A potential trans military ban could cost the United States $18 billion in accumulated operational investment, with $1 billion in initial replacement costs.
I can’t understand how the majority of Americans so hell bent on defending their own rights, turn such a blind eye to the plight of people society calls *Trans.
My reading of the election post-mortems is that a whole lot of people are simply ignorant of what is happening, or mostly ignorant of the details. Those people aren't even aware of what DJ means for cisgender women's reproductive rights. They only cared about their perception that the price of eggs and gasoline were too high, Biden was solely responsible, Harris was responsible by association, so vote for the guy who promises you a rose garden.
(Okay, a bit of cynical snark did creep in there, but the fact that many people voted their *perception* of their pocketbooks is not in doubt. And they don't give a dam[] about anything else. That's who we are as a nation.
As it'd not be his own money he's wasting, but rather the taxpayers', I don't expect any price tag to be too steep for Chump and the rest of his gaggle of goose-stepping goblins.
I'm amazed at how many online comments I've seen along the lines of "There's no way this is constitutional! Surely he'll get sued and it will be struck down by the courts."
Do people really not remember the first Trump term at all?
8 million a year vs 1 billion in one go… keeping us would cost 0.8% of what replacing us would. In other words, you could finance 125 years of continued healthcare plans before you spend the same you would to replace us.
I didn't realize there were that many trans service members. It's clearly ridiculous to say it's about money, but we all knew it's really about bigotry, didn't we? All of this crap is. Sports, bathrooms, whatever; it's not about protecting anyone, it's about irrational hatred.
Don't forget all the other minorities, (or majority, in the case of women, now second-class citizens), that are still the target of hate. The "right kind" of immigrants, say, models from eastern Europe are okay. People of less pale complexions, not so much. I believe one of the things the public will begin to understand is that the hatred directed towards trans-folks is an ever-growing circle. They will coming after the next groups, (the LGB part) and on and on. Eventually they will be the oroboros, consuming themselves. Thus to all tyrants.
I’m both transgender and active duty military. I started transitioning on active duty back in 2017. I lived through the first ban and I will get through this one too. If it comes down to it and currently serving transgender military members are separated from service, I plan on doing everything I can to reverse a decision like that.
Reinstating a ban on transgender military members is partisan politics. There is no credible data to back up a decision like this.
Fuck Donald Trump. I loath that 31 brave and beautiful US trans military found their only way to cope with his hate was to kill themselves. I hope his gets his karma due before he dies, and I hope it’s slow and painful.
One fact to hold in one's sight in these times is that transgender service members are in fact widely accepted; this was given some exposure in Bree Fram's book ("Forging Queer Leaders," with Liz Cavallaro; 2024). Of course the military is under obligation to obey the supreme commander, but the upper brass has influence. This is important.
I look forward to Musk and his money saving team balancing out that math given the projected costs of discharging so many trans military personnel who are over-excelling in their jobs, but I am sure they won’t let the math get in the way of their policy any more than they let the facts get in the way of their arguments!
I am an 7th generation Texan. I left the USA in 2022. We actually started working out our exit strategy after the 2016 election. I still work part time with trans and queer clients back in Texas. I recognize that I was privileged to be able to emigrate.
I hold in my thoughts all those still in places like Texas and the rest of the USA.
I do wonder what will happen to current policies around things like TSA (which at least ostensibly are trans friendly, per their website) and passport policies (which are easily amended to show correct gender marker). In Texas they are threatening action against trans people using documents that show their gender as other than what is on their original unaltered birth certificate. The idea is they are committing fraud.
What happens if I fly back to the states (as I have to do several times a year) and my passport is confiscated as being fraudulent. Am I then unable to leave the country?
Thank you everyone who is working to support the progressive cause.
If we learned anything at all from this election, it's that arguing from the facts does no good. If it did, Harris would have won in a landslide. These politicians are doing what they do because it cements their power, and their followers are ecstatic to have them grab for more and more power. It's feeling like we're screwed, both in the case of trans service members and trans folks in general, but also with the rule of law, democratic process and civil and human rights, and that nothing we do or say will make any difference. I'm not saying we shouldn't continue to protest and resist, just that it's unlikely we'll prevail. And as far as trans folks are concerned, the MAGA crowd would be delighted to spend a trillion dollars on hating us. That's sure how it look right now anyway.
The Democrats screwed up. They went hard right. Harris didn't stand against genocide, didn't speak up about transgender rights (which I really believe has majority support), didn't offer anything to the working class. Instead it was more war, more genocide, blame everything on immigrants to try and win Republican voters. They actually thought being endorsed by Dick Cheney was a good thing! This should have been an easy win for the Democrats, and they dropped the ball.
This is yet to be determined. His rulings, as Biden's on student loan forgiveness, can be overruled/invalidated by the courts, but this SCOTUS gave Trump the power/immunity to do whatever he wants to that he can call an official act. This would seem to fall under that, so I'm guessing there would be a 100 percent chance it will be challenged in court but a nearly equally high chance of the courts siding with Trump.
I’m not so sure that the Supreme Court is a guaranteed loss. In 2020 they did rule that the Civil Right Act does apply to transgender people. While the courts (not the Supreme Court though) have ruled that Title 7 protections from the Civil Rights Act don’t apply to the military, it is good precedent for the future.
I thought the immunity that POTUS was given referred to the potential criminal liability (or lack thereof) of the president w/regard to his/her official acts. I don’t think it was saying that it’s okay for the POTUS to violate people’s civil rights and constitutional protections.
Yes, I should have connected those dots. The ruling gave Trump immunity from prosecution for criminal-seeming acts committed as part of his official duties, but the broader message is, “the guardrails are down.” His messaging during the campaign showed his increased disregard for the rule of law across the board. I hope you’re right about SCOTUS. But…
Nobody I serve with gives a damm what my gender is a long as I do my job, as a professional, as a Non-Commissioned Officer. I've given 18 years of service. I would like to finish my career and retire honorably.
<snorts> 'Distraction', my Canuck ex-serviceperson ass. I've heard that one before (about women in combat roles, in the '80s Canadian Forces); it was BS in that time and place and circumstances, and it's BS now. Most servicefolks are not that easily distracted, and most servicefolks don't give a single flying or pedestrian fuck about the gender, orientation, or color of their comrades-in-arms, they care about whether the serviceperson next to them can *do their job*. (h/t to Jayna, for providing some confirmation that, as I'd surmised, US servicefolks of today are not greatly different than the Canadians I served with decades ago.)
People who are that easily distracted, though, are *not* people who can do the job. That likely includes Hegseth.
I was surprised at how upset I was when I heard this news breaking. I'm not in military service and have never been although a number of (cis of course) family members have served.
One of my reactions was that if this goes through, at least those trans personnel would not be required to follow the orders of a commander in chief unworthy of their service.
There was some encouraging commentary on the topic in the UK (for example https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/11/25/donald-trump-transgender-military/, not sure how I feel about their reliability) where retired Major General Jonathan Shaw first made the observation that the only thing that matters with soldiers if whether they can actually fight.
It seems he may also have suggested although the wording I’ve seen seems a bit ambiguous, and I haven’t been able to listen to the show he called in to make his observations on that insisting on a cishet ideal for a more diverse military is itself the real distraction and the imposition, not the “wokeness” of allowing trans people to serve. I’ve certainly read about hints of a rich history of gender non-conformity in western armed forces (e.g. “Before We Were Trans” by Kit Heyam).
I'd previously read anecdotally that there were trans people in senior and specialised roles throughout the US armed forces (presumably true in other militaries too) but to hear just how many there are and how much has been invested in them and how much investment the new Trump administration is prepared to waste is particularly high quality journalism. Do we know if trans people are disproportionately senior enlisted personnel vs cis? In other words, that the trans individual contributes more to combat readiness than the average cis person?
I can’t understand how the majority of Americans so hell bent on defending their own rights, turn such a blind eye to the plight of people society calls *Trans.
My reading of the election post-mortems is that a whole lot of people are simply ignorant of what is happening, or mostly ignorant of the details. Those people aren't even aware of what DJ means for cisgender women's reproductive rights. They only cared about their perception that the price of eggs and gasoline were too high, Biden was solely responsible, Harris was responsible by association, so vote for the guy who promises you a rose garden.
(Okay, a bit of cynical snark did creep in there, but the fact that many people voted their *perception* of their pocketbooks is not in doubt. And they don't give a dam[] about anything else. That's who we are as a nation.
And instead of a rose garden they're going to get a shit sandwich. Whoops.
Theyve been led to believe, through the media they consume, that rights for some groups is an infringement on theirs.
As it'd not be his own money he's wasting, but rather the taxpayers', I don't expect any price tag to be too steep for Chump and the rest of his gaggle of goose-stepping goblins.
They'll pay for it with tariffs on Chinese lithium... (/s alert, in case not obvious!)
I'm amazed at how many online comments I've seen along the lines of "There's no way this is constitutional! Surely he'll get sued and it will be struck down by the courts."
Do people really not remember the first Trump term at all?
Swing voters have the object permanence of a dog.
FAKE NEWS!
A dog wouldn't vote for Trump. Also wolves are indigenous to North America.
Well, they are not, but point taken....
Love that the math agrees with us, heavily.
8 million a year vs 1 billion in one go… keeping us would cost 0.8% of what replacing us would. In other words, you could finance 125 years of continued healthcare plans before you spend the same you would to replace us.
These service members are willing to give up their freedom to secure ours. Leave them all the fuck alone.
I didn't realize there were that many trans service members. It's clearly ridiculous to say it's about money, but we all knew it's really about bigotry, didn't we? All of this crap is. Sports, bathrooms, whatever; it's not about protecting anyone, it's about irrational hatred.
Fascism ALWAYS needs a scapegoat in order to rile up the rubes and almost 100 years ago it was Jews but today it's trans people.
Don't forget all the other minorities, (or majority, in the case of women, now second-class citizens), that are still the target of hate. The "right kind" of immigrants, say, models from eastern Europe are okay. People of less pale complexions, not so much. I believe one of the things the public will begin to understand is that the hatred directed towards trans-folks is an ever-growing circle. They will coming after the next groups, (the LGB part) and on and on. Eventually they will be the oroboros, consuming themselves. Thus to all tyrants.
I’m both transgender and active duty military. I started transitioning on active duty back in 2017. I lived through the first ban and I will get through this one too. If it comes down to it and currently serving transgender military members are separated from service, I plan on doing everything I can to reverse a decision like that.
Reinstating a ban on transgender military members is partisan politics. There is no credible data to back up a decision like this.
Fuck Donald Trump. I loath that 31 brave and beautiful US trans military found their only way to cope with his hate was to kill themselves. I hope his gets his karma due before he dies, and I hope it’s slow and painful.
One fact to hold in one's sight in these times is that transgender service members are in fact widely accepted; this was given some exposure in Bree Fram's book ("Forging Queer Leaders," with Liz Cavallaro; 2024). Of course the military is under obligation to obey the supreme commander, but the upper brass has influence. This is important.
I look forward to Musk and his money saving team balancing out that math given the projected costs of discharging so many trans military personnel who are over-excelling in their jobs, but I am sure they won’t let the math get in the way of their policy any more than they let the facts get in the way of their arguments!
I am an 7th generation Texan. I left the USA in 2022. We actually started working out our exit strategy after the 2016 election. I still work part time with trans and queer clients back in Texas. I recognize that I was privileged to be able to emigrate.
I hold in my thoughts all those still in places like Texas and the rest of the USA.
I do wonder what will happen to current policies around things like TSA (which at least ostensibly are trans friendly, per their website) and passport policies (which are easily amended to show correct gender marker). In Texas they are threatening action against trans people using documents that show their gender as other than what is on their original unaltered birth certificate. The idea is they are committing fraud.
What happens if I fly back to the states (as I have to do several times a year) and my passport is confiscated as being fraudulent. Am I then unable to leave the country?
Thank you everyone who is working to support the progressive cause.
Paula
If we learned anything at all from this election, it's that arguing from the facts does no good. If it did, Harris would have won in a landslide. These politicians are doing what they do because it cements their power, and their followers are ecstatic to have them grab for more and more power. It's feeling like we're screwed, both in the case of trans service members and trans folks in general, but also with the rule of law, democratic process and civil and human rights, and that nothing we do or say will make any difference. I'm not saying we shouldn't continue to protest and resist, just that it's unlikely we'll prevail. And as far as trans folks are concerned, the MAGA crowd would be delighted to spend a trillion dollars on hating us. That's sure how it look right now anyway.
The Democrats screwed up. They went hard right. Harris didn't stand against genocide, didn't speak up about transgender rights (which I really believe has majority support), didn't offer anything to the working class. Instead it was more war, more genocide, blame everything on immigrants to try and win Republican voters. They actually thought being endorsed by Dick Cheney was a good thing! This should have been an easy win for the Democrats, and they dropped the ball.
If they listened to facts, he wouldn't have won the first time. He wouldn't have even been considered to run.
So does POTUS have the absolute authority to do this, or can it be challenged in the courts or some other way?
This is yet to be determined. His rulings, as Biden's on student loan forgiveness, can be overruled/invalidated by the courts, but this SCOTUS gave Trump the power/immunity to do whatever he wants to that he can call an official act. This would seem to fall under that, so I'm guessing there would be a 100 percent chance it will be challenged in court but a nearly equally high chance of the courts siding with Trump.
I’m not so sure that the Supreme Court is a guaranteed loss. In 2020 they did rule that the Civil Right Act does apply to transgender people. While the courts (not the Supreme Court though) have ruled that Title 7 protections from the Civil Rights Act don’t apply to the military, it is good precedent for the future.
I thought the immunity that POTUS was given referred to the potential criminal liability (or lack thereof) of the president w/regard to his/her official acts. I don’t think it was saying that it’s okay for the POTUS to violate people’s civil rights and constitutional protections.
Yes, I should have connected those dots. The ruling gave Trump immunity from prosecution for criminal-seeming acts committed as part of his official duties, but the broader message is, “the guardrails are down.” His messaging during the campaign showed his increased disregard for the rule of law across the board. I hope you’re right about SCOTUS. But…
Nobody I serve with gives a damm what my gender is a long as I do my job, as a professional, as a Non-Commissioned Officer. I've given 18 years of service. I would like to finish my career and retire honorably.
<snorts> 'Distraction', my Canuck ex-serviceperson ass. I've heard that one before (about women in combat roles, in the '80s Canadian Forces); it was BS in that time and place and circumstances, and it's BS now. Most servicefolks are not that easily distracted, and most servicefolks don't give a single flying or pedestrian fuck about the gender, orientation, or color of their comrades-in-arms, they care about whether the serviceperson next to them can *do their job*. (h/t to Jayna, for providing some confirmation that, as I'd surmised, US servicefolks of today are not greatly different than the Canadians I served with decades ago.)
People who are that easily distracted, though, are *not* people who can do the job. That likely includes Hegseth.
I was surprised at how upset I was when I heard this news breaking. I'm not in military service and have never been although a number of (cis of course) family members have served.
One of my reactions was that if this goes through, at least those trans personnel would not be required to follow the orders of a commander in chief unworthy of their service.
There was some encouraging commentary on the topic in the UK (for example https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/11/25/donald-trump-transgender-military/, not sure how I feel about their reliability) where retired Major General Jonathan Shaw first made the observation that the only thing that matters with soldiers if whether they can actually fight.
It seems he may also have suggested although the wording I’ve seen seems a bit ambiguous, and I haven’t been able to listen to the show he called in to make his observations on that insisting on a cishet ideal for a more diverse military is itself the real distraction and the imposition, not the “wokeness” of allowing trans people to serve. I’ve certainly read about hints of a rich history of gender non-conformity in western armed forces (e.g. “Before We Were Trans” by Kit Heyam).
I'd previously read anecdotally that there were trans people in senior and specialised roles throughout the US armed forces (presumably true in other militaries too) but to hear just how many there are and how much has been invested in them and how much investment the new Trump administration is prepared to waste is particularly high quality journalism. Do we know if trans people are disproportionately senior enlisted personnel vs cis? In other words, that the trans individual contributes more to combat readiness than the average cis person?