Supreme Curt Restores Ban on Transgender Military Personnel (insurance, gay people, states)

[hbdwihdh378y9]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

I doubt it. How many transgenders are there i the military? Not many. Making a party-line ruling on such non-issue does nothing but erode the credibility of the SC itself.

What were the Constitutional arguments for the ban?

None is necessary. You have the burden of proof backward.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Eumaois

I am a Republican who sees people as either male, female, or intersexed. Excluding people who are intersexed, a man is still a man even if he gets surgery to have a womb and a woman is still a woman if she gets a penis surgery. I don't agree with this ban. A trans person should have the right to serve in the military. Now, if that trans person is pre-op and expects the military to cover the costs for that operation, I don't agree with that trans potentially taking advantage of that.

Lots of people join the military just for the health benefits. So i cant really say i agree there.

[T-310]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Are you for restricting veterans with PTSD from owning weapons?

Only if they are gender confused.

[Eumaois]

I am a Republican who sees people as either male, female, or intersexed (for both gender and sexes), but I don't agree with this ban. MTF are still male and FtM are still female because you cannot completely eradicate the sex chromosomes and natural body structure (save for fiction).

[Ceece]

I agree with this but I'm surprised it took a ban instead of just utilizing the common sense we apply to most other military personnel. Sex changes aren't something the military should have anything to do with, and the dependence on hormones and other potential medical situations doesn't benefit the military or the country so why allow it? People get rejected for less.

[illinoisphotographer]

Originally Posted by T-310

The gender confused have mental issues. The ban is correct. Or do you want weapons placed in the hands of those with mental problems?

Maybe you’re the one with the issues here. Not being able to accept others for who they are.

You’re all for restricting the 2nd amendment for one group because they don’t match your beliefs but the other group you aren’t ok with restricting because ‘Murcia

[Icy Tea]

Corporal Klinger may still get his section 8.

[FelixTheCat]

Originally Posted by Ceece

I agree with this but I'm surprised it took a ban instead of just utilizing the common sense we apply to most other military personnel. Sex changes aren't something the military should have anything to do with, and the dependence on hormones and other potential medical situations doesn't benefit the military or the country so why allow it? People get rejected for less.

I see the point that having an employee go through multiple surgeries would be a burden on the military. They would need to take a lot of time off. The military is pretty picky about who they take because of physical issues.



Where I see an issues, is that they won't take someone who has already had surgeries. You shouldn't enter the military needing multiple surgeries. The military needs people ready to fight. But if they already had the surgeries and are physically fit, then it's just an issue of others moral judgements. And that's not a valid reason not to be in the military.

[reed067]

Originally Posted by T-310

Only if they are gender confused.

Who says they are confused? They have just as much a right to be in the military, as you have a right to continue to support president arse hat.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by sean1the1

That's the same logic absolutely pathetic to say the least. If someone willing to give their life for their country there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed too. Keep wearing those MAGA hats too...

You replied to me but I don't think you understood the question.