Trump has said that he consulted with his Generals and that the US Government will not allow Transgender individuals to serve in the Military due to medical costs and disruption. This is a reverse of a 1 year old Obama policy.

I am not going to get into a whole debate about gender identification lol. I have my own personal beliefs backed by biology and they are different than yours. The President has made a decision and that is going to be a return to old norms. We finally have someone standing up to all this sjw stuff. Thankfully.

@Tom I think ND is talking about people who go into the military so that they can get free healthcare for being transgender

@ND you dumbass nobody does that

@ND yeah you tell em'! :P

anyway this is a very hot button issue. It will be debated. I just happen to agree with the President. Sorry some of you folks don't.

Good argument ND. Wel put. I realize what he tweeted. I've argued why it's disgusting. Your counter argument is that he tweeted it so it's okay.

I'm fine with whatever personal beliefs you have on gender reassignment being wrong. That's fine. But when you tell the transgender people that they as an entire group are not allowed in a certain profession because of how they gender identify, that is appalling.

Next he'll say women aren't allowed in either and I'm sure you'll defend him here too.

THIS is the real problem that needs to be addressed... but instead we have some orange clown tweeting out idiocy. i say impeach. impeachment is purely political, and the GOP kicking Trump to the curb might give them some credit.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160401130628.htm

I understand that Yanick. But let's not kid ourselves, most people join the military for the healthcare, education or money anyway.

@Tom you're right those greedy bastards. i know for a fact my older brother joined the marines for education... and not to get out of the classroom and blow stuff up

he's a greedy intellectual hahaha

Why would the Republicans impeach Trump? He has done a lot in the past 6 months to roll back the disaster of Obama's 8 years.

@yanick

That came out worse than I intended. I know plenty of people who joined the military for good reasons. And it wasn't intended to cast shade on people who join the military. More a critique of recruiting practices. I grew up in two neighborhoods, one wealthy, on poor. Guess which one had military recruiters weekly at the schools.

@Tom no i was typing sarcastically, sadly my computer can't convey that! i'm with you on this one

ND, you don't agree with the president, you want to cut all healthcare for military personnel, he just wants to cut something very specific.

Anyway, I was led to believe that trans people were so skilled in combat that I should fear being alone in a bathroom with them.

Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. It's hard to keep up with all these changing definitions.

@Tom Bombadil - I know lots of people that joined just for the reasons you give. I heard doctors moaning at having to fulfill their military obligations to go to Saudi Arabia during Guff War I from their safe, high paying jobs in rich neighborhoods.

CNN had no trouble finding transgender people that have served successfully in the military through several tours of duty in war zones and earned praise and medals for their accomplishments. Trump wants to remove them and replace them with less qualified heterosexual men. Or maybe he's going to postpone finding replacements like he is with healthcare.

The military ought to establish one qualification standard for each combat position. Skip looking at gender because lots of heterosexual males couldn't qualify for combat including Trump's children.

Actually, Tom pretty much nails it. It's gold plated welfare. I think aspersions are deserved when moovhers want a special prize for signing up for loads of benefits. We taxpayers pay for the work which isn't as dangerous as farming, fishing logging or being a garbage man.

@Tom Bombadil Next he'll say women aren't allowed in either and I'm sure you'll defend him here too.

^ here we go with the escalation and strawman. Bomba are you an angry mans stirred up by talk radio?

One the only reason there is a large female contingent in the military is there are insufficient males to fill all of the jobs. i was in the second class that had women attend the Naval Academy. it was a time of disruption but we dealt with it and it is done. however, women have been a part of militaries since the time of camp followers. as for other 'minorities' they also have been part of the military since the inception of the revolutionary armies. recall Crispus Attucks; his actions spurred others to join the cause. so historically those groups have been there all along. what you are asking is for a whole new group to be assimilated as if the military were the 'Borg'.

And Obama was totally disingenuous; tossing out a policy at the waining days of his lame duck presidency, too fearful to have done it in his first term the coward.

No this has nothing to do with what is right for the nation and its security. it is all about advancing an agenda of ruin.

I am livid, i have been all day since hearing this. The US Military is for the defense of the nation not a political football. I am appalled that Trump has rejected a group of people from HONORABLE military service because of their gender identity. Name one good argument. You can't.

1. Medical Costs: The cost of transgender medical expenses in US military facilities is estimated (at most) to be 8.4 Million Dollars. That is 0.001% of the US Military budget. I am 100% in favor of military spending (since it drives innovation) ; but i can not agree when someone says 8.4 Million is a problem while their leaders near weekly forays to mar a lago will cost us near to 60 million Dollars.

2. It is a distraction to the corps: What in the actual fuck. This is the same bullshit argument that was used against women, black Americans, and other minorities. Anyone who has served even a small amount of time in uniform knows that once you put on that uniform you see only your brothers and sisters at arms. You only see your fellow man and the fact that when shit hits the fan you know you can count on them regardless of what equipment is in their pants.

3. It's only a 1 year old policy: So in 1921 would it have been right to back track the 19th amendment because letting women vote was costing too much and a disruption? That's bullshit you don't respond to growing pains of progress with retrogression.

4. The Generals were consulted: Considering the pentagon had a press release expressing their lack of knowledge of the decision (which mind you was tweeted not announced like a normal fucking professional) I highly doubt this.

There is NO good reason here. Let's be honest; had he simply restructured the healthcare benefits to exclude gender reassignment surgery I wouldn't be as livid. Instead he banned Transgender people from serving ENTIRELY. If the issue was about the cost of their healthcare, the conversation would be about excluding particular medical procedures.... NOT banning a group of people from HONORABLE service.

Trumps biggest problem is he handles issues with the grace of a wounded elephant and the force of a raging tsunami. This "issue" could easily be resolved with:
-Limited coverage for trans treatments and surgeries.
-Limited roles for trans personnel

Not a straight out BAN

CB what is worse is that this is pure politics. the White House was astonishingly honest that the ban was designed to inflame the right wing to cause problems for Debbie Stabe ow in her reelection campaign

This has zero to do with the military and everything to do with driving his base to the polls in 2018

It'll work too, just like most Repubkican shiftiness.

Oh, and what drives innovation is science, not the military. Dollar for dollar, NSF is a vastly better investment

Ogion, I don't disagree but when the investment is multi-faceted (being that the innovations will be groundbreaking for science and technology while also defending the nation) I prefer it. So i look at the military as a better investment than NSF simply because it does two jobs. I do think the military should have better guidance when it comes to the projects. For one I'd like to see the military working on more efficient solar and wind tech, more efficient batteries, or even new green energy that isn't being exploited. These serve both society and the mission.

It is. Just a vastly more expensive approach to having people who are dedicated to coming up with new general ideas and applications (also part of NSF's mission). Also, the military only focuses on very narrow and not particularly useful applications. Furthermore, the military is known for being hugely wasteful and it also includes giant blocks of welfare money that have nothing to do with science. By contrast, scientists are known for eking every last dime's worth of scientific value out of that money. It isn't even a close contest.

"Yeah. Fuck everyone who has PTSD."

Yeah... soldiers with PTSD are discharged from the military.

Basically - much like all other Trump policies : the wall, ending nafta, destroying obamacare, getting rid of sanctuary cities, putting hillary in jail, and scaling back desegregation of the schools or whatever dumbfuck idea he has - it aint gonna happen anyway.

Total failed botched presidency. Lowest approval rating of any leader in human history. Hes basically a despot.

Literally Trump is less popular than the movie gigli

@brainbomb- I would usually agree but in this instance the president is the unilateral authority over the military. He can impose this with no input from congress or Supreme Court. Now a trans individual could theoretically take to court this decision based on discrimination, but that would mean we'd be deciding if gender identity will be included in discrimination laws. Which means the SC will likely (being conservative) say no.

Well if Trump has everyone talking about this issue then they're not talking about his failure to deliver new full time jobs in manufacturing, or his failed "healthcare policies". One thing that's showing up in polling is whenever healthcare is discussed, Trump is seen as a failure, and importantly, in "demographic groups" where he wants support. So I predict that we'll see a lot of this sort of "distraction politics" from Trump

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/27/opinions/trans-military-ban-opinion-minter/index.html

Trump's tweet is not a legally enforceable policy under court decisions regarding discrimination and past military support of qualified transgender soldiers. But Trump loves to tie cases up in court in his own business dealings in hopes the other side gives up.

Well look at that new York lawyer Trump used his "business and ethics" mentor... The chap who had a lot of "new York business identities with infamous Sicilian families backgrounds" as his clientele. It's no surprise to me that Trump is damaging "brand USA" in the international community. I love the way Angela Merkel treats him. With barely disguised contempt.