The California National Guard fights against Trumps Military ban, and is the only one to do so.

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
3,135
1,420
515
https://www.bustle.com/p/the-california-national-guard-rejects-trumps-trans-military-ban-in-a-powerful-statement-17035785

After more than a year of legal battles, President Donald Trump's ban on transgender people serving in the military went into effect Friday. The policy effectively reverses an Obama-era decision to allow transgender troops to serve openly and have access to gender-affirming medical care. But not everyone appears intent on enforcing the Trump administration's ban on transgender service members. Indeed, the California National Guard pushed back on Trump's transgender ban, telling The Hill it would "explore every avenue" in order to ensure that transgender people "are afforded every opportunity to serve" should they want to.

"Anybody who is willing and able to serve state [and] nation should have the opportunity to serve," Maj. Gen. Matthew Beevers, the California National Guard's assistant adjutant general, told The Hill. "It's unconscionable in my mind that we would fundamentally discriminate against a certain class of people based on their gender identity. That should be the absolute least of our worries."
According to NBC, the Department of Defense has claimed the new policy is not a ban on transgender troops as it allows for any service member who has already been diagnosed with gender dysphoria to continue transitioning, taking hormones, and serving in their gender identity. Going forward, however, anyone in the process of or who has already undergone a gender transition will be barred from enlisting unless they serve in the gender they were assigned at birth and adhere to the grooming stereotypes associated with that gender, the Associated Press has reported. What's more, any service member diagnosed with gender dysphoria after the policy has gone into effect will be forced to serve in the gender they were assigned at birth or risk being discharged.

California sure likes fighting against federal law, trans ban, sanctuary cities, etc.

Personally I'm surprised Trump has been as laid back as he has, a guy like Reagan would have went on full offensive and crushed the state into dust.
 

weltalldx

Member
Feb 25, 2017
357
407
230
In normal society, ie 10 years ago, this guy would have been ostracized by the military and possibly reprimanded for insubordination and undermining the commander in chief. But since we are living in a world turned upside, where left is right, up is down, this guy is probably getting patted on the back for disobeying orders.
 

RokkanStoned

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,492
1,328
360
Norway
As long as you pass a psychologically taxing test and you pass the physical test, during or after transition, I don't really see what point there is denying . That kind of test should be mandatory if it doesn't already exist, to ensure that soldiers are fit and will tackle the stress during combat.Trans ban feels kinda pointless, honestly.

Though it could be said that there are certain practical problems, especially with how women tend to function in operations abroad (where sex has been an important part, as women would have been an important element in bridging the relations to women in conflict zones), which could create trust issues. Hormones availability could be a possible problem, though I'm unsure if it actually would be a problem. Also, military is supposed to be very non-gender expressive, with one of the few exceptions being female privilege in terms of hair requirements and skirts. So outside of pronouns, what kind of gender expression would there actually be?
 

RedVIper

Member
Jun 13, 2017
1,045
1,137
220
If you are willing and able to serve, then you should be able to.
Isn't the point that transgenders require special medical attention and supplies to function?

Having people who suffer from anxiety,depression,etc seems like a huge risk, not to just themselves but everyone who's with them.
 

Shy Fingers

Member
Aug 3, 2011
1,076
55
480
Isn't the point that transgenders require special medical attention and supplies to function?

Having people who suffer from anxiety,depression,etc seems like a huge risk, not to just themselves but everyone who's with them.
I'm not a military expert, but since the pentagon didn't seem to mind, it must not be too big of a hindernence.

Also, best not to bring up mental health as a barrier, because the suicide rate amongst people who are serving, and who have served, is through the fucking roof.
 

RedVIper

Member
Jun 13, 2017
1,045
1,137
220
I'm not a military expert, but since the pentagon didn't seem to mind, it must not be too big of a hindernence.

Also, best not to bring up mental health as a barrier, because the suicide rate amongst people who are serving, and who have served, is through the fucking roof.
The suicide rate for people after they serve goes trough the roof, because you know, it's not that fun. But you probably don't want people who already suffer from medical conditions, and already have really high suicide rates, joining.
 

Shy Fingers

Member
Aug 3, 2011
1,076
55
480
The suicide rate for people after they serve goes trough the roof, because you know, it's not that fun. But you probably don't want people who already suffer from medical conditions, and already have really high suicide rates, joining.
During as well for reserves.

And yes, I couldn't serve because of a leg deformity that caused me to be in leg braces the first two years of my life. (Even though my dad who served told me not to)
 

weltalldx

Member
Feb 25, 2017
357
407
230
As long as you pass a psychologically taxing test and you pass the physical test, during or after transition, I don't really see what point there is denying . That kind of test should be mandatory if it doesn't already exist, to ensure that soldiers are fit and will tackle the stress during combat.Trans ban feels kinda pointless, honestly.

Though it could be said that there are certain practical problems, especially with how women tend to function in operations abroad (where sex has been an important part, as women would have been an important element in bridging the relations to women in conflict zones), which could create trust issues. Hormones availability could be a possible problem, though I'm unsure if it actually would be a problem. Also, military is supposed to be very non-gender expressive, with one of the few exceptions being female privilege in terms of hair requirements and skirts. So outside of pronouns, what kind of gender expression would there actually be?
There are serious concerns of fraternization and gender dysphoria causing breakdown in unit cohesiveness. The military have traditionally weeded out individuals with physical and psychological problems to ensure optimal recruitment. Having asthma or being diagnose with ADHD are some of the disqualifying disorders. Transgender folks by definition have a distress disorder, hence the word dysphoria, and it has been very recent that the standards were changed.

There are many gender differences and distinctions the military uses to recruit, train, and deploy soldiers. Hair and dress code are the least of the concerns. Right now females have laxer standard with regards to physical fitness, specifically relating to running and upper body tests. They also have higher requirements for berthing and hygiene accommodations, requiring bigger bathrooms and sleeping areas for privacy. There is talk that the military is lowering its standards and increasing operating cost to accommodate these changes. Combat roles and equipment, which traditionally have been designed and plan with males strength and reach in mind, would need to be redesign. It would not seem far-fetch that an otherwise disqualifying male would excel and benefit using the females' standard when it comes to testing and promotion.

I think Trumps wants the US military to be seen as a strong, aggressive and lethal force. That messaging might get lost in translation if foreign adversaries such as Russia/China catch glimpse of all the shenanigans happening in the armed forces. Which is why he was so expedient in erasing Obama's policies.
 

RokkanStoned

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,492
1,328
360
Norway
There are serious concerns of fraternization and gender dysphoria causing breakdown in unit cohesiveness. The military have traditionally weeded out individuals with physical and psychological problems to ensure optimal recruitment. Having asthma or being diagnose with ADHD are some of the disqualifying disorders. Transgender folks by definition have a distress disorder, hence the word dysphoria, and it has been very recent that the standards were changed.
Wouldn't that matter whether the trans person has manifested gender dysphoria? Also, how is fraternization relevant in this case?

There are many gender differences and distinctions the military uses to recruit, train, and deploy soldiers. Hair and dress code are the least of the concerns. Right now females have laxer standard with regards to physical fitness, specifically relating to running and upper body tests. They also have higher requirements for berthing and hygiene accommodations, requiring bigger bathrooms and sleeping areas for privacy. There is talk that the military is lowering its standards and increasing operating cost to accommodate these changes. Combat roles and equipment, which traditionally have been designed and plan with males strength and reach in mind, would need to be redesign. It would not seem far-fetch that an otherwise disqualifying male would excel and benefit using the females' standard when it comes to testing and promotion.
That women have laxer standards and different hair and dress codes, I would imagine that they're both to a degree a problem. When I think the military I think uniformity and that in general your gender/sex shouldn't matter. You are a soldier first and foremost. Meaning that a complete uniformity should be desired. That said, I understand some of the use a women can have in military operations, especially when it comes to contact with local civilian women. So I could at least imagine why lowering the standard to get more women in could be justified.
I doubt you'll find many men trying to pretend to be trans to get through the physical qualifications. At least in the military. Wouldn't the solution be that the tests are based on sex (biology)?
 

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
5,838
2,472
1,115
I’m not sure if I agree with Trump on this one. I know (and someone else in the thread mentioned) that the Pentagon is ok with trans people serving. Have any other military leaders commented on this? I would think if they pass all the standard tests they should be allowed to serve. I never served myself so I feel I am lacking a lot of information on this topic.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
3,135
1,420
515
There was no consensus at the pentagon, Obama "policy" was another Eo and he got guys lined up to make it seem like there was. Issues is you can find article and YouTube videos of numerous military personnel talking on inconvenience.. This is why the chemicals and drug injects are specifically targeted in the ban, as a trans can serve as their real sex if they don't take something, which is a common army rule that trans somehow got a pass on and no other category did.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
31,210
2,088
1,000
tbh i don't really want anyone other than alpha wolves (generally and usually men, very few women) in the military, but that ship has sailed
 
Last edited: