Five Service Members Sue Trump for Reinstating Ban on ‘Transgenders’ in U.S. Military

WASHINGTON — Five service members have filed a lawsuit against President Trump in an effort to challenge his reinstatement of the government’s ban on openly-transgendered persons serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.

“Plaintiffs have undergone medical treatment for the purpose of gender transition,” the complaint, filed by the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, outlines. “Plaintiffs have served honorably and successfully in the military since coming out as transgender, and their transgender status has not had any detrimental effect on their ability to serve or to fulfill their duties.”

“Because they identified themselves as transgender in reliance on [the government’s] earlier promise [of lifting the ban], Plaintiffs have lost the stability and certainty they had in their careers and benefits, including post-military and retirement benefits that depend on the length of their service,” it states.

The lawsuit asserts that Trump’s ban violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. It seeks a court injunction against the prohibition and a declaratory judgment that the exclusion is unconstitutional.

“Execution of the president’s directive will result in an end to service by openly transgender service members and has already resulted in immediate, concrete injury to Plaintiffs by unsettling and destabilizing Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectation of continued service,” the complaint contends.

In addition to Trump, the U.S. Army, Air Force and Coast Guard are also included as defendants in the legal challenge, as well as Defense Secretary James Mattis.

As previously reported, Trump announced his decision on Twitter last month, advising that the issue is a distraction and would place a burden on the finances of the Armed Forces.

  • Connect with Christian News

Defense Secretary James Mattis had just issued a statement on June 30, outlining that the previous administration’s policy implementation deadline of July 1 would be pushed back six months to give additional time to determine whether or not the Obama-era policy would negatively affect military readiness. The policy included federal payment of the gender transition treatments and procedures of transgender service members.

“After consultation with my generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military,” Trump tweeted. “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgenders in the military would entail. Thank you.”

While a number of Christian and family values groups had hoped that the Department of Defense would overturn the Obama-era policy, those close to Trump state that it was not their views that influenced his decision, but rather his talks with military generals.

“Americans need to know the extreme implications of this policy,” Chaplain Col. (Ret.) Ron Crews of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty said last year following then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s announcement that the Pentagon would lift the longstanding ban. “Do we want our sons and daughters to be forced to share showers and sleeping spaces in a ‘mixed genitalia’ environment with no recourse for objections of conscience?”

“Spending billions of dollars on transgender surgeries and treatment plans, when the military has other priorities that would actually ensure its effectiveness in war, is irresponsible,” Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, who now works with Family Research Council, also remarked last month. “Secretary Mattis and Congress need to ensure the priorities of the U.S. armed forces remain those that the secretary has outlined: mission readiness, command proficiency, and combat effectiveness. These should be the new priorities, not the last administration’s social engineering projects that ignore military readiness.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • Jerome Horwitz

    This is not something that should be even assumed to be within the jurisdiction of people in black robes.

    In the 1990s, we had people suing saying they had the right to serve even though their want to let everyone to know they were ghey said their sexual preferences were more important. Common sense dictated if they wanted to merely serve, they had to merely keep their mouths shut.

    But this is different. You know from the outset, just by looking at them, these are people pretending to be the opposite gender. That in and of itself would cause them to be unfit for service. But when you add to that hormone therapy, shots and surgery, it simply makes it impossible for a “transgendered” person to serve in the military in any capacity. In fact, the sole reason why they are there is because Obama decided to allow them there.

    Make no mistake: Not a single one of these people want to serve. They can’t. And they know it. They are just five selfish jerks who wish to further undermine the purpose of our military, which is to protect and defend this country against enemies foreign and domestic.

    This is happening at a time when North Korea has become a nuclear threat, thanks to Barack Obama. If that fat pipsqueak has the ability to fire a missile that could hit California, just what are we doing talking about self-centered mentally ill people who want to force themselves onto our armed forces?

    • Garbage Adams

      Why should the fact they are transgender be an issue? They clearly want to serve their country.

      • Jerome Horwitz

        You didn’t bother to read what I wrote, did you? I already explained that.

        • Garbage Adams

          Well, you said they don’t want to serve, which makes no sense to me. Why would they be in the service if they didn’t want to serve?

          • Jerome Horwitz

            I already explained that. I will not say it again.

          • Garbage Adams

            Did you explain it elsewhere?

          • Jerome Horwitz

            You are playing games. This conversation is over. Bye.

          • Garbage Adams

            You made a few assertions but didn’t back them up.

      • Croquet_Player

        Indeed, many transgender are, and have been serving their (our) country for many years. It is one of those things that we call ” a blessing and a curse” that so many transgender people “pass”. All this sudden freaking out about bathrooms? This is so recent. Everyone has been sharing bathrooms with transgender people for many years. They just never knew it, from “physical looks”. For some reason, they think every transgender person is a six foot tall man with an adam’s apple in a dress. And even if they were, that they’re all trying to peer under the stall next to them. It’s lunacy. How do people not know this? Unless people are required to provide medical records at the door of every bathroom, things will carry on as they always have. People use the bathroom they want, and if anything goes wrong, call security. And as a woman, concerned about my own safety, and the safety of women and children around me, I can assure you than anyone, male, female or whatever, who starts acting creepy or just mentally ill in a public bathroom will be immediately reported. I’ve seen it happen.

        • Jerome Horwitz

          All this sudden freaking out about bathrooms? This is so recent.

          Yep. And it’s the trannies who made it an issue.

          Everyone has been sharing bathrooms with transgender people for many years.

          People have been repeating that strawman for months. How do you know? Have you been checking the plumbing of each and every person entering the restroom?

          As for the rest, you are not accounting for those who have been sexually assaulted. Why should their concerns be ignored?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Their concerns aren’t being ignored, it’s just that sexual assault isn’t relevant to the topic.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Tell that to the women who have been sexually assaulted in restrooms.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            That doesn’t answer what I said.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Sure, it does.

            The fact of the matter is, if you think sexual assault victims and their concerns are not relevant, they most certainly are being ignored. And it is being done in the name of politics, which makes it all the more reprehensible and disgusting.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            They’re not “being ignored,” they’re being placed in their proper context. We SHOULD help sexual assault victims and work to prevent there from being more. Neither of which is served by banning trans people from bathrooms.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            They’re not “being ignored,” they’re being placed in their proper context.

            Read: Under the bus.

            We SHOULD help sexual assault victims and work to prevent there from being more.

            And you do that by keeping biological men out of places designated for members of the opposite sex. Not that hard to figure out.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What evidence do you have that trans women using the women’s room increases sexual assaults?

          • Jerome Horwitz

            What evidence do you have men who enter the womens’ restroom while wearing womens’ clothing never do so with malevolence in mind?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            None. I can’t prove a negative. That’s a logical impossibility. (Although it does seem highly unlikely that someone intent of committing a violent felony is going to be stopped because they have to commit misdemeanor trespass to do it.)

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Nobody is asking you to prove a negative. You were asked to provide evidence a man in a dress will only go into a ladies’ room to attend to their biological functions.

            Meanwhile you have people like Shaun Smith, aka Shauna, who was caught taking pictures of biological females in an Idaho Target changing room (And it’s worth noting the number of crimes of this nature exclusively at Target stores have skyrocketed since the introduction of their policy to allow biological males into places meant for the opposite sex.).

            In Ontario, Canada, a man named Christopher Hambrook dressed as a woman to gain access to women shelters, in which he sexually assaulted women therein.

            And those are right off the top of my head.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So you’re not going to answer my question then. Got it.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            You got your answer. You just need realize things won’t be played by your rules and get over it.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So why do we have to play by your rules?

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Facts and reality. Not leftist horse dung and misogyny.

            Women and girls have a right to privacy and safety, which includes not having to give up those things because a mentally ill man in a dress thinks he should have more rights than her.

            That, and only that, is what’s at the core of that particular rigamarole. Everything else is a red herring, and flat hokum.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So, do you believe that trans people have a right to “privacy and safety” also?

          • Ben Brigs

            none..

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why pretend? The links are above.

          • Ben Brigs

            Those aren’t transgender sexually assaulting people in the bathrooms..hell those guys aren’t even transgender.. the third link Says nothing about sexual crimes nor the rate at which transgender people allegedly commit them.. you’re stretching and twisting trying to find something which just doesn’t happen..

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            False. Both men identified as transgender. Who are you to assume what they are or aren’t? The third link includes sexual crimes. So who, now, is stretching?

          • Ben Brigs

            Let me see, anyone who throws on a wig and claims they’re transgender now represents the whole transgender community? You have two “alleged”cases of transgender men doing something illegal, so now the whole freaking community does this? How many Christians kill, rape, and commit heinous crimes? Do I now claim all Christians are criminals? Sorry sweetie, that doesn’t float..

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You clearly didn’t see all the links. See all my posts. Then figure out the percentage of transgender individuals and others, then figure out the crime rate, and you’ll see it’s much higher amongst the transgender community. These are not people who are military-fit.

          • Garbage Adams

            Your posts are bogus and you appear to have cherry picked them.

          • Ben Brigs

            When? Where?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            See above post.

          • james blue

            Could you please cite a case where an actual transgender person sexually assaulted someone in a restroom?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            ktlaDOTcom/2013/05/14/da-cross-dressing-man-secretly-videotaped-women-in-macys-bathroom/#ixzz2TKsMicgJ

            torontosunDOTcom/2014/02/15/a-sex-predators-sick-deception

            journalsDOTplosDOTorg/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

          • james blue

            link one– NOT a transgender person.

            Link two– NOT a transgender person

            Link three — ?????

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes, they were transgender people in both links. Link 3 is from a scientific journal that cites transgender people have a higher rate of criminality.

          • james blue

            link one– a MAN who put on a dress and a wig— NOT a transgender person.

            Link two–“TORONTO – A convicted sexual predator who falsely claimed to be transgender and preyed on women at two Toronto shelters ” NOT a transgender person

            Link 3 “higher rate of criminality” is meaningless if it doesn’t say which crimes and it certainly said nothing about sex crimes.

            Now please don’t waste my time with any other links unless they are about an actual transgender person sexually assaulting someone.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            a.) Wrong. The man identified as transgender.

            b.) Debatable. The man has claimed to be transgender in the past.

            c.) You are intentionally being obtuse. Again.

            d.) Don’t waste everyone else’s time with your harassment and nonsense, repeatedly asking for evidence, then pretending it doesn’t exist when it has been posted to you repeatedly.

          • james blue

            a) Nope
            b) nope, the article clearly identifies him as many things, being transgender was one thing it clearly stated he was not.
            c) I believe you are just naturally obtuse
            d) How am I harassing you? You responded to me. …. You are the pretender.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You are pretending to not see the information that was posted. You ask for it, you receive it, and then you pretend it doesn’t exist, all the while attacking and harassing the people who posted it. It’s your MO.

            dailywireDOTcom/news/5190/5-times-transgender-men-abused-women-and-children-amanda-prestigiacomo

          • james blue

            Again NOT transgender people. MEN IN DRAG.

            Do you not understand the difference between someone actually being something and someone PRETENDING?

            You could dress as a priest and molest choirboys, that wouldn’t be an example of a priest molesting choirboys.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            They claim to be transgender. Who are you to judge?

          • james blue

            “face palm”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Now let’s see you try to spin this one:

            weaselzippersDOTus/351484-transgender-woman-pleads-guilty-to-sex-crime-that-may-have-set-off-hatchet-attack/

          • james blue

            Not going to spin it at all, if she molested a boy she should go to prison.

            However the question is “Could you please cite a case where an actual transgender person sexually assaulted someone in a restroom?”

            Citing a case where the alledged incident happened in a park doesn’t answer that question. If we banned transgendered people from using the restroom of their gender she would still have been legally in the park.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You keep asking for it. Well, here you go:

            mirrorDOTcoDOTuk/news/uk-news/transgender-rapist-who-attacked-two-10065681

            nzheraldDOTcoDOTnz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11819182

          • james blue

            Seriously, is English not your primary tongue?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Seriously, you don’t know how to read a scientific study or an English news site? 🙂

    • Croquet_Player

      “This is not something that should be even assumed to be within the jurisdiction of people in black robes.” Agree with you here, outfits don’t matter. However, as we have a county based on a constitution, and laws, and the judicial branch is empowered to interpret those laws, well, that’s the way it goes, whatever they’re wearing.

      “But this is different. You know from the outset, just by looking at
      them, these are people pretending to be the opposite gender.” Nope. You’re only “seeing” the people who “appear” transgender to you. And you’re missing all the transgender people whom you would never imagine were transgender, and you never give them a second thought. Fun (or really, not fun) fact, this has sometimes worked out badly for some non-transgender folks, who have been mistaken for transgender people. It was the same way with gay people. Many people assumed all gay people wore a tutu or a motorcycle jacket. Well, then you miss all the gay people who, for example, are bankers, and just dress like a banker. You’re only seeing a sliver of the real picture.

      “Make no mistake: Not a single one of these people want to serve. They can’t. And they know it.” Well, estimates vary, and data is scant. “The Department of Defense commissioned the Rand Corporation to perform a study that
      was published in 2016. The Rand study estimated a range of between
      1,320 and 6,630 transgender personnel actively serving, and anywhere
      from 830 to 4,160 serving in the reserves. But Rand cautioned that the
      estimates are just that and should be viewed with caution because there
      is very limited data about transgender people in both the general
      population and the military.” I refer you to Snopes for more details on more studies.

      “This is happening at a time when North Korea has become a nuclear threat, thanks to Barack Obama.” Really? During the entire Obama administration, tensions with North Korea were at a low point. Now Trump is making extraordinarily reckless remarks in public, directed at a despotic lunatic with nothing to lose, (except for his life and the life of all his people, which in classic lunatic despot fashion, mean nothing to him) and tensions are at an all-time high. It’s so perverse. He is literally egging on an insane person. It’s shocking to behold.

      • Jerome Horwitz

        Agree with you here

        Good.

        Nope.

        There is no “nope.” Transgenderism is a mental illness, just as water is wet.

        I refer you to Snopes for more details on more studies.

        Snopes was debunked a while back. Any mention of that website makes your argument meaningless and worthless.

        Really?

        Yes. Really.

        • Bob Johnson

          Okay, so go read the Rand Report for yourself. It is available online for free.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            No.

          • Ben Brigs

            lol, of course not…

          • Jerome Horwitz

            LOL who cares what you think?

          • Croquet_Player

            I do. I care what a lot of people think, even if I disagree with them. I’m interested to hear their reasoning and opinions.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          “Snopes was debunked a while back.”

          Says who? If you’re going to say something like that, give more details. Without anything more than that, that would be like if I said “Jerome Horwitz has completely debunked, don’t believe anything he says.”

          • Jerome Horwitz

            It’s in this thread, actually. Submitted by Amos Moses. Do try to keep up.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I hadn’t seen that yet. Now that I did….I don’t see how it automatically means everything that Snopes says is wrong.

        • Croquet_Player

          Snopes did not write the study. The Rand Corporation did.

        • Garbage Adams

          “Snopes was debunked a while back.”

          That’s like saying The New York Times was debunked a while back. What article specifically was debunked?

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        SNOPES ……… LOL ……

        Snopes on brink as founder accused of fraud and lying | Daily Mail …
        dailymail co uk
        26 Jul 2017 … ‘Fact checking’ website Snopes on verge of collapse after founder is accused of fraud, lies, and putting prostitutes and his honeymoon on …

        Further …………

        Snopes com’s founders, former husband and wife David and Barbara Mikkelson, have been embroiled in a lengthy and bitter legal dispute in the wake of their divorce. At one point, Barbara accused the CEO of using company money for prostitutes. Barbara Mikkelson also accused her ex-husband of embezzling more than $100,000 in company funds. She urged the court to limit access to David’s bank account because she said she feared he would drain the company funds due to his wild spending habits.

        David claimed Barbara took millions from their joint accounts and bought property in Las Vegas. He has since remarried to a former escort and porn actress, Elyssa Young, who is one of the site’s staff members. Young, who was a Las Vegas escort until at least 2015, charged $500 for her services. She also starred in porn films as “Erin O’Bryn.”

        YEAH ……… SNOPES ….. ROTFL

        • Ambulance Chaser

          All of which has precisely zero to do with whether their article on studies of trans people are truthful and correct.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sure … keep telling yourself that until you forget its a lie ….. oooppppss …. already happened ……..

          • Bob Johnson

            Selective reading is one of the best methods to support cognitive bias.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            False. If they cannot be trusted with the truth, then nothing should be accepted without serious reservations.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Define “can’t be trusted with the truth” and then prove it applies to Snopes.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Seriously? It has been shown Snopes has been run by people with a decidedly leftist bias, to the point some of the things they have posted on their website has been proven to be false. And you are saying we should believe the twaddle on that website why? Because their bias matches yours? How about no?

            Done with this.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, it hasn’t “been shown,” but even if it had, it would be irrelevant. You don’t prove someone by citing their bias. You prove them wrong by reviewing their evidence and conclusions on ONE SPECIFIC TOPIC and evaluating whether that evidence supports their conclusions.

            “They’re biased” is a lazy ad hominem that has no probative value.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Three words: Cable News Network.

            Bye, strawman.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “Do the words Cable News Network mean anything to you?”

            No.

            “The problem here is the only person calling this irrelevant is you, and that’s because it doesn’t fit into your own biases.”

            So let me get this straight. You’re asserting that “He’s biased” is a valid rebuttal argument and is universally applicable?

            So, how do you explain the fact that there has never, in the history of academia, been a scientific, humanities, social science, or medical journal that published a rebuttal article that consists of “Dr. X is biased.”?

            Why is it I’ve never received or written a motion that argues “Opposing counsel is biased.” Do you think that would be an effective legal argument? “Judge, ignore my adversary’s legal citations. He’s being paid by his client so he’s clearly biased. We don’t need to discuss this any further.”

          • Jerome Horwitz

            You are arguing a particular website should be given credence in spite of credibility and character issues with the site itself and the people who run it.

            Reason: Because they fit your narrative.

            Answer: No.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, not “because they fit my narrative.” Because, as I’ve said many times, despite your refusal to hear, debunking a position takes work. It’s hard. It’s time-consuming. It’s boring.

            But it’s absolutely necessary, because “they’re biased” is not an argument. It proves nothing, establishes nothing, and settles nothing. It doesn’t even make a prima facie case for anything. It’s a lazy pseudo-argument that accomplishes exactly as much as the effort it takes to make: nothing.

          • Ben Brigs

            Right on…

          • Ben Brigs

            so having a left bias automatically means your info is wrong and not to be trusted? what silliness sir..

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes, because a BIASED source is not a legitimate source.

          • Ben Brigs

            Then that means Nothing is legitimate .. fox, breitbart, christian news network, all those alt right “news” sources are biased. Your churches are biased, does that mean they don’t sometimes have the facts?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Alt-right isn’t even a legally defined term. Its meaning keeps switching. There are sites that are legitimate news sites. Not everything has to have a bias.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you spanked them so hard they disappeared ……….

          • Jerome Horwitz

            No, someone came in here and did some house cleaning. At least one person got banned.

            I think it serves as a warning: We need to be cool.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            their house and their rules …. yup ……….

        • Bob Johnson

          Okay, so go read the Rand Report for yourself. It is available online for free.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            FYI …. you could not get me to read the “Rand” reports either ….. their history is less than stellar ….. i do not trust them …… and all you have is false solutions and you invoke false authority ………….. any corporation that has a nuclear cloud statue that looks like a giant sperm in front of their HQ in Santa Monica and whose building is in the shape of a female sex organ ……….. not trust worthy ………

        • Croquet_Player

          Yeah, but as you obviously missed, Snopes is not the author of the study, the Rand Corporation is. So you’re doing the equivalent of not arguing against the study, but against the paper it’s printed on. It’s very silly position to take, but go right ahead.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            in case you missed it ……….. FYI …. you could not get me to read the “Rand” reports either ….. their history is less than stellar ….. i do not trust them …… and all you have is false solutions and you invoke false authority ………….. any corporation that has a nuclear cloud statue that looks like a giant sperm in front of their HQ in Santa Monica and whose building is in the shape of a female sex organ ……….. not trust worthy ………

          • Croquet_Player

            If you don’t like the reading material, drop the class. 😉

    • Ben Brigs

      “Make no mistake: Not a single one of these people want to serve. They can’t.”
      Really? They’ve Been serving openly since last year. are now and in the past been members of the military. don’t know what you’re talking about?

      • Bob Johnson

        And if we are talking about serving.

        The Rand Report found, “There are 18 countries that allow transgender personnel to serve openly in their mili- taries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Esto- nia, 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:”

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          So what? Just because other countries adopt a policy doesn’t make it right. How many countries allow slavery? Do you want the US to reimplement that one, too?

      • Jerome Horwitz

        No, they have been allowed to be inside the military because that’s what Obama wanted. Ability to serve has never been an issue simply because it is not relevant and that’s not why Obama did that.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          Ability to serve is not relevant? What are you talking about? That should be the most relevant thing, if you ask me.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Re-read the entire sentence to get the entire idea.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So by your definition, those with depression should be able to serve, those with Crohn’s disease, cancer, arthritis, schizophrenia, psychosis, etc. should be allowed to serve. Since when do people with heavy medical needs get special treatment to serve in the military? Only when it’s a sociological experiment.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            No one should be getting special treatment to serve in the military. Being transgender, however, is not equal to those other things you described.

            Wait a minute, though…you said “by my definition.” My definition of WHAT? What I was trying to define? The only thing I was saying in the comment you’re replying to was that someone’s ability to serve should be the most important thing when we’re talking about if any sort of people should be in the military. Surely you’d agree with that, right? We’re just disagreeing on whether transgender people have that….or at least that’s what I thought.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No one with a medical condition or who needs to regularly take medication of any kind is allowed to serve in the military. An exception was made for transgender folk and it’s hurt the military. That’s why generals advised Trump to no longer let them serve.

          • Bob Johnson

            Diabetics should be discharged? Why does the military spend $84 million on erectile dysfunction, just toss them out.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You do know some diabetics can’t serve, don’t you? If diabetes hits after enrolling, some are able to continue serving.

        • Ben Brigs

          They’ve been in the military for a long time. They are in the military right now… what is the problem? Ability to serve is not relevant? What does that even mean?

          • Jerome Horwitz

            They’ve been in the military for a long time.

            Since last year. That’s not a long time.

            Ability to serve is not relevant? What does that even mean?

            It means you are refusing to take what I said in toto, within its proper context. The answer is self-evident. And that’s the last time I am going to say it.

          • james blue

            Okay so you are not saying they cannot serve because they lack the ability to serve, they do have the ability to run, shoot, engage in combat etc. like any other person….right?

            What you are saying is that if YOU KNOW they are gay, trans or whatever it affect YOUR ability to serve ? If I have this wrong please explain.

          • Ben Brigs

            if it were self evident, I and others would not be asking for clarification. if you can’t explain it, just say so. no need to be arrogant about it. as for transgender folk serving for a long time, I meant in militaries around the world as well as ours..no disruptions..

  • Reason2012

    Being in the military is already a mental strain on people. causing many who were mentally stable to snap. To start with someone who’s already having mental issues and put them in the same situations is a ticking time-bomb, dangerous for everyone else, plain and simple.

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    DISNEY NOW TARGETING PRESCHOOLERS WITH ‘GAY’ CARTOONS
    Children’s program featuring ‘family’ of 2 lesbians

    and the descent into chaos and anarchy continues unabated ………….

  • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

    All mentally unstable people should be weeded out of the military and that includes the LGBT123XYZ.

    • Nick Halflinger

      So very true. Mentally unstable LGBT folks should be discharged just like straight mentally unstable service personnel. However, simply being LGBT is not considered mentally ill, and should not be grounds for a medical discharge.