# Trump's Transgender Policy for the Military **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 26, 2017, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184 "2017-07-26T17:53:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184/61 "2017-07-28T23:39:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, that’s not how insurance works. If I get cancer after 1 year on the plan, I don’t get less treatment than someone who was on the plan for 15 years. Insurance is purposely designed to operate differently from a bank account. Possibly I am still wrong on how insurance works, but your description is not what I had intended by my post. My expectation would be that when you sign on for a plan, that plan has things that it does and does not cover. You pay some monthly fee and based on various statistical data for the things that are covered and their cost should you hit the Bingo. But, if something hits you that isn’t covered, then you will have to pay for it yourself. And, often, you can sign on to some family or other plan where coverage is improved for the same or lower cost, than if you sign up alone. That is what I was referring to. Not that you will have banked more, just that you’re on a plan with greater coverage. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184/62 "2017-07-29T00:53:26Z")
> [@simster](#): > > And since plenty of folks [specifically join the military for the college benefits](https://www.vets.gov/education/gi-bill/) - with full plans to leave after the minimal time is up to get them - and others join a longer term to get even more specific college education beneifits (Drs, nursess, what have you) - then I see absolutlely no reason that a person that might join for medical benefits (I know that when I joined years and years ago, med benefits for spouses was a good reason) to be a ‘problem’ either. And yet others join with no intention to go to college and end up deciding on college or even graduate school because of their experience in the military. Should those people not get college benefits because they didn’t know they wanted to go to college before enlisting? ---
**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 29, 2017, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184/63 "2017-07-29T02:08:31Z")
I’m confident this thread involves several orders of magnitude more analysis of the topic than whatever prompted Trump’s tweet. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184/64 "2017-07-29T03:35:57Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > An interesting article on why President Harry Hairshirt probably can’t get away with removing already-serving trans people: > > [http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/27/opinions/trans-military-ban-opinion-minter/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/27/opinions/trans-military-ban-opinion-minter/index.html) > > My sense is that he can still stop the gender reassignment surgeries, and the ban is sure to affect recruitment, but no joy on removal. Completely ignores the fact that just a few years ago soldiers were discharged for having tattoos. Tattoos that were okay when they enlisted, and were okay throughout the multiple years of their service. The case mentioned in that article was about a specific person who would lose retirement if kicked out. A transgender soldier who is not coming up on retirement could easily be discharged under a changed policy. If people can get kicked out for having tattoos, they can be kicked out for almost anything. ---
**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 29, 2017, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184/65 "2017-07-29T03:41:51Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > The root cause of the problem is he doesn’t believe we have an actual medical condition that needs treatment. Like many, he appears to think it’s an optional expense, like going to college, or else he wouldn’t have proposed rationing out benefits. You may or may not care what I might think, but as a person who was actually in the military, things I have read lead me to believe that if you say “We have a medical condition that needs treatment” that it doesn’t help the argument that transgender people should be allowed to enlist. The obvious rebuttal to this is “Why would we let THIS medical condition that requires treatment enlist, when we don’t let OTHER medical conditions that require treatment to enlist?” and this, in fact, is an argument that I’ve seen. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184/66 "2017-07-29T10:13:54Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > Completely ignores the fact that just a few years ago soldiers were discharged for having tattoos. Tattoos that were okay when they enlisted, and were okay throughout the multiple years of their service. The case mentioned in that article was about a specific person who would lose retirement if kicked out. A transgender soldier who is not coming up on retirement could easily be discharged under a changed policy. > > If people can get kicked out for having tattoos, they can be kicked out for almost anything. Because discrimination based on tattoos is comparable to discrimination based on gender. Ri-ight. Somehow I think the latter is a more-than-slightly stronger case. I doubt it’d get that far anyway, because from everything I’ve seen their military superiors\* have been universally supportive of their side. I’m sure the ACLU could be enticed into it if necessary, though. 14th Amendment, anyone? \*Aside from Trump, in whose case I’d paraphrase Capt. Tom Dodge, a character played by Kelsey Grammer: “Not superior, only higher-ranking.” ---
**Author:** ![caligulathegod](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/caligulathegod/32/9685_2.png) [@caligulathegod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/caligulathegod)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184/67 "2017-07-29T18:03:37Z")
Perhaps my Google-fu is lacking, but every story I see says that when the tattoo regulations changed, people already in service with tattoos were grandfathered in. ---
**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 29, 2017, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184/68 "2017-07-29T20:18:30Z")
> [@caligulathegod](#): > > Perhaps my Google-fu is lacking, but every story I see says that when the tattoo regulations changed, people already in service with tattoos were grandfathered in. Well, now the transgender personnel already in can be grandparented in. Has there been any follow-up on this from the White House, or does the “policy” remain just at the tweet stage? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184/69 "2017-07-29T20:31:40Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Because discrimination based on tattoos is comparable to discrimination based on gender. Ri-ight. Somehow I think the latter is a more-than-slightly stronger case. I doubt it’d get that far anyway, because from everything I’ve seen their military superiors\* have been universally supportive of their side. I’m sure the ACLU could be enticed into it if necessary, though. 14th Amendment, anyone? > > \*Aside from Trump, in whose case I’d paraphrase Capt. Tom Dodge, a character played by Kelsey Grammer: “Not superior, only higher-ranking.” I agree that the courts would most likely treat the two differently, but isn’t it also true that the policy of accepting trans folk in the military was not fully implemented, and was pending a review by the brass? I’m not saying I fully understand the implications, but it seems to me that there might be some wiggle room in the courts as opposed to a situation where the policy was set and fixed. As usual, some input from one of our legal experts would be appreciated. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184/70 "2017-07-29T20:36:13Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > You may or may not care what I might think, but as a person who was actually in the military, things I have read lead me to believe that if you say “We have a medical condition that needs treatment” that it doesn’t help the argument that transgender people should be allowed to enlist. The obvious rebuttal to this is “Why would we let THIS medical condition that requires treatment enlist, when we don’t let OTHER medical conditions that require treatment to enlist?” and this, in fact, is an argument that I’ve seen. you get that not all transgendered individuals “need treatment” nor that all of them going in ‘know’ that they are transgendered or that if they need ‘treatment’ that said treatment is not necessarily any different or any more expensive than what average soldiers may need during the course of the enlistment - right? They are still invaluable soldiers that volunteer to join - we should not be turning them away for any reason other than being fit for duty and able to perform the job they get - which is the same test for EVERY recruit. Quit thinking that being ‘transgendered’ or ‘homosexual’ makes you ‘damaged goods’ or otherwise incompetent or handicapped - this is simply not the case. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184/71 "2017-07-29T20:39:09Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I agree that the courts would most likely treat the two differently, but isn’t it also true that the policy of accepting trans folk in the military was not fully implemented, and was pending a review by the brass? I’m not saying I fully understand the implications, but it seems to me that there might be some wiggle room in the courts as opposed to a situation where the policy was set and fixed. As usual, some input from one of our legal experts would be appreciated. Some amount (~15k has been mentioned) transgendered folks were already in the service - what changed was that they could now serve openly. The only part that was still to be implemented was as it applies to NEW recruits. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184/72 "2017-07-29T20:58:14Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I agree that the courts would most likely treat the two differently, but isn’t it also true that the policy of accepting trans folk in the military was not fully implemented, and was pending a review by the brass? I’m not saying I fully understand the implications, but it seems to me that there might be some wiggle room in the courts as opposed to a situation where the policy was set and fixed. As usual, some input from one of our legal experts would be appreciated. DoD Transgender Policy > [@](#): > > **[Policy Highlights](https://www.defense.gov/News/Special-Reports/0616_transgender-policy/)** > > ``` > This policy was crafted through a comprehensive and inclusive process that included the leadership of the Armed Services, medical and personnel experts across the Department, transgender Service members, outside medical experts, advocacy groups, and the RAND Corporation. > Effective immediately, transgender Service members may serve openly, and they can no longer be discharged or otherwise separated from the military solely for being transgender individuals. > These policies will be implemented in stages over the next 12 months-starting most immediately with addressing the needs of current Service members and their commanders, and followed by training for the entire force, and ultimately, beginning to admit transgender recruits. > > ``` There’s a number of links for more detailed information, videos of press briefings, fact sheets, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184/73 "2017-07-30T06:04:49Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Because discrimination based on tattoos is comparable to discrimination based on gender. Ri-ight. Somehow I think the latter is a more-than-slightly stronger case. I doubt it’d get that far anyway, because from everything I’ve seen their military superiors\* have been universally supportive of their side. I’m sure the ACLU could be enticed into it if necessary, though. 14th Amendment, anyone? > > \*Aside from Trump, in whose case I’d paraphrase Capt. Tom Dodge, a character played by Kelsey Grammer: “Not superior, only higher-ranking.” This is why it’s almost impossible to have an actual conversation and exchange of ideas, views and opinions over a touchy subject. People like you go straight to the "Ri-ight"s and become so blind with indignation that you can’t bother to take a second to understand what is being said. The link provided states the following: "The court held that because the Army had encouraged Watkins to stay in the service, despite knowing that he was gay, it would be unjust to permit the Army to discharge him for being gay just a few years before his retirement. " That was the justification upheld in court. Nothing about civil rights. No 14th amendment argument. Nothing at all about the actual _rule_ that was in place. The rule was that gay people cannot serve. The discharge was not overturned by the court on the basis of human rights or civil liberties. The argument was simply that this particular person could not be denied reenlistment so close to retirement. This was a soldier who was originally drafted in 1968, and who actually marked YES on his application which asked if he was homosexual. The Army drafted him anyway. His argument was that the Army knew he was gay, but allowed him to reenlist for 14 years, so it was not fair to deny him his reenlistment that would have allowed him to retire. From SGT Watkins vs US Army 1989: "In the present case, the Army’s conduct went far beyond a mere failure to inform or assist. As the district court noted, the Army did not stand aside while Watkins reenlisted or accepted a promotion; it plainly acted affirmatively in admitting, reclassifying, reenlisting, retaining, and promoting Watkins. 551 F. Supp. at 221. Furthermore, this case does not merely involve misinformation provided by government agents. Rather, it involves ongoing active misrepresentations by Army officials acting well within their scope of authority. “Without Army approval [Watkins] would not have been able to enter, remain or progress in the Army. The defendants point out that reenlistment is exclusively the Secretary’s function, Here he exercised his authority three times… To satisfy the element of affirmative misconduct the court need look no further.” This was back in 1989 and did nothing to prevent the continued denial of equal rights for homosexuals in the military. All I was trying to point out was the fact that the opinion piece linked to by the previous poster is over-reaching. Using that case to say that the military cannot discharge someone for noncompliance with a _new_ rule is asinine. The tattoo fiasco a couple years ago shows this to be false. Soldiers were indeed discharged over noncompliance with a change in the rules. You’re right about the current case of transgender soldiers is more than slightly stronger than the case of tattoos. You’re right that the ACLU will probably get involved. You’re right that this is far bigger issue that has basic human rights at its core. You’re also right that it _probably_ isn’t going to get that far anyway. I never denied any of those things. I simply stated that the case mentioned in that article involved those things too, but ultimately it wasn’t any of those things that tipped the appeals process in his favor. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184/74 "2017-07-30T06:13:11Z")
> [@caligulathegod](#): > > Perhaps my Google-fu is lacking, but every story I see says that when the tattoo regulations changed, people already in service with tattoos were grandfathered in. Some tattoos were grandfathered in, but it required a shit-load of paperwork across the board. Other tattoos had to be removed, or the soldier faced discharge. In other cases, individuals were denied commissions due to tattoos, despite the fact they were already serving in the military as an enlisted soldier. Basically, the grandfather clause only applied to his current status as enlisted. I could google up some articles over it, but Johnny Ace has reminded me why I generally stay out of these discussions. If I took the time to show why one person’s argument is invalid, it must be because I am attacking the agenda, as opposed to simply addressing the point. So I won’t bother. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184/75 "2017-07-30T07:50:17Z")
Seriously? That was too caustic for you? You’re right, you’re probably better off not debating against me. You did see the conditional ‘probably’ I used in the post that kicked this thing off, right? You were the one who argued tattoos, and I rightly laughed at it. ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_lining](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aca169/32.png) [@Silver\_lining](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_lining)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184/76 "2017-07-30T12:01:51Z")
> [@Poysyn](#): > > As a uniformed officer in a military other than the US, I can say there are no ‘disruptions’ by having a transgendered person serve - and that argument is often used to debate whether women should be serving in uniform. > > In short, ridiculous and unfounded argument. Which other nation has them deployed in a war? Here’s the thing. If there was a poll taken, are you for or against transgenders in the military, I’d guess 40% of more in the USA military would say against. Having your fighting force against something by a population size this is not a good thing. The bathroom makes things problematic. We might have to wait for society to catch up a bit to change views, until then I say no. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184/77 "2017-07-30T12:22:25Z")
Damn, I am certainly glad that we do not farm out military staffing issues to hypothetical polls then. ---
**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 30, 2017, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184/78 "2017-07-30T15:10:10Z")
> [@Silver\_lining](#): > > Which other nation has them deployed in a war? The military commissioned a study from RAND and they reported: > [@](#): > > There are 18 countries that allow transgender personnel to serve openly in their militaries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (Polchar et al., 2014). Our analysis focused on the policies of the four countries—Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom—with the most well-developed and publicly available policies on transgender military personnel. Several common themes emerged from our analysis of their experiences: > […] > • In no case was there any evidence of an effect on the operational effectiveness, operational readiness, or cohesion of the force ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184/79 "2017-07-30T16:26:41Z")
> [@Silver\_lining](#): > > Which other nation has them deployed in a war? Uh… every nation which has them in its armed forces? Heck, Spain’s first known case was deployed (well, not so much in a war as in what would nowadays be called the occupational forces) back in the [17th century](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalina_de_Erauso), receiving multiple promotions and achieving a grade equivalent to today’s O-1. Once his sex was discovered, the case was reviewed by multiple courts and the grades confirmed by each of them, until final confirmation by the king himself. ---
**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 30, 2017, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184/80 "2017-07-30T16:30:26Z")
> [@Silver\_lining](#): > > Which other nation has them deployed in a war? > > Here’s the thing. If there was a poll taken, are you for or against transgenders in the military, I’d guess 40% of more in the USA military would say against. > > Having your fighting force against something by a population size this is not a good thing. The bathroom makes things problematic. > > We might have to wait for society to catch up a bit to change views, until then I say no. I’m a veteran (Navy). The military is great at adapting. It’s likely that the majority would have been against racial integration of the military (in 1948), but the order was given and the military obeyed and adapted. The same went for women and gays, later. The military always adapts when a new group shows they can do the job, and so far, every group given the opportunity has proven they can do the job. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-transgender-policy-for-the-military/792184.md?page=5)