Trump orders ban of trans people from military service

[Terell Kirby]

Heart goes out to all trans veterans and those who serve(d) proudly: https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/28/nx-s1-5277106/trump-executive-order-transgender-military

Thoughts? Does this serve the country in any way? What are your thoughts of trans in military? Is there any truth to Trump ban or is it purely ideological and sinister in nature? Is “radical gender ideology” even a real thing?

interested in a mature dialogue on this topic.

Edited January 28 by Terell Kirby

[The Crocodile]

 

[LambdaDelta]

Trump needs to fulfill at least some of the campaign promises he made, and is going for the low-hanging fruit. He personally doesn't care, it's a boon for his ideological voters. 

This is probably one of the least harmful policies. It's estimated around 15k trans people are in the military, out of like 1.3M, or ~1%, it's a negligible difference. Moreover, army people in general tend to be around SD solid blue with some orange. While I haven't seen concrete reports of trans being bullied in the US army, people with that level of development will generally be at least somewhat uncomfortable with them. 65% of veterans voted Trump in 2024, and there's been many videos of barracks cheering at the news of his win, it's a safe assumption they share a lot of positions.

For now this is fine. When we evolve a little, it can be brought back. But the approach has to be balanced. For instance I wouldn't want a platoon being trained to participate in active warzones to soften their regiment to adjust to the needs of a single female to male member (obviously if they can keep up it's all good), like school classes are sometimes slowed down for the lowest common denominator. The military has tons of jobs to fill, if you put trans people in some command center to intercept missiles, there's no issues whatsoever.

Edited January 28 by LambdaDelta

[Inliytened1]

24 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

Heart goes out to all trans veterans and those who serve(d) proudly: https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/28/nx-s1-5277106/trump-executive-order-transgender-military

Thoughts? Does this serve the country in any way? What are your thoughts of trans in military? Is there any truth to Trump ban or is it purely ideological and sinister in nature? Is “radical gender ideology” even a real thing?

interested in a mature dialogue on this topic.

Ideological.  They are human beings and should not be denied military service. 

[Terell Kirby]

22 minutes ago, LambdaDelta said:

Trump needs to fulfill at least some of the campaign promises he made, and is going for the low-hanging fruit. He personally doesn't care, it's a boon for his ideological voters. 

Great observation.

22 minutes ago, LambdaDelta said:

This is probably one of the least harmful policies.

Yeah-but it's essentially targeting a marginalized group. Lacks empathy for trans, and sets a pretty egregious precedence.

[Hardkill]

I guess this is all part of a New Age version of Jim Crow laws in America.

I feel terrible for members of the military who are trans.

I get your point @LambdaDelta, but what Trump is doing is still a form of social injustice. 

Edited January 28 by Hardkill

[LambdaDelta]

2 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

Yeah-but it's essentially targeting a marginalized group. Lacks empathy for trans, and sets a pretty egregious precedence.

Of course it's bad. Basically everything he does lacks empathy and sets terrible precedents. I'm just saying purely by the volume of people this is going to negatively impact, it's relatively minor. Even another trans-related policy of only putting the birth sex in IDs may have broader consequences for the future.

[Terell Kirby]

7 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

I guess this is all part of a New Age version of Jim Crow laws in America.

This ban doesn't come remotely close to Jim Crow- society is way too advanced to have anything comparable to that.

We have to be careful with false equivalency-

Edited January 28 by Terell Kirby

[Talinn]

Well the executive order says it takes "a minimum of 12 months" to recover from medical transition surgery and that you need to use heavy narcotics for months to recover.

For me I went back to the gym after like 6 or 7 weeks after my SRS, so it's just a blatant lie at least for some people. Yeah some people might take longer to recover physically but I'd say the norm to go back into combat roles would be probably 4-8 months, not 12 months. There are also less physically intensive jobs that you could do in the military that you could probably do sooner than even that.

I also stopped taking oxycodone for the pain like two weeks after my procedure so I wasn't really taking heavy-narcotics for 12 months or even one month.

So the main part that I don't like is all the blatant lying. Truth doesn't matter at all to them.

Also... before they'd mention transgenderism like in one of four statements, but now it feels like it's coming out in every 1 out of 2 statements they make. But I'm working on my mental resilience for this retarded administration.
 

Edited January 28 by Talinn

[Terell Kirby]

@Talinn thanks for sharing your experience. It's tough seeing this in our politics.

I couch that with saying the US has made significant progress on the subject of trans rights, relative to other less advanced societies. Still many more decades of progress to be made.

[Talinn]

2 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

@Talinn thanks for sharing your experience. It's tough seeing this in our politics.

I couch that with saying the US has made significant progress on the subject of trans rights, relative to other less advanced societies. Still many more decades of progress to be made.

Yeah you're right. I haven't been to any truly poor countries, but I went to Costa Rica and that was kind of enough for me to deduce that trans rights are just sort of a luxury.

[Terell Kirby]

17 minutes ago, ryandesreu said:

I was going to say "trans for Trump" as a joke, but I looked it up and that is actually a thing.

Haha that’s insane 

[Hojo]

You can use it to get out of military draft now.

[Basman]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

Ideological.  They are human beings and should not be denied military service. 

We already deny people entry into the military if they have a criminal record or fail certain health and fitness standards. If being trans undermines the capability of the military to serve its function then its fair to deny them the ability to serve. That is if. I don't know if that is actually case. If its note the case then its problematic and America is denying itself capable soldiers.

The military is not a humanist organization. Its much more pragmatic than that.

Edited January 29 by Basman

[Terell Kirby]

29 minutes ago, Basman said:

If being trans undermines the capability of the military to serve its function then its fair to deny them the ability to serve. 

Good point, very nuanced. Question is, what is the method of measuring trans affect on military capability? Also, how do we know if that measure is fair or objective and free of cultural bias?

29 minutes ago, Basman said:

The military is not a humanist organization. Its much more pragmatic than that.

I don't think anyone has seriously been under the impression that the military is a humanist organization. This is often a right wing talking point to avoid addressing the legitimate grievances of minorities and disenfranchised groups-both in the military, and those seeking to enlist.

Edited January 29 by Terell Kirby

[Thought Art]

He needs a unified military of men to do his bidding like take green land and annex mexico

[Terell Kirby]

3 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

He needs a unified military of men to do his bidding like take green land and annex mexico

I think it's more complex than that- extends beyond Trump and into the collective consciousness of Americans.

This is quite a bold policy Trump is enacting, not to be taken lightly.

[Basman]

1 hour ago, Terell Kirby said:

Good point, very nuanced. Question is, what is the method of measuring trans affect on military capability? Also, how do we know if that measure is fair or objective and free of cultural bias?

I don't think anyone has seriously been under the impression that the military is a humanist organization. This is often a right wing talking point to avoid addressing the legitimate grievances of minorities and disenfranchised groups-both in the military, and those seeking to enlist.

Its fair to question the militaries methodology when selecting recruits but enlistment is not a privilege at the end of the day. You can be motivated and pass all requirements but still be rejected if the military has no need for you. Recruitment should be on the basis of maintaining operational function. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't see women ever joining special forces for instance besides one in a million freaks of nature when the majority of men already wash out.

I don't see there being any factual evidence that trans are necessarilly less fit to serve however and this particular issue dribbles like a ball everytime theres a new president, undoing the policy change of the previous president, which makes me think that its largely ideological. That said, you could perhaps make the argument that it could harm cohesion. A battalion of nazis is going to be less effective if you start inducting Californian hippies into the fold.

[Terell Kirby]

40 minutes ago, Basman said:

Recruitment should be on the basis of maintaining operational function. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, but this assumes that recruitment practices are fair and unbiased from the start.

There's a lot of criticism of DEI these days, some of which is legitimate-but one constructive thing it did was bring awareness of unconscious bias to upper and mid level management as it relates recruitment and hiring practices- making things more fair and equitable, and free of discrimination.

The Trump Administration is throwing the baby out with the bath water when it comes to DEI. As typical with most conservatives, they are poor at steel-manning alternative perspectives and are blind to value propositions that don't directly serve their self interest, or interest of their tribe.

Edited January 29 by Terell Kirby

[Talinn]

32 minutes ago, Basman said:

Its fair to question the militaries methodology when selecting recruits but enlistment is not a privilege at the end of the day. You can be motivated and pass all requirements but still be rejected if the military has no need for you. Recruitment should be on the basis of maintaining operational function. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't see women ever joining special forces for instance besides one in a million freaks of nature when the majority of men already wash out.

I don't see there being any factual evidence that trans are necessarilly less fit to serve however and this particular issue dribbles like a ball everytime theres a new president, undoing the policy change of the previous president, which makes me think that its largely ideological. That said, you could perhaps make the argument that it could harm cohesion. A battalion of nazis is going to be less effective if you start inducting Californian hippies into the fold.

The world is bigger than what you read about transgender people on the internet or even what you see of them in real life. It's true of everything.