capability. ---
**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, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/131 "2017-07-26T17:54:34Z")
Perhaps it’s reasonable to discuss whether the military should pay for gender reassignment surgeries or other treatments. But that’s a separate issue than whether trans people should serve in the military. Many trans people don’t need these treatments, or already paid for them themselves, etc. ---
**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, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/132 "2017-07-26T17:55:09Z")
> [@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. At least I’m smart enough to put together a coherent chain of sentences linked by reason and a passing familiarity with facts. ---
**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, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/133 "2017-07-26T17:58:14Z")
nm (duplicate) ---
**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, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/134 "2017-07-26T17:59:55Z")
Eliminating a group of people from employment in your organization because of an arbitrary characteristic that has no impact on their job performance is just dumb. It will definitely cause harm to your organization to eliminate a group of qualified candidates for no good reason - the only “debate” is how much harm it will do. In this case ANY HARM is not acceptable, because there is no reason for it. It’s worse when the reason you are using to eliminate a group from your organization is based on stupidity at best, and religious bigotry at worst. You’re doing it for either stupid reasons, or nasty bigoted reasons. So… It causes harm, and it is either stupid or bigoted. And yet there are some who are trying to argue that since the harm is not much, then it’s all fine, look the other way. Idiots. ---
**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, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/135 "2017-07-26T18:00:25Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Can someone explain what Trump means by Any question that begins with this phrase reminds me of a discussion from the bygone days of Usenet, where somebody posted a query on alt.tv.x-files: “I missed last night’s episode. Can somebody post a brief synopsis?” Given that the episode in question was “Jose Chung’s From Outer Space”, clearly the only correct answer to that query, as well as to your query, is “No”. ---
**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, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/136 "2017-07-26T18:00:39Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Yeah, might. Might not. You don’t know, while pretending that you do. And chastising anyone who disagrees with your “gut feeling” So now you agree that banning trans people might harm our national security? If so, PROGRESS! Well done in coming to this realization! Do you think that banning black people might also harm our national security? Would you go so far as to say “banning black people from the military would harm our national security”, or would you chastise me for saying so and demand proof? ---
**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, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/137 "2017-07-26T18:01:36Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Perhaps it’s reasonable to discuss whether the military should pay for gender reassignment surgeries or other treatments. > > But that’s a separate issue than whether trans people should serve in the military. Many trans people don’t need these treatments, or already paid for them themselves, etc. Right. I’d be open to that discussion (payment for medical expenses) but that’s really tangential to the “allowed to serve” issue. ---
**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, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/138 "2017-07-26T18:02:43Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > Some within DoD look at this differently. The number of transgender individuals in the US military is very small, and the number of transgender’s with the propensity to joint the military is small. And the management and policy end to have this small amount of people is significant. If that’s the case, is the cost worth the effort? Especially in a time (a few years ago) when the military was getting smaller. Allegedly, other comparable militaries (Canada, Australia, the UK and Israel were specifically reviewed) thought it was. What makes them different from the US in terms of military management cost/benefit analysis? There are costs associated with **not** allowing transgendered individuals to serve: 1. The military loses the skills of those folks. While their numbers are small, it is still an loss. 2. There will always be some who attempt to serve despite the ban because they love the military life. Banning them creates a “blackmailer’s charter”, much like banning gays. Thus, a ban can be a self-fulfilling source of security concerns. How do these losses stack up against the costs? Hard to say - only, it is worth pointing out that other nations have already done the calculation and those most comparable to the US, as noted above, allow the transgendered to serve. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/139 "2017-07-26T18:08:37Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Any question that begins with this phrase reminds me of a discussion from the bygone days of Usenet, where somebody posted a query on alt.tv.x-files: “I missed last night’s episode. Can somebody post a brief synopsis?” > > Given that the episode in question was “Jose Chung’s From Outer Space”, clearly the only correct answer to that query, as well as to your query, is “No”. That is a totally fucking bizarre reply. I’m asking what Trump thinks he means by disruption and you come up with this shit? You and Trump are birds of a feather when it comes to comprehension and communication. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/140 "2017-07-26T18:16:24Z")
I like George Takei’s Twiter response. (No, it wasn’t "Oh, my!): \* “History shall record that you are not only the stupidest, most incompetent president ever, but also the cruelest and pettiest.” \* [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159.md?page=8)