Pentagon lifts ban on transgendered troops

[Isgrimnur]

USA Today

Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced Thursday that the military will no longer discriminate against transgender troops, knocking down one of the last barriers to service based on sex.

The move, nearly a year in the making, came despite last-minute concerns were raised by top brass about how to deal with the medical, housing and uniform issues for troops who are transitioning to the other sex.
...
Last July, Carter announced that a study group had been chartered to examine the issues raised by lifting the ban. He also ordered that decisions on discharging troops with gender dysphoria had to be raised to senior Pentagon officials, essentially ending the practice of ending the careers of transgender troops from service for medical reasons.

There are between 1,320 and 6,630 transgender troops in the active-duty force of 1.3 million, according to Agnes Schaefer, the lead author of a RAND Corp. study commissioned by the Pentagon on the issue. Of those troops, RAND estimates that between 30 and 140 would seek hormone treatment, and 25 to 130 would seek surgery. The estimated annual price tag: $2.4 million to $8.4 million, per year.

The effect on readiness to fight, or deploy, is anticipated to be small, Schaefer said. Transgender troops would be unavailable to deploy between 8 and 43 man years annually, a measure of military readiness. The military overall has 1.2 million man years. The Army has about 5,300 non-deployable man years.
...
The reality, Carter said, is that there are already transgender people serving in the military, and the Pentagon owes it to them to care for them and give commanders guidance.

[Defiant]

[AWS260]

About time.

[Isgrimnur]

WaPo

The Trump administration pressed a federal appeals court Monday to allow the U.S. military to restrict service by transgender men and women, calling it “truly extraordinary” that judges throughout the country have stood in the way of its policy.

Judge Thomas B. Griffith noted the way in which President Trump announced the initial ban last year on transgender troops in a series of tweets — and to the surprise of military leaders — “was extraordinary, too.”

The exchange in Washington came during oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and after four lower-court judges have temporarily blocked the restrictions in challenges from civil rights and gay rights organizations. Thousands of transgender troops have continued to serve and enlist.

[Isgrimnur]

WaPo

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Trump’s broad restrictions on transgender people serving in the military to go into effect while the legal battle continues in lower courts.

The justices lifted nationwide injunctions that had kept the administration’s policy from being implemented.
...
The court’s five conservatives — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh — allowed the restrictions to go into effect while the court decides whether to consider the merits of the case.

The liberal justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — would have kept the injunctions in place.

“As always, we treat all transgender persons with respect and dignity,” said Air Force Lt. Col. Carla Gleason, a Pentagon spokeswoman. The Defense Department’s “proposed policy is NOT a ban on service by transgender persons. It is critical that DoD be permitted to implement personnel policies that it determines are necessary to ensure the most lethal and combat effective fighting force in the world. DoD’s proposed policy is based on professional military judgment and will ensure that the U.S. Armed Forces remain the most lethal and combat effective fighting force in the world.”
...
The court rulings were met with another policy revision from then-Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, who issued a plan to bar from the military those who identify with a gender different from their birth gender and who are seeking to transition. Mattis’s plan makes exceptions, for instance, for about 900 transgender individuals who are already serving openly and for others who would serve in accordance with their birth gender.

While several lower courts have blocked the policy, the changes were persuasive to a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which became the first appeals court to review the policy.
...
The policy is not a “blanket ban,” the court concluded, because “not all transgender persons seek to transition to their preferred gender or have gender dysphoria.”

[YellowKing]

And so McConnell's stacking of the court starts paying dividends.

[RunningMn9]

“As always, we treat all transgender persons with respect and dignity,” said Air Force Lt. Col. Carla Gleason, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

Do you?

Mattis’s plan makes exceptions, for instance, for about 900 transgender individuals who are already serving openly and for others who would serve in accordance with their birth gender.

Do these individuals not lead to the most lethal and combat effective fighting force in the world? I'm confused. If the justification is using military judgment to ensure that the US Armed Forces remain the most lethal and combat effective fighting force in the world...then what is the justification for keeping these 900 folks? What is the justification for allowing them if they serve in accordance with their birth gender?

What problem are they trying to solve that these individuals don't violate?

[Isgrimnur]

They don't want people to enlist in the services in order to get the government to pay for their transition.

[malchior]

They don't want people to enlist in the services in order to get the government to pay for their transition.

That is a justification but you would think there would be plenty of other ways to discourage this without a ban.

[Isgrimnur]

One would think. When I was a dependent, we were only authorized one dental cleaning per year. Number two was on us.

[Jaymann]

So only one sex change per year, but no overies.

[GungHo]

Despicable. More meat for the base I suppose.

They don't want people to enlist in the services in order to get the government to pay for their transition.

That is a justification but you would think there would be plenty of other ways to discourage this without a ban.

Probably should go back to banning women then. Don't want them coming into the military just to get a boob job, or worse, have a damn kid!

[GreenGoo]

Despicable. More meat for the base I suppose.

They don't want people to enlist in the services in order to get the government to pay for their transition.

That is a justification but you would think there would be plenty of other ways to discourage this without a ban.

Probably should go back to banning women then. Don't want them coming into the military just to get a boob job, or worse, have a damn kid!

Don't give them any ideas.

Plus, presumably the military is overflowing with volunteers, which gives them the freedom to turn candidates away. Pretty sweet time for the military, I guess.

[Smoove_B]

I keep telling myself these are the death-throes of religious-fundamentalist fringe group that has temporarily taken over our government and that when 2020 rolls around, we're going to rubber-band back so hard to the left we're going to smash beyond where we were trending prior to 2016. I need to believe this because otherwise we're spiraling deeper into social darkness.

[Isgrimnur]

AP News

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.

[hepcat]

How is he able to govern through such things as signing bills and executive orders? The last 4 years has taught me this government is run on tweets!

[gbasden]

And the comments are as disgusting and transphobic as one would expect.

[Jaymann]

This is a good. From all the attention given to trans people, I thought there must be a mass sexual exodus. I looked it up and it is .58% of adults. Rough estimate = 300M x .58% = 1,740,000 people. More than I would have guessed, it's significant.

[Blackhawk]

Those numbers likely don't account for those who don't openly declare it, or those who are trans but hide it out of fear.

[malchior]

It's a return to humanity but why would a trans person feel comfortable joining? They likely aren't going to feel welcome and in 4 years they may end up drummed out by next evil President. That is the problem with instability. Future expectations based on past results kick in.

[Pyperkub]

It's a return to humanity but why would a trans person feel comfortable joining? They likely aren't going to feel welcome and in 4 years they may end up drummed out by next evil President. That is the problem with instability. Future expectations based on past results kick in.

Because they want to serve their Country? Place their country above their own personal interests?

The other thing that cheesed me off about Trump's military service policies was that ICE would deport non-citizens who served in the US military.

[Holman]

It's a return to humanity but why would a trans person feel comfortable joining? They likely aren't going to feel welcome and in 4 years they may end up drummed out by next evil President. That is the problem with instability. Future expectations based on past results kick in.

We saw the same argument about gays in the military not too many years ago, but it turns out that the military has adapted pretty well to gay troops.

Back during the Don't Ask Don't Tell debates I remember posting this:

In a generation or less, straights will be comfortable sharing barracks with gays the same way their grandfathers came to accept sharing a mess table with blacks.

I think the same applies to trans troops.

[malchior]

I don't see this as analogous. The situation is very different. I'm more worried that Trump did massive amounts of damage to the credibility of the civilian government and that'll discourage people from serving in general but these people in particular. They were targeted for discrimination and the next President might show up in 4 years to do it again.

[Holman]

I don't see this as analogous. The situation is very different. I'm more worried that Trump did massive amounts of damage to the credibility of the civilian government and that'll discourage people from serving in general but these people in particular. They were targeted for discrimination and the next President might show up in 4 years to do it again.

Before DADT, gays could be discharged from the military without appeal. Even after DADT it was still possible if you were accused of "telling." These were policies that everyone knew were sometimes hanging by a thread and could be reversed.

The culture, the courts, and even the military have moved left on these issues. A Trans soldier today probably has more hope and more security than a gay soldier in 1994.

[malchior]

I don't see this as analogous. The situation is very different. I'm more worried that Trump did massive amounts of damage to the credibility of the civilian government and that'll discourage people from serving in general but these people in particular. They were targeted for discrimination and the next President might show up in 4 years to do it again.

Before DADT, gays could be discharged from the military without appeal. Even after DADT it was still possible if you were accused of "telling." These were policies that everyone knew were sometimes hanging by a thread and could be reversed.

The culture, the courts, and even the military have moved left on these issues. A Trans soldier today probably has more hope and more security than a gay soldier in 1994.

I get what you are saying but IMO that isn't the problem. Trump discriminated against them actively *checks notes* within the last 4 years. That was an EO. It was fixed with an EO. They don't have security from the *next President* issuing another EO. This isn't military culture issue or general populace politics. Our government is not stable, we have very dark elements that are anti-trans and the discrimination could easily return. I'll even say it'll probably return.

[Holman]

One thing I'm unclear about: did Trump's EO actually have any effect? Were any transgender soldiers discharged or prevented from enlisting?

IIRC the Pentagon pushed back on it (a sign of what I mentioned above), and I'm not sure it ever actually affected anyone.

Obviously this doesn't make it OK, and obviously some smarter future Trump might find a way to make it work. But I think it's clear that the arc is solidly towards inclusion.

[Isgrimnur]

PBS

After a lengthy and complicated legal battle and additional reviews, the Defense Department in April 2019 approved the new policy that fell short of an all-out ban but barred transgender troops and military recruits from transitioning to another sex and required most individuals to serve in their birth gender.

Under that policy, currently serving transgender troops and anyone who had signed an enlistment contract before the effective date could continue with plans for hormone treatments and gender transition if they had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

But after that date, no one with gender dysphoria who was taking hormones or has transitioned to another gender was allowed to enlist. Troops that were already serving and were diagnosed with gender dysphoria were required to serve in their birth gender and were barred from taking hormones or getting transition surgery.

As of 2019, an estimated 14,700 troops on active duty and in the Reserves identify as transgender, but not all seek treatment. Since July 2016, more than 1,500 service members were diagnosed with gender dysphoria; as of Feb. 1, 2019, there were 1,071 currently serving. According to the Pentagon, the department spent about $8 million on transgender care between 2016 and 2019. The military’s annual health care budget tops $50 billion.

[Max Peck]

The first thing that came to mind when reading that was "So how much do they spend on Viagra?" Apparently I am not alone in making that leap.

Why does the US military buy so much Viagra?

Amid the fall-out from US President Donald Trump's announcement on Twitter that transgender people will not be able to serve in the US military, one statistic has been frequently raised to draw attention to the comparatively small estimated costs of transgender healthcare.

It refers to the amount the Pentagon spends on erectile dysfunction medication annually: about $84m (£63m), according to the Military Times newspaper.

In contrast, the Rand Corporation think tank estimated last year that gender transition-related health care costs for transgender personnel would increase the military's active duty health budget by $8.4m per year at the most.

[malchior]

It never was about money.

[Max Peck]

That's the point of the comparison. In the big picture, the monetary expense is trivial.