# 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:** 8
**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, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/141 "2017-07-26T18:17:24Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > 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. You can’t possibly be serious. It’s a joke that no one can interpret what Trump is saying just as no one was able to post a brief synopsis of what I’m assuming was a particularly confusing episode of the x-files. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/142 "2017-07-26T18:22:03Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > He’s not saying you did, dipshit. > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > 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. Stop praising him. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/143 "2017-07-26T18:22:53Z")
Come on guys, it’s not like a former soldier who thought he had been treated unfairly ever filled up a Ryder truck with fertilizer and [blew up a fucking building](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing) or anything… And it’s not like a transgendered person who felt as if they were being bullied by the military ever put a bunch of secrets onto removable media and [sent the whole thing to Wikileaks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning). But then again, leaking secrets isn’t harmful to national security, just [ask the President](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-ends-covert-cia-program-to-arm-anti-assad-rebels-in-syria-a-move-sought-by-moscow/2017/07/19/b6821a62-6beb-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.48987f1372df) himself. Speaking of Russia, I agree that this ban on trans individuals in the military is ridiculous and stupid… but it’s also a distraction. When Trump doesn’t like what the news networks are saying about him he changes the subject by saying something outrageous. And we keep falling for it. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/144 "2017-07-26T18:23:49Z")
Pointing and commenting on the Yam’s stupidity is futile. He’ll out stupid this one within the week. You’ll run out of energy way before he runs out of stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/145 "2017-07-26T18:26:36Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Pointing and commenting on the Yam’s stupidity is futile. He’ll out stupid this one within the week. You’ll run out of energy way before he runs out of stupid. So why bother? What does he have to do before you exert some of that precious energy? ---
**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, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/146 "2017-07-26T18:27:49Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > 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. Unless you have a crystal ball, you can’t possibly know that. I’m ignoring the whole amputee thing because not only is it a false equivalency, it’s just plain baffling. Unless there’s a compelling prohibitive reason for not allowing a certain subset into the military then the military should accept them. Not accepting them implicitly weakens our national security by eliminating a subset that could provide future benefits for no military reason. ---
**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, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/147 "2017-07-26T18:30:55Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > 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. I’ve never served in a foreign military, so I can’t say what their issues or challenges are. I know in the US military, it’s hard enough managing the day-to-day issues of a bunch of young aggressive military members. And it’s gotten more difficult over time with women in the military and gays in the military. This isn’t to say that women and gays shouldn’t be in the military, only that it’s harder to manage the concerns that those two groups brought. It’s harder to police the policy, deal with the issues, retribution, friction, etc. And now there will be a whole new level of policy, rules, HR concerns for a tiny fraction of the US population who doesn’t have a significant desire to service in the military in the first place. Over 200,000 men and women leave the US military every year, so I not sure losing the expertise of a few thousand more is that great an argument. There is also a feeling that this is more of a liberal cause to champion to force DoD to jump though hoops. That the more liberals citizens are generally less supportive of the military, military spending and military issues overall, and are only concerned about this in an effort to make life harder for the military. I have two good friends, one gay and one straight (neither transgender) who have mentioned this to me lately under the guise that you mentioned that we’d be less ready without transgenders. I asked them why in the last 20 years they had never once given a rat’s ass about military readiness, or asked me a question about it, but it was somehow of vital importance now. ---
**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, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/148 "2017-07-26T18:37:09Z")
Hey everyone, guess which senator wrote this? > [@](#): > > The Department of Defense has already decided to allow currently-serving transgender individuals to stay in the military, and many are serving honorably today. Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving. There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train, and deploy to leave the military—regardless of their gender identity. We should all be guided by the principle that any American who wants to serve our country and is able to meet the standards should have the opportunity to do so—and should be treated as the patriots they are. John McCain ---
**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, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/149 "2017-07-26T18:37:13Z")
I think the “disruption” concerns are mostly bullshit. Most service-folks that I served with cared about one thing – could you do the job? If so, they could get over any petty bigotries they might have personally felt. I’ve known many sailors who, upon learning some other sailor was gay, changed their opinion on gay people. I even knew a previously racist sailor who admitted that he didn’t think black people could be smart and capable (he’d never known any before, having grown up in a very white part of the country) and changed his view after serving with some black sailors. Young sailors, soldiers, airmen, and marines are very adaptable, and they’ve adapted to desegregation, women serving, gays serving, and the like. I see no reason to believe they can’t or wouldn’t adapt to trans people serving, and with time it would be no more significant than gay Americans or black Americans serving. ---
**Author:** ![Crybaby\_Boobie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crybaby_boobie/32/545_2.png) [@Crybaby\_Boobie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crybaby_Boobie)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/150 "2017-07-26T18:40:14Z")
A possible explanation for this nonsense: > **[Inside Trump’s snap decision to ban transgender troops](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/26/trump-transgender-military-ban-behind-the-scenes-240990)** > > A congressional fight over sex reassignment surgery threatened funding for his border wall. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/151 "2017-07-26T18:41:22Z")
> [@DWMarch](#): > > I agree that this ban on trans individuals in the military is ridiculous and stupid… but it’s also a distraction. When Trump doesn’t like what the news networks are saying about him he changes the subject by saying something outrageous. And we keep falling for it. Yes, this is a trademark move to get the opposition to set our hair on fire over this one thing. Make us stop talking about Scaramouche Fandango’s announced purge, the uderbusing of Jeff Sessions, the continued effort of the Senate to find new ways to look bad on repeal/replace… Hell, make us stop talking about him being a petulant partisan ass in front of the Boy Scouts! And then he’ll move on to the next shiny object and leave it to happen or not happen or happen only halfarsedly over the next few months. Has he even bothered having an actual order drafted for this to be done? Never mind he’ll just proclaim that by that tweet he did some outstanding thing, “and it was great, believe me”, winning all the way. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/152 "2017-07-26T18:44:14Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > There is also a feeling that this is more of a liberal cause to champion to force DoD to jump though hoops. That the more liberals citizens are generally less supportive of the military, military spending and military issues overall, and are only concerned about this in an effort to make life harder for the military. I’m still looking for the part where you acknowledge how ridiculous a notion that is. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/153 "2017-07-26T18:45:51Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > 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? The military treats it like any other medical issue – if you go to the doctor, and the doctor says you need X treatment, then the government pays for it, whether it’s chemotherapy, back surgery, or gender reassignment hormones. > [@Crybaby\_Boobie](#): > > A possible explanation for this nonsense: > > [http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/26/trump-transgender-military-ban-behind-the-scenes-240990](http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/26/trump-transgender-military-ban-behind-the-scenes-240990) And this infuriates me, if true. The whole thing is rooted in ignorance. But hey, let’s keep on dispensing boner pills. ---
**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, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/154 "2017-07-26T18:48:06Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > I’ve never served in a foreign military, so I can’t say what their issues or challenges are. > > I know in the US military, it’s hard enough managing the day-to-day issues of a bunch of young aggressive military members. And it’s gotten more difficult over time with women in the military and gays in the military. This isn’t to say that women and gays shouldn’t be in the military, only that it’s harder to manage the concerns that those two groups brought. It’s harder to police the policy, deal with the issues, retribution, friction, etc. And now there will be a whole new level of policy, rules, HR concerns for a tiny fraction of the US population who doesn’t have a significant desire to service in the military in the first place. Of course there will be costs to allowing transgendered to serve. The issue is whether the benefits outweigh those costs. The costs will naturally be more visible to those already serving in the military than the benefits. That doesn’t mean we ought to ignore the other side of the equation. The response, I would imagine, ought to be informed by facts and not gut feelings or rhetoric. Hence the Rand study. > [@](#): > > Over 200,000 men and women leave the US military every year, so I not sure losing the expertise of a few thousand more is that great an argument. It’s a relatively small number admittedly. The costs are relatively trivial also. The issue is whether the one outweighs the other. > [@](#): > > There is also a feeling that this is more of a liberal cause to champion to force DoD to jump though hoops. That the more liberals citizens are generally less supportive of the military, military spending and military issues overall, and are only concerned about this in an effort to make life harder for the military. I have two good friends, one gay and one straight (neither transgender) who have mentioned this to me lately under the guise that you mentioned that we’d be less ready without transgenders. I asked them why in the last 20 years they had never once given a rat’s ass about military readiness, or asked me a question about it, but it was somehow of vital importance now. This is why it is a bad idea to form policy based on “feelings”. Clearly, the subject is dear to the heart of progressives, because social justice for the transgendered is dear to their hearts. So I agree with you this far - there’s the possibility that it is a bad policy being shoehorned in because of political forces. On the other hand - the notion that the point of allowing the transgendered to serve is to “make life harder for the military” strikes me as utterly bizarre. If the actual facts demonstrated that the policy had enormous costs, that other militaries rejected them, and that if implemented it would be hugely disruptive - well, then, I’d be inclined to agree with you: it would be a bad policy being pressed for political reasons. However, facts (as opposed to feelings) allegedly show the exact opposite, so there is no real basis for debate. It seems to me, having read the RAND report, that the shoe’s on the other foot - that allowing the transgendered to serve is actually a good policy now being rejected for expressly political reasons. ---
**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, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/155 "2017-07-26T18:51:44Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I think the “disruption” concerns are mostly bullshit. Most service-folks that I served with cared about one thing – could you do the job? If so, they could get over any petty bigotries they might have personally felt. I’ve known many sailors who, upon learning some other sailor was gay, changed their opinion on gay people. I even knew a previously racist sailor who admitted that he didn’t think black people could be smart and capable (he’d never known any before, having grown up in a very white part of the country) and changed his view after serving with some black sailors. > > Young sailors, soldiers, airmen, and marines are very adaptable, and they’ve adapted to desegregation, women serving, gays serving, and the like. I see no reason to believe they can’t or wouldn’t adapt to trans people serving, and with time it would be no more significant than gay Americans or black Americans serving. Indeed, according to the RAND report, this is exactly what happened in the other militaries that adopted transgender accepting policies. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/156 "2017-07-26T18:53:17Z")
I have to admit my eyes glazed over the last few posts, but what is the problem with **manson1972** questioning the conclusion that banning transgendered individuals will harm our national security? Transgendered individuals are only a small fraction of the population, including the military population. If 5000 people are removed from service at random, even if that random sample included some of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the effect on our national security, if anything, would only be transitory. There are plenty of people to fill the roles at any level of service in the military. I mean there might even be a benefit to removing some transgendered members of the military if they are an officer and a complete asshole. Morale might skyrocket in the units under the officer’s command! I’m not arguing that this action by Trump is anything more than contemptible, but the list of reasons just does not include the reason **manson1972** seems to give such a shit about. I also think it’ll be a net waste of money when you compare the cost of supporting transgendered soldiers (I doubt it is very much) versus the cost of all the litigation that’s about to get started. But it’s not enough to really affect our military preparedness. ---
**Author:** ![snoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@snoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snoe)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/157 "2017-07-26T18:55:03Z")
To take a meta view of the politics around this issue (leaving aside the merits): I’d wager there is going to be a lot of talk about the issues surrounding Chelsea Manning. (Obama’s pardon, etc.) I expect defenses of this policy change to cite the cost of her treatment as evidence that trans people are a drain on the military. There are probably a decent number of Americans who are quasi-LGBT-tolerant in general but look at Manning as a cautionary tale about tolerance in the military. I’m afraid this might have been a politically shrewd move to win Trump back some support from squishy Republican voters. Also – yay, the culture wars are back! Always a good way to rally a big chunk of the GOP base. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/158 "2017-07-26T18:55:46Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So why bother? What does he have to do before you exert some of that precious energy? I plan on exerting all my energy in Nov 2020. [Here, bookmark this.](https://days.to/election-day-in-us/2020) Until then, I’ll just accept that I’m powerless to stop the moron from being a moron. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/159 "2017-07-26T18:57:05Z")
> [@](#): > > …the uderbusing of Jeff Sessions… “Underbusing”. Mine. Pity you muffed it with “uderbusing”, so technically, this isn’t stealing, but I would have anyway. Whateverness, mine. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2017, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159/160 "2017-07-26T19:03:43Z")
The reason why a smaller number is important has already been given in this thread. One is a controlled loss of people who aren’t good at the job. The other is forcing qualified people out. And when you have to come up with conspiracy bullshit to defend your actions, you’ve already lost. Bigotry is wrong. We don’t want our military to be bigoted. No, that doesn’t mean that they have to accept everyone, but they sure as hell better not use a bigoted reason to exclude people. Trying to turn that into more paperwork as an excuse? That’s ridiculous. You’ve got MORE hoops to jump through if you’re trying to figure out who is and isn’t trans. Liberals are not using actual real issues like bigotry as an excuse to hurt the military. That is like believing there is some secret SJW conspiracy out there. No, we’re very upfront about everything we are saying. I’m not even that big on the military. But, if trans people want to join, I support them and their choices. Sure, maybe they won’t have what it takes. But that’s completely separate from the actual issue here. That is the moral imperative–that all be given a chance, without regard to sex, race, sexuality, or gender. Hell, throw in religion, political affiliation, and tons of stuff that the Right prioritizes. There should be no discrimination on who gets to TRY to join the military. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-ban-on-transgender-individuals-in-the-military/792159.md?page=9)