Althouse: "There are thousands of transgender people already serving among the 1.3 million active-duty members of the military."

July 27, 2017

"There are thousands of transgender people already serving among the 1.3 million active-duty members of the military."

"These are people who have volunteered their service and have potentially put their lives on the line, and yet their President, who managed to come up with a flimsy doctor’s note back in the day, denies them their dignity, their equality. He will not 'accept or allow' them in the military. Imagine the scale of this insult.... When you begin to consider the meanness of what Trump has done, it is worth remembering him saying that he was 'smarter' than the generals on military matters, and that he mocked John McCain’s service in Vietnam because 'I like people who weren’t captured.' When you begin to think about the scale of this offense, it is worth remembering Khizr Khan, the Gold Star father who lost a son in Iraq, addressing Trump directly from the lectern of the Democratic National Convention: 'You have sacrificed nothing and no one.'"

From "The Cruelty and Cynicism of Trump’s Transgender Ban/The President’s tweets are a naked attempt to divert attention from his scandals," by David Remnick (in The New Yorker).

ADDED: Look how positive Trump was to LGBT rights when he was campaigning:

356 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 356 of 356

deepelemblues said...: I'd love to see some reaction to this guy:

he didn't last five seconds before saying something incredibly retarded so i stopped listening.

one's opinion on homosexuality has literally nothing to do with being sexually repressed. if he wasn't a bigoted leftist, he would know that married, conservative christians have the most satisfying sex lives, as shown by study after study after study.; 7/27/17, 10:15 AM
Michael K said...: Henry, what is your purpose in posting the quote from Mattis ?

Do you think I didn't know about it?

Here's another quote.

There are many reasons why the military does not allow people with certain medical conditions to join the ranks. Mainly the reason is for safety of all service members. Also not being able to care for and treat major ailments, and some injuries / illnesses that will prevent function of the daily duties of the ill service member can be dangerous if no medical resources are available for long periods of time.

That's from the regs.; 7/27/17, 10:15 AM
Henry said...: @Maybee. Maybe not. RAND seems like a trustworthy source, but there could be caveats to those numbers.; 7/27/17, 10:16 AM
Unknown said...: Chuck is demanding that Trump "Pass the buck" and "Blame a general" so that general can be literally pilloried and ridden out of town on a rail.

The buck stops with the President, Chuck. I know, I know: Obama didn't think so and thus you don't either.

You've said you agree with the policy, so why are you trying to hunt a way to blame Trump for something you say you agree with?

To Sunsong: What about the basic decent and human rights of the women in the military that would be forced to shower and share barracks with any male who checks a box on a form to get out of high physically demanding labor? What about those women, sunsong? Why do they have to lose their right to privacy so some guy can perve on them in the shower? Why do you support treating women as second class citizens? Because we all know that if a transgendered person wants privacy, you must give it to them or else. Women who want privacy? Jail them and punish them because they are standing in the way of our betters: anyone who checks the box.

--Vance; 7/27/17, 10:17 AM
Michael K said...: Here's another quote, Henry.

(2) Free of medical conditions or physical defects that would require excessive time lost from duty for necessary treatment or hospitalization or would likely result in separation from the Army for medical unfitness.

Are you getting the idea yet or does your leftism blind you to reality?; 7/27/17, 10:17 AM
Chuck said...: lmfao.

On the subject of whether Trump was lying, when he Tweeted that he had counsulted with his generals and experts on the transgender issue, I sure do hope that the press treats Trump as an enemy, and as the hostile subject of an investigation, as much as he treats the press that way.

Trump and Bannon seem to consider it a war. I'm good with "war" in this instance. Nobody else set up Trump to have to prove who he consulted. Trump didn't have to say that he consulted with anybody. But he did. And so now the White House can answer.

If I were a Republican in Congress, I'd have the Joint Chiefs up to the Hill so fast. I'd get them under oath and get serious answers to a whole bunch of questions.

And mind you, I mostly support the decision. I just see it as a political opportunity to put the President in his tiny little place, on the matter of doing this shit on Twitter.; 7/27/17, 10:18 AM
Curious George said...: "Ann Althouse said...
gone into practice, and it affects real people who relied on a welcome into the military. You're going to discharge them now? And what about people who were led to believe that their transition would be viewed in a positive light, paid for, and treated with compassion, with accommodations of the need to recover from surgery and so forth. These people are in the middle of doing something to their bodies. It's horrible to summarily boot them out of the military. It doesn't matter whether they are mentally ill or not, because the govt embarked on a program and people changed their lives to enter the program. It's similar to Obamacare. If it had never been enacted, that would be one thing. But it's been around for a while. You can't just say let's start over. You have to start where you are.

So the left can enact these clusterfuck programs that effect negatively many times more than those who benefit...and we need to keep eating the shit sandwiches. Sorry, no. The Armed Forces are not some social experiment that provides free passes to freaktown. And ObamaCare is going down the toilet on it own...which frankly the GOP should just let happen.; 7/27/17, 10:18 AM
Darrell said...: The Rand study is obviously back-of-the-envelope type estimates. "Assume X% of the general male population is gender questioning. If there are Y active-duty personnel and Z reserves, we have 2,450 active-duty transgender troops, etc. The conclusions were paid for up-front. Give Obama the numbers he needs to push through his policy.; 7/27/17, 10:18 AM
Henry said...: Michael K -- This is very simple. Mattis announced that the military was delaying a decision on the matter. A month later Trump announced that he had made his own decision, at odds with the policy announced by Mattis. The Military is referring questions to the White House.

It shouldn't take long for the sheets to get shaken out and we'll find out if Trump is serious or not.; 7/27/17, 10:18 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Ann Althouse said...It doesn't matter whether they are mentally ill or not, because the govt embarked on a program and people changed their lives to enter the program

Stipulating that we should strive to treat everyone compassionately, does this argument imply that our policy should be to RETAIN people we know to be mentally ill? That's, sorry, crazy. "We promised mentally ill people that they could serve and we have to honor that promise" just doesn't work when NOT having mentally ill people serving is done to protect the military itself. In other words, there's a reason past just "being nice" that the military doesn't allow mentally ill people to serve. You can't get accepted if you suffer from major depression, as far as I know! But Obama said it was ok for transgenders to sign up so I guess we can't do anything about possibly-mentally ill people of that particular type serving??

And, you know, non-transgender people get "booted out" of the military all the fucking time, for all sorts of reasons.
Hell, if you're a Marine and you want to do better in your PT so you shoot some steroids, they'll kick you out. I guess transgender members are required to do steroids and other HRT, so they get a pass on that one...but for most members of the military it does not take much to get kicked out on your ass.

Also, the military makes arbitrary decisions that harm the individual interests of military members all the time. What if you signed up to be a pilot for a particular aircraft, did your training, committed yourself to a long enlistment, etc, and then shortly thereafter the military decides to stop flying that aircraft. You were duped! They got you to sign up (and get pay, benefits, etc) for one thing and then just changed things on you. Maybe you're offered the chance to do something else, or maybe they decide "we have too many pilots for this obsolete aircraft" and you're discharged.; 7/27/17, 10:20 AM
Ralph L said...: If you've paid any attention to Laslo and his favorite sex act you would know that you could always "poke" Bruce Jenner.
Yeah, I was going to squeeze that in, but didn't want to splooge all over my punchline.; 7/27/17, 10:23 AM
Snark said...: "I'd love to see some reaction to this guy"

He was on Bill Maher a couple months back and did a great job. He does stand up, wrote a book etc., but his red neck liberal bonafides are legit.; 7/27/17, 10:24 AM
Henry said...: I have a friend who is a Navy psychiatrist. Of course they retain and treat people who are mentally ill.

They don't let them go on submarines though.; 7/27/17, 10:24 AM
Michael said...: The Rand report Henry refers to is not a "report" but a guess with arithmetic following. At the very most we likely support the bottom, lowest, number in the Rand Guess.. Probably lower given the fact it was commissioned to support a thesis proffered by Obama.; 7/27/17, 10:24 AM
Chuck said...: It is as if some of you EverTrump cultists really want some sort of 'Dictator Trump.' Someone who will exert power without any of the usual constraints on a President of the United States.

If Barack Obama had falsely claimed that he had consulted generals and experts before deciding on a policy change to accept transgenders in the military, you'd be outraged. You'd want to know who he claims to have consulted with.

Some of you might say, "But that is actually what happened last year!" To which I'd respond, "If that is the case, I'd condemn it and demand an investigation." You all would say the same. We'd all be in agreement. Most of you condemn the Obama/Ash Carter policy, and so do I.

It's just that Obama was never so stupid as to put it out in an ill-considered Tweet. He had his SecDef and the communications wing of the DoD all on board and in place.; 7/27/17, 10:25 AM
Fabi said...: Why do you think that the JCS are the only top generals, Chuck? You've made a false premise here. Maybe he spoke with the commanding general of TRADOC or FORSCOM. Bottom line -- you don't know and it doesn't matter one bit.; 7/27/17, 10:26 AM
Michael K said...: I sure do hope that the press treats Trump as an enemy, and as the hostile subject of an investigation, as much as he treats the press that way.

Chuck meet Henry. Im sure you two have lots to talk about.

Mattis announced that the military was delaying a decision on the matter. A month later Trump announced that he had made his own decision, at odds with the policy announced by Mattis. The Military is referring questions to the White House.

Why is this "at odds?" The military wants no part of this stuff. You, like most leftists, just want to use the military to experiment with in your social justice schemes.

The Tailhook thing drove a bunch of extreme high achievers out of the Navy.

Navy fliers were even punished for joking about Pat Schroeder years later.

Never trust anyone above O 6.; 7/27/17, 10:26 AM
Unknown said...: Shorter Chuck: "I agree with Trump, but let's impeach him anyway over this, because any possible way to attack Trump I will take, even when I agree with his actions!"

Heck, you'd impeach Trump over Gorsuch, somehow. Not even Pelosi is as rabidly anti-Trump as you are, Chuck. Not even Toothless! Maybe MeAgain Kelly.

You cannot ever give Trump any credit at all for anything. So your ability to influence anyone on Trump is nil. No one cares what you say, because Trump could literally end all war, cure world hunger, cure cancer, invent the warp drive and space elevator, and write a check to every person in the world for a million dollars out of his own wallet, and you would still call for his impeachment and execution. Because he announced it on Twitter. And then you'd blame him for it not being a 2 million dollar check.

Go be a gollum somewhere and gnaw on your liver in a cave with envy, crying out "My Precious" everytime you pull up MSNBC.

As for this topic, again, everyone who supports transgendered in the military also must, necessarily, support the reduction of women to second class status. Seems to me that calling all women second class with no rights is pretty demeaning, but hey, knock yourself out Sunsong.

--Vance; 7/27/17, 10:27 AM
Drago said...: LLR and #CNNStrongDefender Chuck: "If I were a Republican in Congress, I'd have the Joint Chiefs up to the Hill so fast. I'd get them under oath and get serious answers to a whole bunch of questions."

Chuck, who almost, almost joined the military but didn't because there is no draft, cannot wait to get a general or admiral into the docks so they can be attacked politically and their families hounded.

Good old Chuck. Just doing what he can to help the far left.

Hey, perhaps we should doxx ALL the family members of our military leadership! You know, just to let 'em know they have crossed the Chuck/leftist line of acceptability.

Just think of it from Chucks point of view: potentially hundreds of "Barrons" that could be attacked as a way of getting back at Trump! Talk about a lefty/Chuck utopia!; 7/27/17, 10:27 AM
Fabi said...: "EverTrump cultists"

Thank you, Chuck -- I needed a belly laugh this morning!; 7/27/17, 10:28 AM
Michael K said...: I have a friend who is a Navy psychiatrist. Of course they retain and treat people who are mentally ill.

Do you know the difference between treating people who have been on active duty and letting in recruits with mental problems ?

Major Hassan was an Army psychiatrist. Not a strong recommendation; 7/27/17, 10:29 AM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: Well, then, sunsong, what do you say to patriotic individuals who would like to serve but cannot because they have medical conditions that require daily medications and thus make them a risk on the battlefield?

As mentioned above, the military excludes people with other conditions like diabetes. You can't serve in the military if you have claustrophobia, anorexia, bulimia, sleep apnea, or flat feet. Why are you so intent on making a special exception for those who require hormones and psychiatric care during the transition when other medical conditions are excluded?

And what about those soldiers in their unit who might have their lives endangered if the transsexual cannot receive the proper medications and behaves erratically?

You might believe you are compassionate and conservatives are "heartless," but it is you who are exhibiting a cold heart. You are willing to put other people's lives at risk just to feel good about yourself.

That is one big reason I am no longer a leftist. Their "compassion" is not compassionate at all. It hurts and kills people, even the people they believe they are helping.; 7/27/17, 10:30 AM
Luke Lea said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/27/17, 10:30 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: But, anyway, again: fuck it.
Politics is downstream of culture.
Nice people like Professor Althouse long ago helped the Left win the culture war and part of that victory means that everyone must embrace whatever LGBTQ* decisions the Left makes.
To do otherwise would be cruel, you see, and since the Left decides which groups are important and sympathetic you'll never win by arguing that there is something more important at stake.
Whether something is a good idea or not in terms of the efficiency and effectiveness of the military--that doesn't matter. What matters is how a given decision affects a group the Left cares about. A group YOU must care about--if necessary you will be MADE to care about.

We won't ever win these arguments. "It's just a little money, it's just a few people, it won't be disruptive, and the demands will end right here." Of course! Only a vicious ugly sexist/racist/homophobe/bigot could disagree.

"We'll never force you to violate your own conscience, this is just about letting two people express themselves." Remember? How long was it from that to "bake the fucking cake, bigot!" Not long.
But this time is different...sure. This time the demands for accommodation, for special treatment, for carve outs and entitlements--this time they'll stop once they get what they say they want in this case. And hey, don't worry, if things go too far in the other direction you can always vote in someone else, right? I mean, the courts won't actually let your vote mean anything and in very short order we'll make sure that, socially, anyone who expresses even an tiny reservation (not to mention--gasp!--opposition) to the rightthink of the day will be utterly destroyed...but maybe this time will magically be different.

Fuck it. The Left won and none of this is going to get rolled back. No one can imagine what life was like before Obamacare, and that was less than a decade ago. No one can tolerate changing the rule on transgenders in the military back to what it was before this Obama rule change, and that was announced less than two years ago. Once the Left advances, we can't ever go back.
Nice centrist people like Professor Althouse won't let us. It'd be mean!; 7/27/17, 10:31 AM
Luke Lea said...: Shouldn’t the blind, deaf, and dumb have a right to serve in our armed forces? Surely accommodations could be made at minimal costs. And while their numbers might be small, their right to bear arms should not be infringed. At the very least, let us hope a District Judge somewhere puts a stay on our Commander-in-Chief’s ill-judged decision until the Supreme Court can weigh in on the Constitutional issue involved. Human rights ought to trump our nation’s ability to fight and win wars when those are the very values we seek to defend.; 7/27/17, 10:32 AM
Henry said...: I'm going to be very binary about this.

Matthis announced X -- we are studying the policy and will announce our findings in 6 months..

Trump tweeted Y -- here is the policy.

You are correct, I think, that the military wants no part of this stuff. That doesn't mean that Y will trump X.; 7/27/17, 10:32 AM
Drago said...: Michael K: "The Tailhook thing drove a bunch of extreme high achievers out of the Navy.

Navy fliers were even punished for joking about Pat Schroeder years later."

Absolutely true.

Every word of it.

Just having attended Tailhook '91 ended careers, whether you were accused of something or not. Every attendee had their records flagged and it impacted hundreds.; 7/27/17, 10:32 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: If Barack Obama had falsely claimed that he had consulted generals and experts before deciding on a policy change to accept transgenders in the military, you'd be outraged. You'd want to know who he claims to have consulted with.

That would be comparable IF Obama made such a claim. Mostly he just signed Executive orders and declared it a done deal. No one in the media or the left had the vapors about Obama's exercise of his legitimate powers. We did complain about his illegitimate actions such as appropriating money for funding Obamacare. Appropriating money is the power of Congress, NOT the President. You guys didn't complain about that. (See Turley and the lawsuit)

The precedent has been set. Too late to bitch about it now.

We do not have the right to demand this information about every decision the Executive makes regarding items under his Constitutional authority. We can ask, and most likely will be given the information if it is not classified. We are not able to demand.; 7/27/17, 10:33 AM
MayBee said...: I have a friend who is a Navy psychiatrist. Of course they retain and treat people who are mentally ill.

They don't let them go on submarines though

True.
But they can also be discharged, no?; 7/27/17, 10:35 AM
Henry said...: Do you know the difference between treating people who have been on active duty and letting in recruits with mental problems ?

There are two different issues. One is whether or not the military will accept transgender recruits. They never have and the Obama policy that would allow it has been deferred by General Mattis.

The second issue is whether active duty personnel who are transgender will be discharged.; 7/27/17, 10:35 AM
Chuck said...: What a dumbfuck you are, Drago. You think that people don't know who the Joint Chiefs of Staff are?

They have a Wikipedia page. They have their own official website. http://www.jcs.mil/

I am not trying to embarrass the Joint Chiefs. They make many more hard, life-and-death decisions than anything about transgenders.

I am trying to embarrass Donald Trump, for lying about having consulted generals and experts. And if Trump isn't lying, the White House can go ahead and prove me wrong.; 7/27/17, 10:35 AM
Drago said...: LLR & #CNNStrongDefender: "What a dumbfuck you are, Drago. You think that people don't know who the Joint Chiefs of Staff are?"

LOL

There's that courageous guy who almost joined the military but didn't because "no draft"!

It's a good thing I didn't say people don't know who the Joint Chiefs are and its even less surprising that you, a "lifelong republican" (wink wink) would resort to strawmen.

It won't be Trump that is embarrassed or attacked or hounded. It will be the those military officers, just as you and your lefty allies want.

Just to send the message: don't cross the left again.; 7/27/17, 10:39 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: The same VA that says it doesn't have enough money and resources to do more about its case backlog nor to do more to lower the terrible suicide rate of servicemembers came up with the money to pay for Chelsea Manning's gender reassignment surgery. Manning got that surgery pretty quickly, too, huh? What's that cost, do you think? $40k, $50k?
Hey, you know, that's just a drop in the bucket of the military's budget, though. Only a cruel person would point out that maybe that money should have been spent on priorities more closely related to the military's core mission and to the obligations we already have to care for servicemembers.
That wouldn't be nice.; 7/27/17, 10:39 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: The second issue is whether active duty personnel who are transgender will be discharged.

If you are active duty and after enlisting discover that you think you are a different gender, I would assume as long as you shut up about it, don't act out, and do your job no one will give a rip.

Once you are OUT of the military, you are free to do whatever to your body and wear whatever clothing you like and pay for your own medical transformation.; 7/27/17, 10:39 AM
Fabi said...: Third assertion is a charm, Chuck? You haven't proved that Trump is lying, but continue to drive yourself crazy -- sounds like it'll be a very short trip.; 7/27/17, 10:39 AM
Ralph L said...: The Schroeder jokers were booted, not just punished, IIRC.; 7/27/17, 10:40 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: I am trying to embarrass Donald Trump, for lying about having consulted generals and experts. And if Trump isn't lying, the White House can go ahead and prove me wrong.

They don't have to prove you wrong or prove anything to you at all. Hold your breath until you turn blue.; 7/27/17, 10:40 AM
Drago said...: LLR & #CNNStrongDefender Chuck: "And if Trump isn't lying, the White House can go ahead and prove me wrong."

LOL

Ah yes, I'm sure everyone in the White House will get right on that "disprove a negative" ploy!

Again, how is it that LLR Chuck isn't in high demand as a political consultant in MI? It's inexplicable I tellya!; 7/27/17, 10:41 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Diversity is our strength, of course, so the more diverse we are the stronger we must be. That's just plain logic, folks.

Accordingly our military is much, much weaker than it could be! I notice most members are younger people in good physical and mental health. Not very diverse! Why don't we start allowing the non-ablebodied, the mentally weak or slow, the old and infirm, etc, to serve? We're stronger together, remember, and right now the military is not nearly as inclusive as it could be.
Sure it might cost a little more, but the military's budget is large and we owe it to those members of society who have been excluded to allow them a chance to serve. Honestly I'm shocked the courts haven't already found the military's entrance requirements to be illegal.; 7/27/17, 10:42 AM
Michael K said...: The second issue is whether active duty personnel who are transgender will be discharged.

I would be interested to learn how many this affects. As I previously posted, there are probably people who cross dress off duty. I see some applicants who are almost certainly lesbian and who look quite masculine. There has been no rearrangement of anatomy because I look.

In the service, they might cross dress off duty but I see no way this will involve military duty hours.

Ditto for males.

I suspect you people are conflating the two; on duty and off duty.; 7/27/17, 10:42 AM
Michael K said...: "the mentally weak or slow, "

The military uses IQ testing and I wonder when the left will figure out this is discriminatory.; 7/27/17, 10:44 AM
Michael K said...: I am trying to embarrass Donald Trump, for lying about having consulted generals and experts. And if Trump isn't lying, the White House can go ahead and prove me wrong.

We know you are and you sound almost as delusional as those who think there are thousands of "transgenders" on active duty.; 7/27/17, 10:50 AM
Chuck said...: Drago; you are a perfect, complete idiot.

The question for the White House is; "The president indicated in his Tweet that he consulted generals and experts. Can you please tell us which generals, what information was considered, where the consultations took place, when the consultations took place and when the president made a decision, and why the president chose to act now instead of waiting for the ongoing D.o.D. study per Secretary Mattis?" Who-What-Where-When-Why.

The White House doesn't have to "disprove a negative."

You are such a dumb, disingenuous prick for arguing that point.; 7/27/17, 10:51 AM
Rick said...: This policy is a direct result of the left's eternal overreach. If they had a live and let live policy the participation of transgenders in the military wouldn't be a distraction from its mission. But instead they not only attack such policies they advocate such extreme interpretations of the rules leaders spend far too much time managing these issues for a tiny fraction of their population which takes away from what they should be doing. How many FTEs has Manning cost the military?

This is one reason why left wing institutions are so ineffective and we just can't accept that in the military. And this is intentional, they must overreach to convince these groups they are being treated poorly to maintain their political allegiance.; 7/27/17, 10:51 AM
Ralph L said...: Michael K, you forget that pronouns are hurtful and discriminatory.; 7/27/17, 10:51 AM
Fabi said...: Hopefully the video "Fopdoodle Pole Vaults Over A Mouse Turd" will be available through the Amazon Althouse Portal.; 7/27/17, 10:54 AM
Rusty said...: Sunsong
One of the things our constitution demands our government do for us to defend us. Indeed it would be illegal if congress or the president did not provide for the common defenseThe ACA? Not so much.; 7/27/17, 10:55 AM
Chuck said...: To the surprise of absolutely no one, senior military staff are now leaking to CNN that the Joint Chiefs were blindsided by Trump's Tweet on trannies:

Washington (CNN)The Joint Chiefs of Staff, including chairman General Joseph Dunford, were not aware President Donald Trump planned to tweet a ban on transgender service members, three US defense officials told CNN -- the latest indication that top military leaders across all four service branches were blindsided by the President's announcement.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/27/politics/trump-military-transgender-ban-joint-chiefs/index.html

If it's "fake news," then let the White House prove who they consulted.; 7/27/17, 10:55 AM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: "Only a cruel person would point out that maybe that money should have been spent on priorities more closely related to the military's core mission and to the obligations we already have to care for servicemembers.
That wouldn't be nice."

While Manning was getting treated at taxpayer expense, other vets were receiving terrible care in shitty VA hospitals.

The body of a veteran who died in a Chicago area VA hospital was forgotten about and left so long in the morgue that it descomposed.

This is what concerns me about all of this. Despite the low pay, danger, hardships, and complete contempt the left has for them, young people are still joining the military. The kids who signed up after 9/11 were some of the best of their generation, worth much more than any number of asshole campus SJWs. But continue to shit on the military, continue to enact policies that endanger the lives of those serving, continue to disregard their opinions and give them terrible medical care – and how many will continue to serve? Who wants to devote their lives to defending a country that disdains them?; 7/27/17, 10:55 AM
Fabi said...: An anonymously leaked CNN story? Here, pull the other one!; 7/27/17, 10:59 AM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: "If I were a Republican"

You should have stopped right there, Lifelong Cuck.

It would have been a lot more truthful.; 7/27/17, 11:00 AM
Henry said...: Department of Defense Transgender Policy.

When the policy officially changes, this page will change.

Here is the RAND report.

It's worth reading in full, since it addresses many of the objections voiced in this thread -- including the estimated number of transgender personnel, cost of health care, impact on operations, etc.

It also points out that a significant number of countries do allow transgender personnel, including Israel. So there is a basis for making judgements about operational effectiveness and force readiness.; 7/27/17, 11:03 AM
deepelemblues said...: Trump making a decision without informing them doesn't mean he didn't consult them. It doesn't mean he did consult them either/

Prove Trump is lying since you're the one claiming he is. The burden of proof rests exclusively on the person making the claim. At least among intelligent, rational people it does. Chuck is neither so perhaps we're exercising the hard bigotry of too-high expectations.; 7/27/17, 11:04 AM
Chuck said...: Fabi said...
An anonymously leaked CNN story? Here, pull the other one!

What did they get wrong, Fabi?

I knew this was coming; "CNN - lulz."

So now, somebody is right and somebody is wrong. CNN v. Trump on a straight up question. I hope the press tears this story to bits in an effort to figure out what is the truth.

And let's not forget in the meantime about substantive policy. For my part, I'd like to see the transgender ban maintained. I submit that it will be harder to do, with all of the confusion over a Trump Tweet, than if Trump had waited, gotten a report from the military, considered it with all of the highest-level staff, and then did a carefully crafted rollout with the entire Department of Defense backing him up.; 7/27/17, 11:05 AM
Tommy Duncan said...: @ Althouse 8:32 post:

The US military has a culture that has been defined around producing the best military forces in the world (exceptionalism) in order to defend America and our freedom. Obama did all he could to damage that culture. People I know in the military were deeply affected by the social justice changes Obama made. No one gave a crap about the active and retired military when those changes were implemented.

You said: "It's horrible to summarily boot them out of the military. It doesn't matter whether they are mentally ill or not, because the govt embarked on a program and people changed their lives to enter the program."

Other people entered the military to embrace a culture that the SJW's attempted to destroy. Don't those people count?

Don't those who are intimate with the requirements to field a battle-ready military count? They were ignored (and often "fired") under Obama.

You said: "Please watch the video I just attached to this post. It collects the many statements Trump made when he was campaigning that indicated he was much better on LGBT rights than Hillary Clinton. "

Trump also spoke about restoring the greatness of the US Military. Trump made a decision that placed the safety and freedom of America over the LGBT lobby. The US military doesn't have the resources for SJW projects. That's not their mission.

I understand your prejudices in this matter. Maybe you should try to understand the military culture as well before you endeavor to destroy it.; 7/27/17, 11:07 AM
Known Unknown said...: "He's choosing to make a liar out of himself."

Or perhaps after consulting with the military brass, he changed his mind.

I disagree with the decision.; 7/27/17, 11:10 AM
~ Gordon Pasha said...: Michael said at 10:12 AM

"The government both can and does do Uturns on laws. In the 80s the Reagan administration passed a tax law which retroactively impacted taxpayers who had been lured into real estate investments that used accelerated depreciation to boost tax advantages. Too bad Doctors and Lawyers and businessmen! Poof, just like that you were fucked."

I lived that TEFRA massacre and ended up going BK from investing in tax shelters. Besides, the original Medicare statute contained language to the effect that there was NO WAY that the Feds would interfere with my clinical judgment. That's not working out too well.; 7/27/17, 11:13 AM
MayBee said...: Thanks for the link, Henry. At least on my browser, the table of contents wasn't clickable, which is a pain. But I found this:

between 29 and 129 service members in the active component will seek transition-related care that could disrupt their ability to deploy.

Which is interesting. I wonder how the argument that Althouse made- that some join the military specifically to get this care- would affect the idea that only 29-129 service members a year would seek it (to the level of disrupting their level to deploy)

I still find that number astoundingly low, and again can only surmise this does not even include hormone treatment. Which is quite possible, as you don't need to take any kind of treatment to consider yourself/be considered(?) transgender.; 7/27/17, 11:14 AM
Fabi said...: You're really asking me what an an anonymously leaked story got wrong, Chuck? Did you type that with a straight face? Classic rhetoric is not your strong suit.; 7/27/17, 11:16 AM
Unknown said...: Transgenderism is a serious psychiatric disorder that should preclude military service, just like myriad less serious conditions that do the same. The whole point of the Obama administration's policy was to normalize the concept in an effort to erase the legal concept of gender in service to a distorted view of equality.

If we simply accept (for purposes of argument) the concept that a transgender person is someone born into the wrong body, then this is a person with a serious, preexisting medical condition that should preclude service anyway.; 7/27/17, 11:17 AM
LilyBart said...: The same RAND study estimated that it would cost a maximum of $8.4 million a year to cover those transgender troops who sought health treatment. This makes up less than 1 percent of annual spending on active-duty health care

On what planet is $8.4 million not a lot of money? In 2015, the average federal income tax bill was $9,655, which means that it would take the entire contribution of 870 people to cover these costs. And why do you think that it's moral to ask working Americans to fund elective "lifestyle" surgery for other people?; 7/27/17, 11:17 AM
Chuck said...: From CBS; more on the procedural/communications clusterfuck:

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. will continue to permit transgender individuals to serve openly in the military until Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has received President Donald Trump's "direction" to change the policy and figured out how to implement it, the nation's top military officer said Thursday.

In a memo to all military service chiefs, commanders and enlisted military leaders, Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said "there will be no modifications" to current policy for now, amid questions about Trump's announcement on Twitter that the U.S. government will not "accept or allow" transgender people to serve in any capacity in the military.

"I know there are questions about yesterday's announcement," Dunford began, adding that nothing would change until the president's direction has been received by Mattis and Mattis has issued "implementation guidance."

"In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect," Dunford wrote. "As importantly, given the current fight and the challenges we face, we will all remain focused on accomplishing our assigned missions."

The Dunford statement suggests that Mattis was given no presidential direction on changing the transgender policy. Mattis has been away on vacation this week and has been publicly silent amid questions about whether he favors Trump's announced ban.

Read more at CBSnews.com:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/joint-chiefs-of-staff-chairman-says-transgender-policy-unchanged-for-now/

LOL. They aren't even planning on following a mere Tweet. The President has to issue an order. "Be advised," the Trump Tweet claimed. Uh, yeah; we're "advised," alright. Fully advised.; 7/27/17, 11:20 AM
Michael K said...: senior military staff are now leaking to CNN that the Joint Chiefs were blindsided by Trump's Tweet on trannies:

I already said "Trust no one over O 6."

They are all politicians.

I lived that TEFRA massacre and ended up going BK from investing in tax shelters

I didn't go BK but it cost me $100,000 in taxes that year. The loss of passive RE investments caused me to have to give away a group of condos I owned.

Lots of blather by people who have no idea about military culture.

I still say there are no transgender soldiers on duty. Your sex gets entered in the MIRS system and stays there all your career.

What you do off duty is another matter.; 7/27/17, 11:20 AM
Drago said...: Fabi: "You're really asking me what an an anonymously leaked story got wrong, Chuck? Did you type that with a straight face? Classic rhetoric is not your strong suit."

But democrat/leftist rhetoric is very much his strong suit.

Very, very very much his strong suit.

Very.; 7/27/17, 11:20 AM
Drago said...: Its nice to see the mask is fully off for a certain commentator. Given where we are you know it was only a matter of time.; 7/27/17, 11:22 AM
MayBee said...: On what planet is $8.4 million not a lot of money? In 2015, the average federal income tax bill was $9,655, which means that it would take the entire contribution of 870 people to cover these costs.

I love you, LilyBart.
I wish every story about government spending was accompanied by how many families have to fund it.; 7/27/17, 11:22 AM
Chuck said...: Fabi said...
You're really asking me what an an anonymously leaked story got wrong, Chuck? Did you type that with a straight face? Classic rhetoric is not your strong suit.

I sure am! Three sources, with more and more independently-sourced stories coming in all the time. All to the same effect.

If TrumpWorld wants to claim that CNN is wrong, be my guest. Better yet, let's have a Trump press conference. For about four hours. On live tv.; 7/27/17, 11:23 AM
Drago said...: Yes indeed. The mask is completely off now.; 7/27/17, 11:23 AM
LilyBart said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/27/17, 11:26 AM
Fernandinande said...: deepelemblues said...
one's opinion on homosexuality has literally nothing to do with being sexually repressed.

"Straight men’s physiological stress response to seeing two men kissing is the same as seeing maggots"

"In heterosexual men, pictures of rotting flesh, maggots and spoiled food induce the same physiological stress response as pictures of two men kissing each other."; 7/27/17, 11:28 AM
Fabi said...: Trump has nothing to prove, Chuck. Nothing at all. If you can prove that he didn't speak to top generals or experts, feel free to do so. Until then, you're just playing with yourself while we laugh at you.; 7/27/17, 11:28 AM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: Geez, Chuck, why extra Spergy today?

Did you get overexcited watching your girlfriend Pamula Handerson get intimate with another guy or something?

Lifelong Republican Cuck indeed.; 7/27/17, 11:28 AM
Chuck said...: Fabi said...
Trump has nothing to prove, Chuck. Nothing at all. If you can prove that he didn't speak to top generals or experts, feel free to do so. Until then, you're just playing with yourself while we laugh at you.

No, this is my thing. I love to be in the company of a bunch of people who think I am wrong and who are certain that they are right. And I'm the kind of guy who listens to somebody saying or writing something dumb, and then correcting them.

Usually it is liberals/Democrats.

I am the absolute worst person you know, for saying, "I told you so."

You know; you made a bet with me once. You know how that turned out.; 7/27/17, 11:34 AM
Fabi said...: I'm not certain that I'm right, Chuck -- I've never made that claim on this topic. All I've said is that you've proved nothing -- and you haven't. Get over yourself.; 7/27/17, 11:36 AM
Michael K said...: the govt embarked on a program and people changed their lives to enter the program

Nope. It didn't. This is propaganda from the left.

I wonder why you believe and parrot it?; 7/27/17, 11:36 AM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: If Chuckworld wants to claim my hypotosis as to why he is extra Spergy today, be my guest. Better yet, lets have a Chuck press conference, for about 4 hours, on live tv, where he can explain that Palmula Handerson did not have relations, with that other man.; 7/27/17, 11:37 AM
Freder Frederson said...: “Look how Trump campaigned.

He's choosing to make a liar out of himself."

Really!? It takes this to make you realize that Trump is a liar?

I Gabe been telling you that for the last two years.; 7/27/17, 11:39 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: I haven't looked into the anatomy, but a transsexual has had his/her/its groin/abdomen radically restructured. Must make a hernia operation look trifling.

"Now you, Private Pat! The Humvee flipped over, come here and help us right it. We're short on people so your share of the load is five hundred or a thousand pounds. Lift with your legs, not with your back. Heave!"

"Now help me unload this truckful of 155mm rounds. Only 95 lbs each, just pass 'em, down the chain to the man next to you. Hurry it up, there's a fire mission coming right up!"

"Whaddya mean, "scar tissue?""; 7/27/17, 11:42 AM
Jim Howard said...: I'm 100% sure that Trump coordinated with the military on this decision. The press is saying the military was 'blindsided by the tweet', not the ban itself.

I would oppose discharging any transpeople currently serving honorably and maintaining the current physical and medical standards. It's not those people got fat and flunked a PT test, committed a crime or otherwise failed to meet existing standards.

I have no problem with barring initial enlistment or commissioning for those not currently serving.; 7/27/17, 11:43 AM
Chuck said...: Fabi said...
I'm not certain that I'm right, Chuck -- I've never made that claim on this topic. All I've said is that you've proved nothing -- and you haven't. Get over yourself.

And of course that is why I didn't pick on you in the first instance. I'm not suspecting you of lying.

I'm suspecting Donald Trump of lying.

I'm going to follow this. And of course everybody in the press is going to follow it. It would be a tough fight, of course, even if a fully capable, competent conservative president was trying to advance the policy of a transgender ban, and a reversal of the Obama/Ash announcement of 2016.

It's an even tougher fight, when Trump's insane Twitter habits create a whole new "process" problem.; 7/27/17, 11:46 AM
Unknown said...: @althouse said You know what else is binary? Bait and switch. Look how Trump campaigned. He's choosing to make a liar out of himself.

Really. Trump said things in the campaign and is doing the opposite as POTUS? Nah, I just don't believe it. The world is crashing down. Welcome to reality Trumpers.; 7/27/17, 11:48 AM
Chuck said...: Jim Howard said...
I'm 100% sure that Trump coordinated with the military on this decision.

That will be an interesting story. I can't wait to hear it. How long do you think we'll have to wait, to hear it? Why set that question up in the first place? Why not have it all prepared from a competent, professional communications/marketing perspective? Isn't Trump supposed to be a great businessman/communicator?

Ford; Apple; P&G; IBM; Amazon; none of them would have been so amateurish when it comes to announcing policy.; 7/27/17, 11:51 AM
Michael said...: Freder F
Well at least Gitmo got closed and you were able to keep your doctor and health care plan at a savings; 7/27/17, 11:52 AM
wholelottasplainin said...: Ann Althouse said...
Please watch the video I just attached to this post. It collects the many statements Trump made when he was campaigning that indicated he was much better on LGBT rights than Hillary Clinton.
******************

Since when do LGBT's have superior rights over straights?

It's been pointed out that NO ONE has a "right" to join the military. So where do you find a "right" in this case?; 7/27/17, 11:53 AM
Chuck said...: In truth, while I support Althouse's having posted that video of Trump campaigning, Trump's lies on LGBTQ matters are small potatoes compared to his lies on health care reform.; 7/27/17, 11:53 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: I heard Pelosi says that .....

Pelosi also said that Food Stamps stimulate the economy. She's either stupid or evil. Honestly, I'm not really sure which."

She was also the one who was claiming maybe a 5x Keynesian multiplier for her "Stimulus" package. Stupid, evil, venal, corrupt, and now apparently with advancing dementia. One of the most effective ads run here in MT recently by Gianforte against Quist, his Dem opponent, showed the latter's picture with that of Pelosi, claiming that he would do whatever she required, if elected. The gift that keeps on giving. Smartest thing that Congressional Dms did recently was to push Dingy Harry Reid into retiring, thereby allowing the swarmy, but articulate, somewhat handsome, and very bright (800 math and verbal SATs) Chuck Schumer take over as their voice in the Senate. Much harder to hate on than Reid (even though I practiced law with one of Reid's sons, who was extremely well liked, and my partner's father was a decently good friend of his long before he went into the Senate). Right now, it is looking like they are going to have to drag Pelosi out in a body bag, the way that she is hanging on to her leadership post. Only way that she will leave.; 7/27/17, 11:55 AM
Gospace said...: Henry said...
I have a friend who is a Navy psychiatrist. Of course they retain and treat people who are mentally ill.

They don't let them go on submarines though.

I'm still not certain if they screen us submariners to see if we're not crazy, or the right kind of crazy to spend weeks or months at at a time underwater. They do a pretty good job of screening out the claustrophobics.

And they do bounce people out who are mentally ill. I've known a few who've left that way.; 7/27/17, 11:57 AM
BD said...: The unfairness argument is just silly. I was promised free health care for life for myself and family upon retirement along with 50% base pay. This didn't happen because of changes in policy. Was that fair? No, get over it. How about the tens of thousands of enlisted and officer soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who were unable to complete desired careers due to reductions in forces? They were simply sent home when a policy change reduced the size of the active force. Some of these had upwards of 18 years service. Home they went without pensions. Life isn't fair, particularly for those who wear a uniform. There are lots of different "risks" associated with service and discharge on the governments timeline is just one of them. "Its not fair" is the whine of a child. Get over it and move on.; 7/27/17, 11:57 AM
Rick said...: There are lots of different "risks" associated with service and discharge on the governments timeline is just one of them. "Its not fair" is the whine of a child. Get over it and move on.

Promised to favored groups are inviolable. Promises to the rest of us, like equal protection, aren't worth the paper they're written on.; 7/27/17, 12:01 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: BD said...How about the tens of thousands of enlisted and officer soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who were unable to complete desired careers due to reductions in forces? They were simply sent home when a policy change reduced the size of the active force. Some of these had upwards of 18 years service. Home they went without pensions. Life isn't fair, particularly for those who wear a uniform. There are lots of different "risks" associated with service and discharge on the governments timeline is just one of them. "Its not fair" is the whine of a child. Get over it and move on.

Sure, but were any of the people you listed transgender? We're sympathetic to the plight of transgender people, BD. We don't much care about the people you list. Unless, of course, they're transgender, in which case suddenly questions of fairness and nice treatment suddenly matter a lot. More than anything!

Some animals are more equal than others. Understand it.; 7/27/17, 12:01 PM
Sigivald said...: I am mostly amused, on this one, by seeing a Feministing post about how awful it is that transgender people sort of are vaguely kinda getting maybe kicked out ... because nobody should be in the military because "imperialism".

Evidently the lessons of Soviet propaganda are eternal, and the US armed forces will forever be "Imperialists", to the Left.

(I mean, whenever they're not also demanding armed responses to things like the Siege of Aleppo.

But I can't expect consistency from human beings, regardless of their politics.); 7/27/17, 12:02 PM
LilyBart said...: Ann Althouse said...It doesn't matter whether they are mentally ill or not, because the govt embarked on a program and people changed their lives to enter the program

So, the New Rule is: the government cannot change any program or policy if people have arranged their lives based on the old schemes and rules? Ridiculous!

And what about people who were led to believe that their transition would be viewed in a positive light, paid for .....

EXCUSE ME, but what obligation to I have to pay for someone else's elective lifestyle-choice surgery?; 7/27/17, 12:04 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: I'm going to follow this. And of course everybody in the press is going to follow it.

Ooh, dang, we need the Trump's In Trouble hashtag now.
You hear that, Trumpy? Chuck's using his GySgt voice: "You're on fucking notice!"; 7/27/17, 12:07 PM
Unknown said...: Ok, so the best I can see here is Chuck frothing at the mouth over the fact that Trump tweeted this policy change instead of, what, having Sarah Silverman announce it? That's the crime that must be pursued at all costs, apparently. Impeach Trump cuz he tweeted instead of using his Press Secretary!

Tell you what, Chuck: you claim to be a lifelong Republican. Perhaps you can comment on the Imran Awan scandal that is currently rocking DC. Let's here your opinion: is it more important a story rather than "Trump tweeted and that's against the Constitution and he must be executed for it!" that you currently are peddling?

I'm sure you've not heard about Imran Awan, since he's a part of a Democrat scandal and you ignore those. Let me recap it for you. Awan was the head of IT for Debbie Schultz, along with a few other Pakistani natives. He is now accused of hacking much of the House of Representatives emails, including getting all sensitive documents from minor committees like the House Foreign Relations committee. His wife last week fled to Pakistan with 12 grand in cash in a suitcase (maybe 20). Awan was arrested at the airport also trying to flee.

He's been under suspicion for months. Yet only after his arrest did the head of the DNC fire him. They've found smashed hard drives in his former apartment. He was the one responsible for "securing" the email of the DNC.

His attorney is a high powered Clinton backer. The biggest of big guns. Democrats are demanding the FBI or anyone release him and not investigate anything.

So: Chuck, care to comment? Which is more important--Trump tweeting or this massive scandal? Or are you going to say that allowing Pakistani natives unfettered access to US state secrets is no big deal because Democrats allowed it?

I know what will happen: you will try to ignore it or blame Trump for it, somehow. You couldn't possibly focus on Democrat treason and blackmail for a change; it might hurt the cause!

--Vance; 7/27/17, 12:08 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: "Denali (/dᵻˈnɑːli/)[5][6] (also known as Mount McKinley, its former official name)[7] is the highest mountain peak in North America, with a summit elevation of 20,310 feet (6,190 m) above sea level. With a topographic prominence of 20,156 feet (6,144 m) and a topographic isolation of 4,629 miles (7,450 km), Denali is the third most prominent and third most isolated peak after Mount Everest and Aconcagua. Located in the Alaska Range in the interior of the U.S. state of Alaska, Denali is the centerpiece of Denali National Park and Preserve.

The Koyukon people who inhabit the area around the mountain have referred to the peak as "Denali" for centuries. In 1896, a gold prospector named it "Mount McKinley" in support of then-presidential candidate William McKinley; that name was the official name recognized by the United States government from 1917 until 2015. In August 2015, following the 1975 lead of the state of Alaska, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced the change of the official name of the mountain to Denali.[8][9] Prior to this, most Alaskans already referred to the mountain as Denali.[7]" -https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denali

I doubt folks 'round here can understand, but changing the name of a mountain after, in a manner McCartney the musician popularized as it were, letting it be, doesn't reflect a compassionate nor sustainable national mindset.

Seeing as how my memory tells me Althouse posted about the name changing(s) previously I could go read those comments for some enlightenment, but my fears of contradictions between what I wrote then and what I've written now are too forceful to presently overcome, sadly.

Y'all as free as a consciousless bird though, far as I know.

Through this geographical paradigm you can form a greater understanding of the current post topic as well as many others.

What did Justice Thomas convey about stare decisis vs. the text and its meaning written in the Constitution? If I can copy and paste what he thought about the topic I can save myself the pain of trying to arrange words correct-wise.; 7/27/17, 12:09 PM
Chuck said...: Tell you what, Chuck: you claim to be a lifelong Republican. Perhaps you can comment on the Imran Awan scandal that is currently rocking DC.

I hope it gets investigated. I'd love to see Debbie, Hillary, and a couple dozen other Dems in federal court facing criminal charges. But before we get to, "Lock her up!" I have a personal preference for the FBI and DoJ to investigate, for there to be a federal grand jury, and then a charging document of some kind.

Maybe it's the lawyer in me; I just prefer regular criminal procedure instead of trial-by-Donald Trump's-Twitter-Account. Stands up on appeal better.; 7/27/17, 12:12 PM
Howard said...: TosaGuy Nails it. It's not the money, it's the effect on readiness.
He also throws the trans community a bone:
Perhaps there is room for post-treatment transgenders in the military, but there is too much going on with the servicemember during the process to make them a fully effective member of the military.

My problem with the whole trans issue is that much of it seems to be driving increased mental illness facilitated by peer pressure, shrinks, docs and surgeons which creates want of heavy hormonal medication and self mutilation. Shouldn't these people be taught to love themselves the way they are as Gaia made them? Instead, they are encouraged to be funneled into a medical alteration process to change from a gender shade of grey into a binary sex. It smacks of gay deprogramming and the race changing attempt of Michael Jackson. The military should not be a party to this ghoulish medical experimentation foisted upon people who are outside the norm.; 7/27/17, 12:17 PM
Karen said...: Althouse says: "And what about people who were led to believe that their transition would be viewed in a positive light, paid for, and treated with compassion, with accommodations of the need to recover from surgery and so forth. These people are in the middle of doing something to their bodies. It's horrible to summarily boot them out of the military."

Is this what the military is about? I thought it was to develop a fighting force to protect and defend the people of the USA, the tax payers who fund the armed forces.; 7/27/17, 12:18 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Here is the real issue. People are upset because Trump has decided to do something (ban transsexuals from being in the military) that is at odds with how those people feel personally about the issue.

Tough titty.

Now those people are whining about whether Trump "consulted" with whomever about it.

Now...take a clue. Trump could have consulted and then decided the whomevers he consulted with are full of shit and made his own decision. Consulting doesn't mean you HAVE to take the advice or agree. Consulting means...I hear you, I listened to your input and now "I" am making the decision.

I came. I listened. I decided. The end.; 7/27/17, 12:21 PM
Unknown said...: Well, guess what: Trump hasn't mentioned Imran Awan at all. So you are safe from "Trial by Trump" at the moment.

But why would you want to let the FBI near this scandal? Hillary was guilty as sin but free as a bird due to the FBI and your beloved Comey. They are irretrievably tainted from letting Democrats get away with anything. By the way, Debbie Wasserman Schultz's brother was heavily involved in the Seth Rich investigation......

Why don't you as a Republican focus on informing people about this story that your beloved CNN and MSNBC and NYT and WAPO are embargoing and trying to cover up? Why are you wasting your time bashing Trump and trying to impeach him over a policy you claim to actually agree with? This is a huge scandal with Democrats being blackmailed, perhaps; with actual indictments, arrests, destruction of evidence--and you can at best make a perfunctory "I hope the FBI can sweep it under the rug!" kind of statement?

If you were a real Republican, you'd be wanting this news spread far and wide, especially since the MSM is going into overdrive to conceal it.

Chuck, you are also missing on the thread above about the Afghan Muslims arranging for a gang rape of a girl as "punishment." You haven't commented in that thread yet to call Trump a racist bigot for blocking the immigration of these Muslims that clearly America needs far, far more of? I'm sure you want to blast Trump, so why not go there and campaign for these poor, unfortunate Muslims to be able to come to America? Clearly we need more people who arrange gang rapes of girls. Ask Zombie Ted Kennedy.

--Vance; 7/27/17, 12:21 PM
Chuck said...: I think, Vance, that mostly I just don't want to be anything like you. I don't want to think like you, or write like you. I don't want to work for you, or follow your lead. I don't want to help you, or build anything with you.

Ditto Trump.; 7/27/17, 12:25 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: No, Chuck, you want to be a comfort girl to the Left.

Like the worthless GOPe, you have zero interest in actually implementing the conservative policies you pretend to champion.

I'd say you are as useless as tits on a boar, but such an expression might offend the transgendered.; 7/27/17, 12:31 PM
Kevin said...: OMG, Mattis is on vacation! Yes, and right before he left he did this:

WASHINGTON – Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has ordered a review of all the administrative and training requirements that prevent trigger pullers and pilots alike from focusing on warfighting.

In the memo obtained by Military Times, Mattis on Friday directed the services, the National Guard Bureau and the combatant commanders to determine what changes are needed to give each branch increased flexibility to organize, train and equip more ready and lethal forces.

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/07/25/mattis-get-unnecessary-training-off-warfighters-backs/; 7/27/17, 12:32 PM
Unknown said...: Wait, what? Chuck, are you having an attack of the conscience here? You are saying you don't want to spread unproven rumors about Democrats because that would be bad, but against Republicans and Trump, no rumor is too baseless for you to spread.

You are right, I don't want to be like you either. A fluffer for the DNC, and a stooge for the Media.

I'll bet you didn't know that I used to be a Cruz guy; in fact was kicked off a Trump forum because I was a Cruz guy. I still would have preferred Cruz over Trump ideologically; but Trump has proven to be a masterful attacker. Who would have thought a NYC billionaire would be the guy to go into DC and kick over the anthill? And now we see all the ants scurrying around and screaming about it.

That's been very revealing. And you are one of the ants running around screaming about how evil he is for kicking over the hill.

Why don't you try being a Republican for a change, Chuck? Instead of being someone who would rather nuke all of America as long as Trump got caught in the blast too? It is possible; I have seen you act rational once in a while. Try doing that full time and not acting as the point man for Chuck Schumer.

--Vance; 7/27/17, 12:33 PM
Michael K said...: "Its not fair" is the whine of a child. Get over it and move on."

Agreed.

I interviewed a guy applying for National Guard who had been on active duty in Iraq and just got back from patrol when he was told he had to do a fitness run right now.

He didn't run a mile in 11 minutes of less and was discharged as "unfit" after being in Iraq for months.

He wasn't even a tranny and got screwed by the system. He didn't go to the newspapers. He just wants to get back in.

I can't get too excited about the trannies.; 7/27/17, 12:33 PM
mockturtle said...: Sigivals suggests: and the US armed forces will forever be "Imperialists", to the Left.

And the best way to destroy the imperialist military is to fill it with women, transgenders and Muslims. Gee--I wonder if they thought of that?!; 7/27/17, 12:38 PM
wholelottasplainin said...: Althouse: These people are in the middle of doing something to their bodies. It's horrible to summarily boot them out of the military. It doesn't matter whether they are mentally ill or not, because the govt embarked on a program and people changed their lives to enter the program. It's similar to Obamacare. If it had never been enacted, that would be one thing. But it's been around for a while. You can't just say let's start over. You have to start where you are.

**********************

Funny to hear that from a Con Law prof.

AS IF the Supremes haven't struck down many government programs and policies. NRA, Brown v. Board , DOMA...

AS IF the Constitutional amendment that established Prohibition wasn't repealed.

AS IF Congress didn't legislative repeal federal speed limits, the WPA, the Sedition Act, the Chinese Exclusion Acts....

But no....according to AA government never reverses itself, never admits to making a mistake.....

And, of course, the "program" here was never "enacted", it was simply decreed by Dear Leader.; 7/27/17, 12:38 PM
Kevin said...: The Joint Chiefs put out a statement saying they were surprised at the timing, because they were surprised at the timing. Their people are asking for guidance and they don't have any, so they're publicly covering their behinds.

"We don't have guidance yet" is the right answer, and it needs to be widely broadcast.

But it doesn't mean people weren't consulted for their views. And it doesn't mean the entire review which was ordered post July 1st, was quickly seen as a serious drain on resources when other needs were pressing.

And it doesn't mean Trump didn't decide to just end the whole charade - as he has the power to do - rather than have people spend months reporting on leaks and picking the report apart in a 10-part series in the NYT.

You don't have to play the game everyone wants you to play, especially when the opposition will just use it against you. You just have to stay within your Constitutional powers.; 7/27/17, 12:39 PM
Unknown said...: So not allowing someone to serve in the military is taking away their rights? Since when was it a right? And on what basis is a person with flat feet kept out of the military? (As noted) Color blindness? Obesity? Can you join if you have diabetes?

Does it make sense medically to deploy someone into a war zone who needs daily medical treatment?; 7/27/17, 12:41 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: Bad news for Chuck- his beloved WSJ admits Trump is getting things done:

"Six months into his presidency, Donald Trump’s detractors portray him as a do-nothing president with no big wins on issues such as health care, taxes and infrastructure.

That may be true if the benchmark is legislation, but that is an incomplete benchmark. To gauge a president’s impact you have to go beyond the laws he signs to the vast authority he wields through departments and agencies that apply the law. On that score, Mr. Trump is on track to do a lot. On finance, the internet, immigration and drugs, to name just a few issues, Trump appointees have begun nudging the economy and the country in a more conservative, pro-business direction."

Of course, Chuck wants the president who is moving the country a more conservative, pro-business direction to fail.; 7/27/17, 12:43 PM
deepelemblues said...: Fernandinande said...

That is not sexual repression. Those straight men, psychologically, would have zero problem sleeping with a woman.

Homosexual men aren't interested in sex or fooling around with women, are they sexually repressed too? Is a person sexually repressed if they aren't down with doing anything with anyone? Is that how much language has been degraded? (Yes, yes it is.)

Chuck is still confused with the difference between "consulting about a decision" and "informing of a decision."; 7/27/17, 12:43 PM
mockturtle said...: You don't have to play the game everyone wants you to play, especially when the opposition will just use it against you. You just have to stay within your Constitutional powers.

Very nicely stated, Kevin! I often email the President with a similar message of encouragement to:
1. Go with your initial judgments [and don't let the GOPe dissuade you--they didn't get you elected].
2. Use your Constitutional powers.; 7/27/17, 12:46 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: Althouse: These people are in the middle of doing something to their bodies"

Yep. They sure are. Undergoing hormone treatments, breast implants, drastic surgeries - all to make them what they "naturally" are.; 7/27/17, 12:46 PM
John Nowak said...: Chuck is still confused with the difference between "consulting about a decision" and "informing of a decision."

But the difference between NPR and an affiliate? He's on it.; 7/27/17, 12:48 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: WHat is the official definition of "transgender" -

is it just those who are in the process of trying to physically change/has already undergone that process, and is continuing the long-term treatments, or

is it everyone who is unhappy with the gender that they were born with, which would presumably include the above group, but would also include those who aren't going to go through a physical transformation; 7/27/17, 12:53 PM
Delayna said...: *clears throat* Okay, let's test this one out.

"I hate you, Daddy!"

Yeah...it fits.; 7/27/17, 12:56 PM
Chuck said...: John Nowak said...
Chuck is still confused with the difference between "consulting about a decision" and "informing of a decision."

Great; perhaps you can explain in detail how this decision was made, and whether the Joint Chiefs or the Secretary of Defense had any idea what Trump was going to do.

But the difference between NPR and an affiliate? He's on it.

You know, that Milo interview is going to air, and soon. On WNPR, where it was recorded. And when that happens I am going to be back on this blog, crowing about it. I am going to be such a prick about it.; 7/27/17, 12:58 PM
Chuck said...: Chuck is still confused with the difference between "consulting about a decision" and "informing of a decision."

Do you want to explain exactly how it all came about in this case?; 7/27/17, 12:59 PM
Drago said...: Chuck is as useful to the conservative movement as he was to our military efforts.

Considering his performance to date, he performed a patriotic duty by NOT joining.

Of course, that doesn't mean he can't be recognized for bravery above and beyond the call of duty in support of Operation Support Democrats.; 7/27/17, 1:00 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: Nothing to say about this, Chuck?

" On finance, the internet, immigration and drugs, to name just a few issues, Trump appointees have begun nudging the economy and the country in a more conservative, pro-business direction."; 7/27/17, 1:09 PM
BillyTalley said...: 300 comments and only a few nailed the issue, Kevin among them. Military service is about service to the country, period. I thought Kennedy put paid to the idea years ago, " Ask not....". The Founders were focused on limiting government, not making it a font of bennies.; 7/27/17, 1:17 PM
tcrosse said...: At what point would a transitioning service member transition from one uniform to the other ?

Cary Grant in Transition; 7/27/17, 1:18 PM
Unknown said...: Did you know you can't join the military if you are over 35 years old? Age discrimination on steroids.; 7/27/17, 1:24 PM
Qwinn said...: Chuck: "I am going to be such a prick about it."

First question this raised in my mind was: what could an observer possibly focus on to discern that Chuck was doing this deliberately or to an unusual degree.; 7/27/17, 1:25 PM
Chuck said...: exiledonmainstreet said...
Nothing to say about this, Chuck?

" On finance, the internet, immigration and drugs, to name just a few issues, Trump appointees have begun nudging the economy and the country in a more conservative, pro-business direction."

I dunno. As you know, I was a huge fan of Judge Gorsuch. And Jeff Sessions, and Betsy Devos. I sort of singled them out, from the many Trump appointees/nominees.

They might be the three most consequential people supporting that (WSJ?) quote so far. I'm liking Scott Gottlieb (FDA) and Ryan Zinke (Interior) too.

Isn't it a funny way to congratulate Trump? Saying that his nominees have been nudging things in a positive direction? It's totally true, of course. Trump subordinates have been nudging things in a good direction. When they aren't fighting rear-guard actions against the @RealDonaldTrump.; 7/27/17, 1:35 PM
Chuck said...: Speaking of Ryan Zinke, I will want to know a lot more about the story in which it appears that he was tasked with threatening the very large amount of Interior Department funding going to Alaska, over Lisa Murkowski's vote(s) on the Senate health care bill debate.

What a fabulously blunt, ham-fisted move by the White House if it is true. Of course I don't know if it is true. I'm just a simple country lawyer. How would I know?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/27/539765891/after-trump-targets-murkowski-interior-secretary-reportedly-warns-alaskas-senato; 7/27/17, 1:45 PM
Chuck said...: Qwinn said...
Chuck: "I am going to be such a prick about it."

First question this raised in my mind was: what could an observer possibly focus on to discern that Chuck was doing this deliberately or to an unusual degree.

Stay tuned! Don't touch that dial!; 7/27/17, 1:48 PM
wholelottasplainin said...: Myself, I wonder whether transgender types will have to retake their Physical Fitness Test or Combat Readiness Test after surgery, while full of hormones and the like.

After, of course, getting taxpayers to pay for their transition.

Would they take the exam for the sex they joined as, or for their new sex?

Here are the different standards for the APFT , sorted by sex and age.

https://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/apft-standards

Ditto for the Marine Combat Readiness Test:

https://www.thebalance.com/marine-corps-combat-fitness-test-3354359

Women, you see, are "equal" to men, except that they're not as fast or strong.

But no matter!! It's only "fair" that they serve, even in combat roles.; 7/27/17, 2:00 PM
clint said...: Chuck said... (7/27/17, 12:12 PM) (Re: Imran Awan)

"I hope it gets investigated. I'd love to see Debbie, Hillary, and a couple dozen other Dems in federal court facing criminal charges. But before we get to, "Lock her up!" I have a personal preference for the FBI and DoJ to investigate, for there to be a federal grand jury, and then a charging document of some kind.

Maybe it's the lawyer in me; I just prefer regular criminal procedure instead of trial-by-Donald Trump's-Twitter-Account. Stands up on appeal better."

Totally agree.

It's also exactly how I feel about the whole Russia collusion thing -- I'd rather see an actual investigation and then a fact-based conclusion than our current trial-by-anonymous-leaks-and-media-speculation.

Also, note that what both of us would prefer appears to be exactly what the FBI and DoJ are doing. Good for them!; 7/27/17, 2:03 PM
Drago said...: "300 comments and only a few nailed the issue, Kevin among them. Military service is about service to the country, period."

That point was established early on.

All that remains is the sturm and drang from the 101st Maddow Brigade commanded by LLR Chuck.; 7/27/17, 2:06 PM
Drago said...: The only thing better than these policy changes will be the coming Kid Rock Senate campaign which will drive the lefties/LLR fully insane.; 7/27/17, 2:09 PM
Drago said...: LLR: ""I hope it gets investigated. I'd love to see Debbie, Hillary, and a couple dozen other Dems in federal court facing criminal charges."

Lol

Uh huh.; 7/27/17, 2:10 PM
Fernandinande said...: deepelemblues said...
Fernandinande said...[]
That is not sexual repression.

I didn't mean to imply that it was, rather that it's the typical reaction from normal people.; 7/27/17, 2:12 PM
Dr Weevil said...: The usual troll has the usual demands (10:55am):
"If it's 'fake news,' then let the White House prove who they consulted."

His evidence that it is not "fake news": CNN alleges that "three US defense officials" contradict Trump. Isn't it odd that Rolly Polly Trolly doesn't demand that CNN "prove who they consulted" by releasing the names of their sources?

Or perhaps RPT realizes how likely it is that the three officials are either not three in number, or not US, or not defense, or not officials in the current administration, or not even former officials - if they exist at all.; 7/27/17, 2:12 PM
Seeing Red said...: nn Althouse said...It doesn't matter whether they are mentally ill or not, because the govt embarked on a program and people changed their lives to enter the program.

Did they enter the program to get their surgery for "free?" And a couple of years of marching was worth the price?; 7/27/17, 2:14 PM
Drago said...: It's clear the word has gone out to the left/LLR base to amp up this latest fake "crisis" to cover over the actual IT shenanigans mentioned up thread which threaten the Dems.

Naturally all the usual suspects are fully on board with these latest directives.; 7/27/17, 2:15 PM
CWJ said...: Althouse @ 8:32,

I don't know exactly what was promised, and situations change all the time. People don't often reliably get what they want. Particularly, when they sign on with the military. I laughed when you invoked Obamacare. All I could think of was how unfair it would be to cancel the plans upon which millions (not thousands) of Americans relied after being promised they could keep them, period.; 7/27/17, 2:18 PM
Chuck said...: Dr. Weevil:

If the CNN sources allow their names to be used, they'll probably get fired. Big, big problem.

Why can't the White House say who were the generals and experts who met with the President? It really should have been part of the original announcement; who they were, who promoted this decision. No problem. I expect we may be able to submit a Freedom of Information Act request for that. At the very least, Congress will be entitled to ask about it in the course of military oversight. Again, no problem.; 7/27/17, 2:19 PM
JackWayne said...: This whole trans agenda smells of the same thing gay marriage did in the beginning. Then, it was to marry to get largess for AIDS treatment. Now it's to get largess to get surgery to be all you can be.; 7/27/17, 2:19 PM
Chuck said...: Drago said...
It's clear the word has gone out to the left/LLR base to amp up this latest fake "crisis" to cover over the actual IT shenanigans mentioned up thread which threaten the Dems.

Naturally all the usual suspects are fully on board with these latest directives.

We in the Ministry of Kompromat -- and you are clever one, Mr. Drago, for having discovered us -- are especially pleased with the work of Comrade Donald in all of this. At precisely the right moment, he unleashed a Tweet that took over the news cycle for days. Buried the "Wasserman/IT destruction" story for days.

It was truly brilliant work by Comrade Donald, elevating something like "Transgenders in the military" out of nowhere, in order to knock Debbie Wasserman off the front pages. A simple Tweet. Expertly crafted and timed, to defeat a story that would rightly hurt the Dems.

For this work, Comrade Donald shall be awarded the Order of Lenin.; 7/27/17, 2:28 PM
CWJ said...: Althouse @ 8:39 & 8:40,

I watched it. What was missing was any reference to the military or use of the word transgendered. Gay and lesbian are mentioned, but other than one unelaborated reference to "identity" the only thing we have is "T." It's certainly there but hardly central to Trump's message. Invoking LGBT is as rote as invoking NAACP even though no one much less its members thinks of themselves as "colored people." As any number of other commentators have noted, military acceptance is not a right. So how does supporting transgender rights however obliquely necessarily imply support for military service?; 7/27/17, 2:39 PM
CWJ said...: Thousands of transgendered may be the new one in five coeds will be sexually assaulted.; 7/27/17, 2:40 PM
wholelottasplainin said...: A 2016 RAND report estimates that there are 2,450 active-duty transgender troops and about 1,510 in the reserve. The report, however, put the range at anywhere between 1,320 and 6,630 transgender service members in the U.S. military.

************************************

Any time you see an "estimate" given to four digits of accuracy, you can safely disregard it.

In addition, read this, from a report on the study itself:

"Because there have been no rigorous studies of the size or health care needs for either the U.S. transgender population or the transgender population serving in the military, the RAND study applies a range of estimates from available research to estimate the number of transgender individuals serving in the military.

The study estimates the number of transgender individuals currently serving in the active component of the U.S. military at between 1,320 and 6,630 out of a total of about 1.3 million service members".

***********

So the 2450 figure cited is a "mid-range" estimate.

When you see an estimate with a five-fold max-min range you can be SURE it's pure bullshit.; 7/27/17, 2:46 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: " At precisely the right moment, he unleashed a Tweet that took over the news cycle for days. Buried the "Wasserman/IT destruction" story for days. "

Oh sure, Chuck. I'm sure the MSM would be all over the Wasserman story like white on rice if it weren't for Trump's tweet.; 7/27/17, 2:51 PM
Stephen said...: This discussion is so much more thoughtful because Professor Althouse has undertaken to state and defend a clear position, and many commenters have responded on the merits.

To me, it seems obvious that Trump's decision failed all the basic requirements of good decision-making.

First, although he claims to be relying on the views of the senior military, the facts suggest that he short-circuited the deliberative process that was in place and scheduled to yield a studied recommendation from those senior officers through Secretary Mattis (who is, by legislative declaration, a civilian) in December. Others whose views are relevant, like Republican members of Congress, particularly those who are veterans or are involved in oversight of the military, were not consulted.

Second, the stated rationale for the decision is evidently pretextual. If the problem with having transgender people serve is the cost of medical care associated with transitioning, then don't provide the medical care, but don't bar the service and provide those who are serving effectively with appropriate options, which for some would clearly include the option of continued service.

Third, many commenters seem to assume that, apart from the question of health costs, transgender soldiers are not fit to serve. That is not, of course, the rationale that Trump offered. It has also been rejected by every Republican Senator (including some very conservative veterans of military service) who has spoken on the issue. Also ignored is the experience of the eighteen Western nations, including many from the British Commonwealth and Israel, who permit service by transgender people. This experience in peer nations strongly suggests that objections to service in this country and on this list are based on prejudice.

Fourth, no one seems to be discussing the White House officials who told the press how politically helpful this decision would be with culturally conservative voters in swing states--which sounds pretty cynical, particularly given the fact that the decision wholly short-circuited normal deliberative processes and is not justified by its stated rationale.; 7/27/17, 2:53 PM
clint said...: Which White House officials would those be?; 7/27/17, 3:16 PM
Drago said...: LLR in some weird attempt at humor: "It was truly brilliant work by Comrade Donald, elevating something like "Transgenders in the military" out of nowhere..."

"out of nowhere"

Gee, I guess that Ash Carter and Obama didn't play any role in the timing of this at all.

Looks like our #CNNStrongDefender is expanding to #ObamaAdminStrongDefender.

As always, unexpectedly.; 7/27/17, 3:20 PM
Drago said...: exiled: "Oh sure, Chuck. I'm sure the MSM would be all over the Wasserman story like white on rice if it weren't for Trump's tweet"

Chuck splits his time between defense of the MSM and defense of the dems, when he isn't rumor-mongering against certain children.; 7/27/17, 3:21 PM
Drago said...: Chuck: "Why can't the White House say who were the generals and experts who met with the President?"

Chuck and his lefty pals really really really really want the names of these targets...er....officers, don't they?

Why, I'll bet alot of those officers have some 9 or 10 year old children that would make nice targets for rumor mongering by Chuck and his pals.; 7/27/17, 3:23 PM
mockturtle said...: Now it's to get largess to get surgery to be all you can be.

Yikes! The implications for the Army recruitment ads are yuuuuge!; 7/27/17, 3:42 PM
jg said...: there may be more trans in the military than in genpop. it's well known that super-high-T are more trans than regular folk.

why don't we ask the military what would be best for the combat fitness and morale of the fighting units and the organization as a whole? i'm sure trump has done that and the tutting george takeis haven't.

the obama-promoted brass knew what they had to say.; 7/27/17, 3:44 PM
Chuck said...: Drago said...
Chuck: "Why can't the White House say who were the generals and experts who met with the President?"

Chuck and his lefty pals really really really really want the names of these targets...er....officers, don't they?

Nope. I don't think there are any. I think Trump was lying, about consulting "his" generals and experts. I wouldn't ever think of harassing such people, but the main thing is that I don't think there are any at all. I think Trump was making them up. That is what I want to find out about.

Why, I'll bet alot of those officers have some 9 or 10 year old children that would make nice targets for rumor mongering by Chuck and his pals.

You evil fucking shit bag.

Drago here is talking about the published reports that Trump family lawyers threatened an autism activist who was defending Barron Trump against social media charges that Barron was ill-behaved, with a video production purporting to show that Barron was autistic. Trump lawyers say that Barron is not autistic.

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/melania-trump-threatens-lawsuit-over-barron-autism-video-w452617

Drago wanted to smear me with the oblique reference to my supposed "rumor mongering" about a child.

For the record; I wish to declare that Trump lawyers have said that Barron Trump is not autistic. I do not know myself if Barron Trump is autistic. You can google "Barron Trump" and "autism" yourself and search what has been published on the 'net about those topics.; 7/27/17, 3:58 PM
Drago said...: LLR & #CNNStrongDefender: "You evil fucking shit bag"

Evil f****** s*** bags are the folks engaging in rumor mongering about children.

Which you happily engage in and want to use against the officers who are opposed to you and your dem/lefty pals social engineering plans for the military.

So tough tiddlywinks. You won't get their identities in order to harass them and their families and end careers.

You'll have to look for your next doxxing and rumor mongering victims elsewhere.

Not to worry, you and the rest of the Maddow Brigade should be able to find a few here and there.; 7/27/17, 5:26 PM
Drago said...: You know, I would think that a guy who didn't have the balls to join up himself would think twice before aligning with those elements that want to end the careers of honorable officers who simply want what is best for the military.

But perhaps this is just Chucks peculiar way of over-compensating for what are clearly some personal issues.; 7/27/17, 5:28 PM
Mrs. Bear said...: As far as "transgender" people in the military go, I think they were foolish to try serving in the military to start with. Let them get "compassion" on somebody else's dime, not the taxpayer's.; 7/27/17, 7:24 PM
ccscientist said...: There is a reason that a trans person would be a burden on a unit in combat:
1) They need to be on hormones. Soldiers in combat can't be taking hormones. They are lucky if they get to eat.
2) High suicide rate indicates emotional disturbance--not good for the military. Being in the military is hard enough.
3) Unit cohesion. It has been hard enough to deal with women in the military. To now add pre-op trans persons who need to share sleeping quarters, showers, and foxholes with the opposite sex (ie, a male-to-female trans who still has a penis is in the women's bunks) is a big discipline problem. These are not college dorms.

This is NOT just about the cost of surgery.; 7/27/17, 7:52 PM