U.S. court rules for Trump on transgender military limits
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON, Jan 4 (Reuters) – A U.S. court on Friday ruled in favor of a Trump administration policy barring certain transgender people from serving in the U.S. armed forces, handing the president his first legal victory on the issue after several defeats.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned a decision by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that blocked the policy, saying it likely violates the constitutional rights of transgender recruits and service members.
President Donald Trump announced in March that he would endorse a plan by former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to restrict the military service of transgender people who experience a condition called gender dysphoria.
The appeals court victory is limited because other federal courts issued injunctions against the policy, which applied nationwide. The administration already has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue.
The high court is due to consider whether to hear three separate government appeals at its private conference on Jan. 11.
The various injunctions allowed transgender troops to join the ranks as of Jan. 1, 2018.
Some sanity reigns, but the social experimenters are readying their appeals as I type. The rest of the article, and complexly expected backlash, may be read here: MSN.com
Category: Breaking News, Legal, Politics
If you’re not sure what gender you are how are you fit for service?
If I wear a Santa Suit and try to give away presents I get a 21 day psych hold, but if I cut my dick off, pop on a dress, and head down to the recruiters office I can be private Shirley in a couple of months…
What in the actual fuck is going on here?
Finally. Now if only the SCOTUS would streamline this and put an end to the absurdity for good.
Here’s a website that lists, the Trump Administration’s acts and omission regarding trannys. Of course, the list is meant to be a negative reflection on the administration, but I see it as a straight-A report card.
https://transequality.org/the-discrimination-administration
As for the latest decision, it helps to put the matter in the laps of the lawyers in black robes, known collectively as the Supreme Court. If the court takes the case, it will be 5-4 or 5-3, depending upon whether Ruthy Long in the Toothy is still alive then. Fast Freddie has her gone in May(4-5), in July (6-5), in October (8-5) and alive come December at 100-1.
And so it continues. Remember back yonder when the draft dodging stank ass hippies showed up at MEPPS in a skirt to AVOID service? If you are so confused about being an innie or an outie, how are you going to decide which MOS to sign up for. Is gender studies an MOS these days?
Military service, again, is NOT a right. It is a privilege that you need to be qualified for and physically able to do. Lots of folks want the pay of a Lineman. Ma Bell and the Power Co will hire you for it. Oh, but wait, there’s a catch? You mean I have to physically hook a pole, not be afraid of heights, AND work around high power lines? The horror. What, there’s not a combat boot in a black sling back open toe with a 5 inch heel? However am I going to accessorize?
This crap has gone on long enough. Bet if they brought back even a partial draft, these snowflakes would be beating feet the hell away from every recruiting office out there. You want to serve? Then serve as the person you were born. You want a lopoffmydicktomectomy or an addadicktomectomy, pay for it yourself, I should not be responsible for your confusion.
Good point. Kids nowadays would watch M.A.S.H. and not get any of the Klinger jokes.
How does the military having what can be arguably considered arbitrary entry criteria based on military effectiveness – like, oh, minimum height requirements and/or maximum height/weight tables, mental category cutoffs, or not subjecting women to the draft – violate anyone’s “civil rights”? Last time I checked, the US Constitution doesn’t make active duty military service either compulsory or guarantee it as a right; someone seeking to join must meet established criteria for enlistment/appointment.
However, the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) DOES give Congress the specified authority “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces” – which it has done in Title 10, USC. I’m also pretty sure current Federal law gives DoD the authority to establish implementing regulations for Title 10 – which in turn means it can establish and prescribe entry criteria for the military.
So long as those criteria are defensible on grounds of military effectiveness or efficiency, the courts have historically ruled that they can be quite arbitrary.
“So long as those criteria are defensible on grounds of military effectiveness or efficiency, the courts have historically ruled that they can be quite arbitrary.”
Yes. The test is rational basis, which means that unless the law at issue was passed by a legislature that was in the nut house at the time, it will be upheld. The Supreme Court has always granted great deference to matters military and the commander-in-chief. What probably (and I say probably b/c I don’t know) in the lesser Cts of Appeal is that a 14th A argument was made. I believe that the Supreme Ct will toss that and respect the precedent of near-absolute deference.
Something I find generally bizarre when it comes to news stories about LGBT and the military is that nobody ever bothers to ask the main stakeholders, that would be actual members of the military, what they think about the issue. Instead, we get an endless parade of people like Shannon Minter at the National Center for Lesbian Rights going off about what amounts to, at the bottom line, the best way to kill the enemy and break his stuff.
Just once it might be useful for a reporter with some stones to drink a few beers with, say, some soldiers in a bar outside Ft. Benning, and get some input from them on the LGBT issue.
Well, that would be interesting but who would dare say anything that might be contrary to policy? Besides that, there’s the matter of the military protecting this republic but, at the same time, not operating in concert with democratic tenets. In other words, individuals in uniform who are the subjects of this mess don’t get a vote.
Cav, members of the military are able to vote as part of the overall political process. Even if they weren’t, not being able to vote doesn’t mean not being able to have an opinion. Where there’s some apparent confusion is that members of the military are usually not supposed to publicly voice opinions which might conflict with official policy. The fact they’re also not supposed to question direct orders relating to their official duties might seem to be generally the same idea, but it’s not. We both know the Army is not a democracy.
I’ll stand by my original comment: Just once some reporter should ask what the troops think. Even if what was said was without attribution, it would probably be more useful than another self-serving statement from the endless line of people like Shannon Minter trying to push a biased LGBT agenda.
Fahgetabout it. It’s not want you think I meant. No problem.
“Well, that would be interesting but who would dare say anything that might be contrary to policy?”
Correcto mundo! Because the very first constitutional right that gets suspended with active military service is the guarantee of free speech and expression. Your opinion gets checked at the door. Can’t you just imagine some snowflake recruit trying to exert their right of free speech and expression to some drill instructor at Fort Benning or Parris Island?
And that constitutional guarantee, as well as others, remains suspended for the entire length of one’s active military service regardless of rank, MOS, branch, whatever.
Poe, so what you’re saying is that not once when you were in the Army did you ever hear anybody complain about anything? Because if they did, it was off to the stockade? My own view is that soldiers have complained about stuff in the Army ever since there was an Army. Bitching about stuff is almost a form of recreation.
What is also apparent is that good commanders listen to the bitching, and act on it when a relevant problem gets in the way of the mission. Morale matters. Pointing out FUBAR matters. Orders may be orders, but they are also not always carved in stone, nor are they exempt from a feedback loop.
Where we might not agree is in making certain distinctions. If you order a trooper, during an operation, to attack a hill–and he refuses– that’s one thing. On the other hand, if some trooper complains about having to put up with the antics of a freaky little psycho like Bradley Manning, that’s something else.
I’m also not suggesting soldiers form a group to publicly protest LGBT policy. That would be a matter of hanging out soiled linen which the Army doesn’t need. Still, I think it might be useful to get some general idea of the consensus among troops instead of relying solely on what the Shannon Minters of the world have to say. Minter, it’s probably safe to say, isn’t the one who is going to have to be dependent on transgender policy at a future time in some wretched part of the world while under hostile fire.
It also might not be unreasonable to ask if the Army is having enlistment problems because of Obama-era LGBT policy.
Perry, that’s not what I said at all. Troops, especially young troops, bitch and complain all the time about anything and everything. But that’s a different ballgame from walking into the orderly room and telling the first sergeant or XO that you don’t accept the CO’s policy on whatever. Ditto with the battalion and brigade sergeant majors and all the way up the chain of command, as you well know. How many young captains who voice their differences of opinion on unit policy to their battalion commanders ever become battalion commanders themselves? Doesn’t happen and that’s what I was referring to, not routine GI grousing. Hell, even that kind of bitching to your squad leader means you’re going to get extra time on shit details–it may not be fair but it’s the reality of military life. Where it counts, you have no right of free speech.
Even civilians, upon entering a military installation, give up some of their constitutional rights such as right to assembly or unreasonable search and seizure. Try telling a couple of security police they need a search warrant to look in your trunk. Try standing out in the commissary parking lot handing out anti-military literature and see how long that lasts.
Get my point now?
Poe, I get your point with crystal clarity. Still, what I’m talking about is that the Army currently has a transgender policy still in legal limbo. One hasn’t been formally adopted yet, so the current ban only carries the weight of temporary regulation. I’m also saying that never, not once, have I ever heard of any feedback from the troops who might have to put up with transgender policy. Not even down at the level of routine bitching and complaining which, you would think, a thoughtful chain of command might want to be aware of. And yet everybody from the ACLU to the Brucie’s Bathhouse door-twinkie gets to voice a news media opinion supporting the SJW political correctness– instead of us having a useful discussion about whatever on-the-ground empirical or anecdotal evidence supports transgender policy as a bad or good idea.
Something ain’t right, your honor…
I think maybe this is a big reason why Trump got rid of Mattis, because DoD wouldn’t take a strong supportive stand on this issue. It certainly isn’t the C in C muzzling military opinions on all this social experimentation, so who has it been keeping the troops hushed up?
It’s going to be interesting to see which side of these LGBTQ issues Mattis turns up on now that he’s out of the chain of command. I’ve always had some suspicions about that Warrior Monk business when an equally ambitious and presentable spouse is traditionally such an essential part of the overall promotional package for the top generals and admirals.
I think it is likely a case of the Pentagon not wanting to hear from the troops because they rightfully fear what they’ll hear, triggering a huge anti-military response from the liberal media. When it comes to that, the Pentagon is just as gutless as the Republican side of Congress.
Stars and Stripes had this survey and released it a couple of days ago (I think it was posted on Military.com).
Numbers aren’t looking good for the Alphabet Mafia.
IF trans are allowed to serve, they’re going to be in for a big shock when Dr. “I graduated at the bottom of my class in Med School” botches there dickaloptoffme and they run into the Freres doctrine.
Damn I Robot. I wrote republic and the bot changed it to republican. I thought all robots were democrats.
I never understood why the US needs to spend so much time/money/energy fighting common sense.
Dudes have been killing each other on the field of battle since the beginning, why, for the love of the Big D*cked Infantry Warrior God, would you want to change it?
Because, well, proglodytes or, more appropriately proglodykes.
Okay, okay, okay, here is no reason this can’t work. Achilles and Ajax were supposed to be REALLY good friends, you know. It’s probably the reason Agamemnon really hated Achilles.
Abut half of the sword-swinging population of the northern tribes was either gay or bisexual. No one thought anything about it.
This obsession with corporeal dysphoria is quite unhealthy. That by itself is, in my view, a sign of poor mental health. It does not help that parents who got a boy wanted a girl and decide to raise their offspring as what they wanted. The kids grow up with a base of self-loathing that festers and turns them into that whack job at the Gamestop store. I blame the parents for all of this Norman Bates crap.
If some sailor who was physically female when s/he joined goes through the entire business of changeover, I have no issues with that. My issue is the claims that will be made by sexual predators – don’t tell me they aren’t looking for an excuse or don’t exist – to get what they want. If my tax money is going to be spent on some program, then it should go to better training, not to fund social programs.
Well, in general I have a problem with someone who joins the military as one gender and is discharged after having gone through “the Change”, Ex-PH2.
Due to their surgery(ies), the individual will get a load of recovery time – plus, a load of medical/psychological care and post-surgical therapy. Medical care while on active duty is virtually always paid for by Uncle Sam. And if they’re treated for it while in service, I’ll virtually guarantee that the VA will continue to treat them for their condition (to include post-surgical drug therapy) as long as they’re breathing.
That’s a preexisting condition. You and I as taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for that.
Even if they pay for the care (before/during/post-change) themselves, if they do this while on active duty they’re still drawing a paycheck and will (presumably) need quite a bit of recovery time. That means someone else will have to pick up their slack – while Uncle Sam is still paying them – for their “change”.
Both of those cases impact military effectiveness and efficiency negatively.
Unless someone can demonstrate how doing all of that can increase military effectiveness or efficiency, IMO someone who’s going through a gender change should indeed be disqualified from military service. If they want to serve before (and defer the change until afterwards) . . . well, possibly I could maybe be persuaded that that would have negligible impact. (Post-surgical therapy would likely render the individual non-deployable, so change prior to serving would IMO be quite problematic.)
“Post-surgical therapy would likely render the individual non-deployable”
Realistically, we currently ban from entry and deny reenlistment to personnel with less endocrine dysfunction than purposely induced in a TG.
Does that include women who have had medically necessary hysterectomies?
That’s must mean, you know.
If the post-operative drug therapy renders them non-deployable, IMO yes it should – whether it’s due to a medically-necessary hysterectomy or TG sex reassignment. Although I’m reasonably sure that TG male-to-female post operative drug therapy is more extreme.
If a hysterectomy and related post-operative therapy doesn’t render a female non-deployable, then no.
IDC SARC may be able to shed light here.
FWIW: some sports injuries/other physical conditions do exactly the same (render someone temporarily or permanently ineligible to join the military). The difference is that it’s due to physical damage/defect vice post-operative drug therapy. If I recall correctly, MacArthur was initially disqualified for West Point on that basis; he had to have a back operation to qualify for entry.
“Does that include women who have had medically necessary hysterectomies?”
Ah hysterectomy in itself does not require follow on therapy.
Lars twisted panties in 5,4,3,2,1.
Do you HAVE TO conjure that goblin?
Unbelievable the damage and the expenditure that dude, Ashton Carter? forced on us in his last week in office.
It is always the same with the libs.
They keep moving the goal posts.
First they said to have gays in the military, and we didn’t care because we have no problem with gays and already knew a few.
But then, it was not just gays, but transgender, people who are not deployable and take pills every day.
At a time the Army is kicking out all non-deployable, how the hell do they justify the transgenders?
By the way, can’t the Army just kick them all out just for being undeployable? After all, fair is fair.
There were always two very valid arguments against the true “transgender” wannabes, you know the ones who want to be surgically mangled to look like the other sex, as opposed to transvestites who just want to dress the part. The American Psychiatric Institute states and has stated for several years that gender dysphoria is a mental illness. Strike one on getting into the military. Add to that that a true gender bender will have to take daily doses of drugs to keep their body from doing what it knows it is supposed to do, and to keep them looking like what they think they want to be. That renders them permanently unable to deploy and in some cases even to carry out daily duties. Strike two. Strike three is that there is absolutely no vested right to service in the military. You’re out.
So… if you doubt the influence of man in climate change you’re a “science denyer”. If you refuse to accept the actual ‘science’ of your birth sex, you’re Ok and deserving of court protection.
“Logic” to them is like “soap” to Hippies.
Transgender folk in the 17-24 age group have a suicide attempt rate near 50 percent.
Not only are said attempts disqualifying, so are said idealations.
So explain to me again why we would give such a dysfunctional group the time of day?
Likely because the powers that be want to look like they care about the left’s latest Crisis DuJour.
Alright Dickweeds… found this over at Ace of Spades (The OTHER Smart Military Blog). Hold on to your hats for what you’ll read/see at the link.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/gay-man-impregnates-transgender-partner-who-identifies-as-male-but-alas-was-born-a-female?utm_content=bufferc2157&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=theblaze
Don’t be blaming me for any changes in your BP, loss of sexual drive, male pattern baldness, menopause, anal seepage, loss of vision or any other medical issue that it may cause.
To quote others,…”What in the everloving phuque is going on in this world.” smh
I’m heading to charles w’s basement. I’d rather have a drinking problem and an empty stapler that to deal with the likes of this.
DO NOT….Gawd! No words, except that which has been seen, cannot be unseen.
I feel ill. Nurse! Maker’s Mark, STAT!
I’m glad I took the day off.
Is there a proposed end date to worldwide insanity?