Biden Overturns Ban on Transgenders in the Military

| January 25, 2021

President Joe Biden waits to sign his first executive order in the Oval Office of the White House

Completely predictable. We’ve been all over this topic before, and the Dems remain adamant in the social engineering of the military. This also showcases the problems with Executive Orders.

Management sends.

Biden reverses Trump ban on transgender people in military


WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden signed an order Monday reversing a Trump-era Pentagon policy that largely barred transgender individuals from serving in the military.

The new order, which Biden signed in the Oval Office during a meeting with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, overturns a ban ordered by President Donald Trump in a tweet during his first year in office. It immediately prohibits any service member from being forced out of the military on the basis of gender identity.

The decision comes as Biden plans to turn his attention to equity issues that he believes continue to shadow nearly all aspects of American life. Ahead of his inauguration, Biden’s transition team circulated a memo saying Biden planned to use his first full week as president “to advance equity and support communities of color and other underserved communities.”

As he signed the order on Monday, Biden said, “What I’m doing is enabling all qualified Americans to serve their country in uniform.”

We all know what he’s doing. Strap in, the next four years are going to be turbulent. Read the rest of the article here: WAVY

Category: "The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves", 2020 Election, Biden

Comments (91)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. SFC D says:

    I’m sincerely hoping Lloyd Austin broke out the crayons and explained to Joe exactly why this is a bad idea.

    • David says:

      Obviously to no effect if he did at all.

    • thebesig says:

      Beijing Biden takes a “wrecking ball” against the US economy and the military… Accelerating the time when China surpasses the United States in primacy.

    • 5JC says:

      He’s on board the train and blowing the horn. Hopefully it is a case of picking and choosing your battles carefully. Lose a few hundred million in medical costs and lower some morale and maybe do some greater good later. It was going to happen with or without him.

      • SFC D says:

        So what’s the greater good? I’m not seeing a single benefit.

        • Hondo says:

          Same here. I fail to see how the enlistment (or commissioning) of someone with a preexisting medical condition making them permanently nondeployable enhances the defense of the United States. And the last time I checked, defending the United States was DoD’s mission.

          • MI Ranger says:

            That was my take on it as well Hondo. It was always about the medical issue and not about what gender they were convinced they were!
            By allowing them in to the military, they will come, get their free Gender assignment therapy, never be any use to the unit, and then get out claiming the Military did this too them and get a pension for being useless.

            What greater good can be obtained?

      • Slow Joe says:


        Notice that only rarely, very rarely, I capitalize full words.

        There is nothing to gain and much to lose with transgender people in the military.

        Are our enemies enlisting transgenders?
        Why do you think not?

        Natural Selection is a law of history as much as the law of gravity is a law of physics.
        We are selecting ourselves out.

        Understand the big picture and the Real Game.

  2. Daisy Cutter says:

    How will this make us a more lethal fighting force?

    Or is that all out the window?

  3. Sapper3307 says:

    Assigning roommates just got harder than the old days ,,, “do you drink, smoke or party”.

    • FuzeVT says:

      When I was in Albany, GA (2009-12), I had to go to the “Transgender Training” we had. I wrote about two pages of notes about all the BS I was hearing and the hardships it was going to cause. That was a huge point. How does the CO deal with this situation? I know that I’m glad I didn’t have to deal with this when I was a company commander. The kids now a days are much more given to accepting this kind of crap than anyone of my generation (I’m now late 40s), but this would push it, I bet.

  4. FuzeVT says:

    As is typical, the news media is misleading. . .

    The Trump policy, despite any Tweets you many have seen, was that you could be in the military as a proclaimed TG, but you weren’t going to get your surgery while you were in. The Biden policy is to revoke that restriction (i.e. getting your surgery while in).

    So that’ll be great.

    • Green Thumb says:

      Make it an option.

      Like the enlistment bonus, college kicker or what ever else.

      No double dipping and no extended profiles.

      • FuzeVT says:

        Let’s see. . . Sign up and go to basic, figure out you’re your really the other sex 6 months in, spend the next year in Medical getting ready, get your surgery mutilating your genitals to look like something they aren’t, spend the next year on light to no duty, spend the next year bitching about how you are discriminated against because you are 2.5 years in and don’t know your job and people treat you like you don’t know your job, and finally spend the last half of a year in medical out-processing.

        Sounds like a great plan with no flaws and about which I have nothing to say.

        • Green Thumb says:

          Cannot begin to tell you how many profile Soldiers I used to see doing that – minus the genitals issue.

          Its happening. Like it or not. Not a big fan in end, for sure.

          So what would be your plan?

          • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

            Aah, the “Sick Call Rangers”, the profile riders,… I remember dealing with a few of those as an NCO!

            • MI Ranger says:

              Doc always called them Malingerers and started the paperwork on them to be put out of the Army!

              I remember because when I first hurt my back, and was required to keep going back to sick call he gave me a quick speech about the difference. He said “Ranger” don’t be like those malingerers. Do everything you can within the restrictions of your profile, keep up your PT score and you will heal up and be fine. I write the restriction for your profile to keep you from injuring it worse or again. If your NCOs have an issue with it, I will work with them to ensure you can do as much as possible as soon as possible. Just keep a positive attitude and you will make it to Ranger School.”

              I don’t see a way they can be a helpful part of the unit if they have to spend two years on Profile.

  5. KoB says:

    I have no problem if a person wants to have an addadictomy…or…a lopoffadictomy. That’s there hangup. Just don’t bring it around me or expect me to pay for it. And pay for the recurring costs associated with said ELECTIVE surgery. Does the Military or VA pay for any other ELECTIVE cosmetic surgery now? Going by what other more learned posters have told us, the desire for this type surgery is rooted in mental issues. Are there other mental issues or major physical issues that preclude serving in the military? This should be treated the same way. We already have about 1/4th of our force that is “non-deployable” for one reason or another, according to info posted here before. Why add to that number? And despite the number of MOSes that ARE NOT Combat related, at the end of the sharp stick, EVERYBODY may be required to become a Combat MOS. Cooks, clerks, drivers, supply guys, commo rats, whatever may be required to defend the perimeter, eventually if not sooner.

    Maybe this shoulda been posted under teh stoopid?

    • SFC D says:

      Not everyone in the military has to to deploy. BUT, everyone in the military has to be able to deploy. We don’t need to create a new species of non-deployable service members to satisfy the wants of clueless social justice warriors howler monkeys.

  6. Hack Stone says:

    Will transgender military personnel be deployed overseas to locations that are not friendly to their lifestyle? Probably not. That means that Sergeant Joe will be pulling back to back deployments to “shit hole countries” while the Transgenders are safely ensconced stateside while spending 40 hours a week with the medical staff in preparation of the “transition”. The military will never get a return on the money and time spent on training the trannies.

  7. Commissar says:

    I don’t think transgender troops should serve.

    There are plenty of disqualifying medical conditions. This should be one of them.

  8. Sarge says:

    So you can’t kick them out for being transgendered…but you can for the mental/physical issues they are going to have when they cannot meet standards.

    • Only Army Mom says:

      Sarge – this is the question I’m waiting for an answer on. Actual transgenderism (meaning post surgery) as a medical condition, requires maintenance meds, i.e., undeployable. If they are pre-surgery by definition they have body dysmorphia, a diagnosable condition per the DSM-5, i.e., undeployable. Perhaps this is just a virtue signal and nothing will actually change? Except of course, by the Federal government (military) no longer saying this is a disqualifying medical condition, all those lawsuits trying to make insurance companies pay for hormones, treatment, etc., lose their strongest leg.

      • Ret_25X says:

        the real issue is the suicide rate among the trans population. It’s around 50% according to CDC and WHO.

        The key to this whole trendy issue is that the politicians only know trans people who are playing a virtue signal game and not really transgendered. The suicide issue is unseen to them because they are dealing only with those who are not in the demographic at all, only playing games for political gain.

        Here is another issue: the military has two standards for physical fitness, readiness, etc. one for males and another, lower standard for females. The smart move is to pretend to be trans to work under more leeway in the standards.

        Virtue signaling always identifies those without virtue and an excess of privilege. And this move is Virtue Signal 1.

        • Poetrooper says:

          My first thought was, “What about their incredibly high suicide rate?” And folks heading towards suicide are obviously in an unhealthy state of mind for God only knows how long before they finally pull the plug, likely affecting their job performance.

          Remember a short time back when the liberal media were wringing their hands over military and veteran suicides? Even their exaggerated rate was only 22%, and now they want to admit a group demonstrably guaranteed to drive whatever the actual rate is even higher.


  9. Hack Stone says:

    If they are going to allow Transgender people to enlist who will need surgery to calibrate what they have with what they want, why not let others with preexisting medical conditions to enlist, and have the necessary surgery to help them meet military standards? Allow morbidly obese to enlist, with the understanding that they will have liposuction on Uncle Sam’s dime.

  10. Berliner says:

    For what it is worth, one can comment to the White House, to either provide comment to the President or seek help with a federal agency at this link:

    When doing so, they ask that you select your preferred pronouns from the list provided.

  11. Commissar says:

    Trump actually made a statement about this….

    • Berliner says:

      “Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
      ― George Orwell, 1984

      • Commissar says:

        Yeah, I agree, corporations should not have so much power in our society…

        Welcome aboard.

        • Ret_25X says:

          and just like clockwork, he misses the point…again.

          The corporations are too powerful because the GOVERNMENT is too powerful.

          Get the relationship? The corporate neoliberals and modern Maoists (that’s you) have worked hard to take over every institution of modern life, most notably the corporations for the very purpose of creating the “corporate-government cabal” we see now.

          Ironically, your support for the far left is support for big corporations taking over the main street of discourse, food, energy, and jobs and ruling the working class to benefit themselves and the looters.

          Too bad you are such a Dumbkopf. You are literally working your butt off to create your own demise.

          • Hondo says:

            Too bad you are such a Dumbkopf. You are literally working your butt off to create your own demise.

            That’s always been the case after the Left gains power, Ret 25X. The former “useful idiots” are now no longer useful; they’re thus eliminated by the new regime to remove a potential threat.

  12. xyzzy says:

    A question for the military experts on here:

    Why not put the gender benders in civilian support roles only? In other words, they can’t wear the uniform, but they can still contribute to national defense.

    For the record: I will happily respect a transgender person’s identity. But not if it harms our national defense. I don’t know enough to have a meaningful opinion. But maybe you do?

    • SFC D says:

      They would have to be qualified for an open position, apply, and be selected. Just like any other civil servant.

      • xyzzy says:

        Would their transgender status be an obstacle here?

        • Hondo says:

          Almost certainly not. However, that also would not be military service.

          And that option is already available.

          • xyzzy says:

            As a now retired Army civilian employee, I know that I have no military service. However, I’d like to think my contribution had SOME value. At least as much as anything Major Moonbat ever did. 😜

            • Hondo says:

              Your service indeed was valuable. The Army (and the rest of DoD) could not perform its mission within current statutory military manpower limits today without its civilian employees. The uniformed “side of the house” would have to expand hugely to do that, and Congress isn’t going to authorize the necessary uniformed strength increase.

              That said: the issue here isn’t regarding serving the nation per se; Federal civilian service does exactly that, and it’s been available for years if not decades to the TG community. Rather, the issue here is serving in the military.

        • SFC D says:

          The medical issues of transgendered individuals could keep them from any federal job that might involve deployment.

          • Hondo says:

            My guess is that their medical issues might keep a TG individual from getting hired into a Federal civilian position that was Emergency Essential, required a worldwide mobility agreement, or which specifically included deployment readiness as a job requirement, SFC D. And I’m not sure about positions designated EE or that require mobility requirements; that would be a question for a lawyer specializing in Federal personnel law. TG individuals might well be qualified for some if not most of those (SES positions typically have a mobility agreement requirement, if I recall correctly).

            But I’m pretty sure there would be no bar to a TG individual’s being hired for Federal civilian positions lacking an expressed deployment readiness requirement, provided they could otherwise meet the position’s specific physical and performance requirements. And I’m fairly sure those constitute a large majority of Federal jobs.

            • SFC D says:

              I know a couple of TG’s working DHS admin jobs in my area. They do great work, they’re well liked as coworkers, but they’re really not good looking women.

  13. ChipNASA says:


    We all know what he’s doing. Strap in **Strap ON**, the next four years are going to be turbulent.
    (Yeah, unfortunately, I fixed that for you…)

  14. bmorgan says:

    I don’t understand the entire transgender mentality. Are they gay as well but don’t necessarily have to be?

    So, if a male identifies as a female but likes males, is she/he biologically gay/lesbian or does the trangenderness cancel that out? If a female identifies as a male but likes males, is she/he transgenderly straight?

    The reason I ask this, of course, is the bathroom issue. Is a bathroom separated on the basis of an individual’s plumbing or sexual preference?

    When I was talking with a female and we were discussing gays serving in the military, I asked her if she would feel comfortable taking a shower with a gay man? When she acted kind of repulsed by the question, I reminded her that he would have no sexual interest in her so therefore would not be aroused in the shower… in theory anyway. So, turning that around, why would a man be told he should feel normal about showing with a gay man?

    So again, it comes back to whether bathrooms are separated by one’s physical plumbing or sexual preference? I don’t think there is an answer for that.

    It will become more confusing with introducing transgenders into this equation… especially on a ship.

    I may need a ruling on all that. Master Chief?

    • Martinjmpr says:

      The late, great Steve Goodman said it best:

      There are men who love women who love men
      And there are women who love women every now and then
      And there are men who love men, because they can’t pretend
      That they’re men who love women who love men

    • David says:

      know of one I’ve mentioned before… dresses as a woman and has boobs but still male below the waist. Married to a woman, when asked if that makes him a lesbian he says “no, but she is”. FF

      Logic apparently doesn’t enter into it.

  15. Smitty says:

    I was an MP back in the 60s. Gays were discharged. Pregnant WACs were discharged. Diversity was un-heard of. Uniformity was the byword. The army was more serious about its mission. Last year a friend from back then (retired E-7) said now the number of unmarried, pregnant females is disgusting- unable to deploy but able to stay behind and make more babies. Others had to go instead. Wonderful for morale! Is anybody in charge there???

    • Green Thumb says:

      Saw a lot of that.

      Our FSC 2006 time frame had seven women. Five became pregnant before the deployment. Two married to term.

      Just an observation.

    • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

      I myself was a Combat Engineer in the early 90s, and one of the questions on my MEPS paperwork was “Are you a homosexual?” to which a “yes” answer disqualified you, the days before the Clinton Curse befell on our Nation!

      • SFC D says:

        When I enlisted in 87, the next question after “are you a homosexual” was “do you intend to become a homosexual”.

    • FuzeVT says:

      I was the S-6 at 10th Marines in the mid-2000s. We were the only place for females in the regiment and also one of the few places for female communicators in the division. We were non-deploying as a unit so we got all of the non-deployables from everywhere else. As such, I got all of the non-deployable females since they had no purpose in the Division Comm-Company or G-6.

      In the 9 months I was there, I had 9 pregnancies, no less than 4 at a time, 7 births and only 3 or so were married.

      My Regimental wire chief was preggers and gave birth and had to hand the shop over to a Lance Corporal – also pregnant.

      I haven’t even talked about my broken males. At any one time, my platoon of 30+/- had about 1/3 to half of its members in some state of light or no duty.

      Good times, all around.

      Except for me.

    • Haywire Angel says:

      Not every female is a piece of shit like you are describing. I worked my ass off to show I could carry my weight, even when I was pregnant, and I NEVER shirked MY duty to deploy. It’s ones you are talking about that give the rest of us a bad name.

      By the way, I have seen plenty of males shirking their duty to deploy.

      If that is what you see when you look at a female military member, go fuck yourself.

      • USMC Steve says:

        Good for you. You are in the minority on that deal. As for the male slackers, we were allowed to deal with them, but there was nothing that could be done with a pregnant female. On average, they were on light or no duty for a year, thus serving almost no useful purpose. And given that there are many more males than females in the military, it makes sense that there would be more boy slackers than girl slackers.

  16. Slow Joe says:

    I haven’t had to deal with female Soldiers that much.

    Are you saying that single mother female Soldiers are undeployable?

    • SFC D says:

      Possibly. They’re nondeployable for a time after delivery. After that, they must maintain a valid family care plan for deployment. If they can’t do that, bye-bye.

      • Ret_25X says:

        theoretically, single parents may be discharged for failure to maintain a care plan.

        Realistically, not so much.

        Even a family care plan is nearly impossible to maintain for most of these troops. They come from dystopian levels of family dysfunction and practice it in their own “homes”. They have literally no one to turn to for long term care in many cases.

        One might ask why a person would have children and subject them to whatever dysfunctional behavior they suffered under, but the results are in and it is a “thing”.

        So many Commanders are not exactly trying to kick them out of the Army over it.

        Not that it matters. Like SV, failure to maintain a family care plan is normally the rancid cherry on the shit sundae.

        Standards are not just meant to protect the unit. They also protect the individual soldier. But only if they are enforced.

        • SFC D says:

          I’ve put several single parents out, male and female. Most were substandard from the get-go. The one male became a single parent when his wife ran off with her coke dealer. Excellent Soldier but couldn’t balance single parenthood and the Army.

  17. 26Limabeans says:

    The terms “male” and “female” get used a lot throughout
    the Signal Corps and may be misunderstood or easily taken
    out of context by transgenders. And don’t forget the color code.
    Some people can’t even get past the jingle.

    Signal is no place for the easily offended.

  18. tshe says:

    Statement by Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III on Transgender Service in the Military
    JAN. 25, 2021
    I fully support the President’s direction that all transgender individuals who wish to serve in the United States military and can meet the appropriate standards shall be able to do so openly and free from discrimination.

    The Department will immediately take appropriate policy action to ensure individuals who identify as transgender are eligible to enter and serve in their self-identified gender. These changes will ensure no one will be separated or discharged, or denied reenlistment, solely on the basis of gender identity. Prospective recruits may serve in their self-identified gender when they have met the appropriate standards for accession into the military services. This revised policy will also ensure all medically-necessary transition related care authorized by law is available to all Service members and will re-examine all cases of transgender Service members that may be in some form of adverse administrative proceedings.

    Over the next 60 days, I look forward to working with the senior civilian and military leaders of the Department as we expeditiously develop the appropriate policies and procedures to implement these changes.

    The United States Armed Forces are in the business of defending our fellow citizens from our enemies, foreign and domestic. I believe we accomplish that mission more effectively when we represent all our fellow citizens. I also believe we should avail ourselves of the best possible talent in our population, regardless of gender identity. We would be rendering ourselves less fit to the task if we excluded from our ranks people who meet our standards and who have the skills and the devotion to serve in uniform.

    This is the right thing to do. It is also the smart thing to do.

  19. Used to be still serving says:

    Good morning TAH, It’s been a long time since I posted here. Probably several years. As the parent of a transgender, I can say without reservation, the transgender population should not be allowed to serve in any deployable service. With that being said, maybe, they could serve in the new space force.

    In regards to other medical waivers, I would not of been able to serve without one. I have mild cerebral palsy. I am not on any profile.

    I have deployed 4 times for a total of 36 months down range. I’ve been to Afghanistan twice, Iraq once and Somalia once. I run. I ruck and do the full ACFT. I’m now a field grade officer. A pre existing medical condition does not automatically make one a shit bag😀

    • David says:

      Pretty much EVERYBODY has a mild pre-existing condition no needing a profile, even if it is a simple allergy. But if it is serious enough to require a profile, by definition it impacts unit readiness.

      Have a TG grand-neice/nephew/wtf. I sympathize.

    • SFC D says:

      That’s true, it does not. It also depends greatly on the individual with said medical condition. Not everyone rides their profile.

    • ChipNASA says:

      I truly believe now, after lo these many years, that anyone who walks into a recruiter’s office and then returns and signs documentation and THEN goes to MEPS and then returns (I think you have to go back more than once, I know I did), to complete the process before leaving for basic training, absolutely has an undiagnosed, pre existing medical condition. Got to be.
      And you *know* what condition I’m talking about.
      We all apparently had it.
      *giggles and runs off*

    • Hondo says:

      A pre existing medical condition does not automatically make one a shit bag . . . .

      No, it doesn’t. But a preexisting medical condition that has been determined by DoD to be severe enough to disqualify one from enlisting or getting a commission should, well, disqualify one from enlisting or getting a commission.

      The Constitution specifies no “right to serve in the military”; the military is free to impose entry standards for those wishing to join. One must meet those entry standards or get a waiver in order to do so. Politics should have zero to do with it.

      • Used to be still serving says:

        I agree. I don’t even support transgender military service even though my child is transgender. I made thre comment in the way I because commenters were lumping everyone with a waiver into the shit bag category.

  20. ChipNASA says:

    OW!!!! HEY NOW!!!!!!
    (Not recently that I can remember and I’m sober and all that. )