SCOTUS - LGBT (well... just the T) Military Ban Can Go forward

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is correct. The government had asked the justices to take up the challenge to the transgender ban now, before the appeals courts had weighed in. The justices declined to do so, but the government had asked in the alternative to be able to enforce the ban while the appeals go on in the lower courts, and the justices granted that request today.

If I read that correctly, this doesn't mean it is legal, it just means the ban can move forward while the courts look into it... though I ponder if the military would bother implementing the ban if it could be found unconstitutional as the cost (financial) would be unjustifiable.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If I read that correctly, this doesn't mean it is legal, it just means the ban can move forward while the courts look into it... though I ponder if the military would bother implementing the ban if it could be found unconstitutional as the cost (financial) would be unjustifiable.

Well, I wouldn't act on it until the final i was crossed and the last t dotted, but then this isn't about consequences. This is about appealing to Trump's base and if there's fallout, that's for the Next Guy to clean it up.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If I read that correctly, this doesn't mean it is legal, it just means the ban can move forward while the courts look into it... though I ponder if the military would bother implementing the ban if it could be found unconstitutional as the cost (financial) would be unjustifiable.

Well, I wouldn't act on it until the final i was crossed and the last t dotted, but then this isn't about consequences. This is about appealing to Trump's base and if there's fallout, that's for the Next Guy to clean it up.

My experience is the larger the bureaucracy, the more significant the inertia and the friction against change. The military is one of the largest ones out there.

 

[Jarhyn]

If I read that correctly, this doesn't mean it is legal, it just means the ban can move forward while the courts look into it... though I ponder if the military would bother implementing the ban if it could be found unconstitutional as the cost (financial) would be unjustifiable.

Well, I wouldn't act on it until the final i was crossed and the last t dotted, but then this isn't about consequences. This is about appealing to Trump's base and if there's fallout, that's for the Next Guy to clean it up.

My experience is the larger the bureaucracy, the more significant the inertia and the friction against change. The military is one of the largest ones out there.

Yeah, I don't see the military reversing course on most things more than once or twice without an executive order or even an act of Congress.

Let's clarify though, as the thread title seems misleading and in need of a change: is this an attempt to ban all LGBT servicemembers? Or is it just the T?

I personally don't see any problem with trans servicemembers. If there was a woman, and she wore pants, and had small/no breasts, and took testosterone (as a steroid, because she wanted to, in private; plenty of male servicemembers are juicing), and had facial hair that she shaved every day, etc. And just said "I'm a woman", provided she hid her "illicit" hormone use, she wouldn't get ejected from service, just a slap on the wrist for juicing, which she would continue to do. So why should that same person be ejected for saying "I'm a man"? And perhaps less related, why should either of these people get ejected for taking testosterone injections. Would there really be any ethical distinction if the person was like that without needing injections?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Point taken, I have updated the OP Title.

 

[EvoUK]

The Conservative Christian posters over at TWeb are salavating at the continued ban here

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Conservative Christian posters over at TWeb are salavating at the continued ban here

Those people thought it a great idea that Schiavo should have been kept on life support indefinitely.

 

[EvoUK]

The Conservative Christian posters over at TWeb are salavating at the continued ban here

Those people thought it a great idea that Schiavo should have been kept on life support indefinitely.

Yes, I had forgotten that long drawn out discussion about it. That and being pro-choice means that you have no right to have any moral outrage about imprisoning kiddies on the border as you are for the murder of babies in the womb and are therefore morally corrupt and easily dismissable.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Conservative Christian posters over at TWeb are salavating at the continued ban here

Those people thought it a great idea that Schiavo should have been kept on life support indefinitely.

Yes, I had forgotten that long drawn out discussion about it. That and being pro-choice means that you have no right to have any moral outrage about imprisoning kiddies on the border as you are for the murder of babies in the womb and are therefore morally corrupt and easily dismissable.

Yeah, you make me remember quickly why I stopped bothering to post over there.

 

[EvoUK]

Yes, I had forgotten that long drawn out discussion about it. That and being pro-choice means that you have no right to have any moral outrage about imprisoning kiddies on the border as you are for the murder of babies in the womb and are therefore morally corrupt and easily dismissable.

Yeah, you make me remember quickly why I stopped bothering to post over there.

I do sometimes wish some of the old guard were back - but then the frustration I feel reading their posts reminds me why there's little point in doing so.

A gay friend pointed out once why he can't be friends with those who believe and vote differently to him. To me it was nice to think of most of them as 'the honourable opposition', where you can disagree on politics, but otherwise they're nice people. He pointed out that they were actively fighting against his rights, and how could he possibly be friends with someone who could do that to him.

Since then I find it hard to read some of their views, now I see it more through his eyes. The opinion that trans people are mentally troubled and delusional which is widely shared on TWeb is sort of a case in point.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes, I had forgotten that long drawn out discussion about it. That and being pro-choice means that you have no right to have any moral outrage about imprisoning kiddies on the border as you are for the murder of babies in the womb and are therefore morally corrupt and easily dismissable.

Yeah, you make me remember quickly why I stopped bothering to post over there.

I do sometimes wish some of the old guard were back - but then the frustration I feel reading their posts reminds me why there's little point in doing so.

A gay friend pointed out once why he can't be friends with those who believe and vote differently to him. To me it was nice to think of most of them as 'the honourable opposition', where you can disagree on politics, but otherwise they're nice people. He pointed out that they were actively fighting against his rights, and how could he possibly be friends with someone who could do that to him.

Since then I find it hard to read some of their views, now I see it more through his eyes. The opinion that trans people are mentally troubled and delusional which is widely shared on TWeb is sort of a case in point.

I just don't get it. How someone could hate so much, over the simple desire to be treated and talked to in a particular way that they already treat and talk to people with.

For most trans people it is simply accepting that they dress in shirts and shorts instead of shirts and skirts. Or visa versa. It's not a difficult task, in the least. As far as what's in their pants, why do they care? Is it envy? I mean I know for a fact that I envy my husband what he has, but I'm open about that fact; such envy doesn't need to translate into hate or oppression.

So what gives? I think it clearly constitutes a mental illness to be so invested in how other people dress or what other people have for genitals, or how other people seek to be addressed as long as it isn't bizarre and impossible to be successful at (or impossible to physically say). This seems far more unhealthy and mentally disturbed to make a stink over than the mere choice to be the person you feel you are.

 

[EvoUK]

I do sometimes wish some of the old guard were back - but then the frustration I feel reading their posts reminds me why there's little point in doing so.

A gay friend pointed out once why he can't be friends with those who believe and vote differently to him. To me it was nice to think of most of them as 'the honourable opposition', where you can disagree on politics, but otherwise they're nice people. He pointed out that they were actively fighting against his rights, and how could he possibly be friends with someone who could do that to him.

Since then I find it hard to read some of their views, now I see it more through his eyes. The opinion that trans people are mentally troubled and delusional which is widely shared on TWeb is sort of a case in point.

I just don't get it. How someone could hate so much, over the simple desire to be treated and talked to in a particular way that they already treat and talk to people with.

For most trans people it is simply accepting that they dress in shirts and shorts instead of shirts and skirts. Or visa versa. It's not a difficult task, in the least. As far as what's in their pants, why do they care? Is it envy? I mean I know for a fact that I envy my husband what he has, but I'm open about that fact; such envy doesn't need to translate into hate or oppression.

So what gives? I think it clearly constitutes a mental illness to be so invested in how other people dress or what other people have for genitals, or how other people seek to be addressed as long as it isn't bizarre and impossible to be successful at (or impossible to physically say). This seems far more unhealthy and mentally disturbed to make a stink over than the mere choice to be the person you feel you are.

Ah, but they're in the army so their filthy sex change surgeries can be paid for don't you know! To quote a poster from the thread linked earlier:

And why would be [sic] want those with mental health issues in the Military? Then would we have to provide ongoing transition surgery?

There's far too many special quotes there for me to list here, I recommend a quick read if you can stomach it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ah, but they're in the army so their filthy sex change surgeries can be paid for don't you know! To quote a poster from the thread linked earlier:

And why would be [sic] want those with mental health issues in the Military? Then would we have to provide ongoing transition surgery?

There's far too many special quotes there for me to list here, I recommend a quick read if you can stomach it.

I skimmed it earlier, just long enough to start tasting bile in my throat.

Seriously? Military providing GRS? That's a fucking laugh. It was hard enough just getting penciled in to be seen for pneumonia.